# AEW Dynamite Extended Through 2023



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

Wow - but I thought show was being canceled?


----------



## EmbassyForever (Dec 29, 2011)

Great news for us the fans and for the business. We need AEW to succeed.


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

I like how the TNT executive is emphasizing the fact that it's a wrestling program. Makes it seem like they specifically wanted wrestling on TNT, which is a great sign for AEW


----------



## V-Trigger (Jul 6, 2016)

AeW iS DeAd!!!!!


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Fantastic news.

FACTS OVER OPINION.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

"nearly 32 million viewers across all platforms in only three months"
1.2 million viewers on average per week
fuck me


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

Beatles wins and his depression takes an L, much to the Chagrin of some in this section.

Good shit.


----------



## Purple Haze (Sep 30, 2019)

But I heard Dynamite was getting cancelled in 3 months


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

bEiNg CaNcElLeD
tHeY’rE dOiNg iT wRoNg
lEsS fLiPs
nO sToRiEs


----------



## Dice Morgan (Apr 26, 2017)

Really great news , should give some of free agents comfort that the company will be around and the possibility of more programming


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Wait a minute TNT isn't cancelling AEW? Haha must be a sad day for haters like the Wood. It will be interesting to hear if AEW got some up front money from TNT. Considering they signed extension and do a 2nd show. Tells me they got some upfront cash as part of this deal.


----------



## Buhalovski (Jul 24, 2015)

Im not sure if I like the idea of a second show when their main one has so much cons.


----------



## Shepard (Apr 30, 2011)

Rad, I mean given the fact that they've been supposedly outperforming the expectations TNT set I guess this isn't a huge surprise but it's really nice to see their good start rewarded and shows the faith the network has.

I wonder if the new second night they're talking about will just mean Dark airs on TNT, which would hopefully get more eyes on it. Will be interesting to find out


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Wait.... 2nd show?!!   



Tsvetoslava said:


> Im not sure if I like the idea of a second show when their main one has so much cons.


All the cons are in your opinion only / the rest of us are fine with the show

and Warner seems to agree


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Tsvetoslava said:


> Im not sure if I like the idea of a second show when their main one has so much cons.


I'm guessing it will be like Dark. Or some type of talk show like WWE backstage or something. I don't expect another weekly live show or anything.


----------



## Buhalovski (Jul 24, 2015)

imthegame19 said:


> I'm guessing it will be like Dark. Or some type of talk show like WWE backstage or something. I don't expect another weekly live show or anything.


Talking Smack in the early days was fun to watch, that would be actually enjoying. I was talking mainly about second show.

@LifeInCattleClass You're hella annoying dude, chill the fuck out with the spam.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Tsvetoslava said:


> Talking Smack in the early days was fun to watch, that would be actually enjoying. I was talking mainly about second show.
> 
> @LifeInCattleClass You're hella annoying dude, chill the fuck out with the spam.


Someone a bit upset that Dynamite is on for another 3 years ? Even with all of its cons.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

Now go back to being a primary wrestling based show with stories told through in ring action.


----------



## TD Stinger (May 9, 2012)

Great news. Goes to show that some of the gloom and doom you've seen about the ratings has been a bit overblown.

Now, it's still somewhat disheartening to see them drop to 700k or 800k at times after starting at 1.4 million. And you don't want things to get too much lower on a consistent basis. But still, this is cool to see.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Tsvetoslava said:


> Talking Smack in the early days was fun to watch, that would be actually enjoying. I was talking mainly about second show.
> 
> @LifeInCattleClass You're hella annoying dude, chill the fuck out with the spam.


Click on my profile, press ‘ignore’

i’m not about to change ?‍♂

also, your man-child tears soothe my soul


----------



## AEW_19 (May 15, 2019)

If they're getting money for it, then it makes sense.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

Congrats to AEW. This is HUGE news and gives them the stability they need to really start growing. It’s also tremendous that they’re getting another show, which will help them counter act WWE’s stranglehold in terms of content.

I will say that I was wrong in terms of TNT’s commitment based on the numbers. They are clearly happy with the viewership the show is bringing in and that’s good for everyone.

That being said, I maintain that AEW still has a long way to go before they truly deliver the type of show that will maintain and grow a large audience. And they are still making rather stupid mistakes that shouldn’t be made.

I also wonder what Spike TV is thinking right now..... because if 900K viewers a week is good enough in this space, they could have still had TNA which was getting 1.2-1.5 million.

I also wonder what the terms of the deal are and whether or not they’re getting paid with this extension.

All in all, a huge step in their stability.


----------



## V-Trigger (Jul 6, 2016)

_*Additional reporting by Dave Meltzer*_

A major victory was had in the "Wednesday Night Wars" as TNT announced they have extended their deal with AEW for Dynamite through 2023.
Our Dave Meltzer is reporting the deal is for four years and $175 million, just under $45 million per year, and includes TNT having an option for 2024 at a significantly increased price.
Additionally, the Wednesday press release mentioned that WarnerMedia and AEW will launch another show, but didn't provide any additional information other than it being on "another night". WarnerMedia oversees TNT, TBS, and truTV in addition to HBO Max, a new OTT streaming service that is launching this May, so it's not a definite the new program will also be on TNT.
Meltzer said that,* "When the new show launches, the Wednesday tapings would expand and also include matches taped for the streaming show Dark which is not going away. This means there will be four hours a week of the product, allowing more time to showcase more talent, which has been limited by the current format."*
AEW's secondary show Dark, made up of matches taped before and after Dynamite, debuts on YouTube every Tuesday night.
AEW launched last October, going head to head with WWE NXT on USA Network. Both sides have experienced success with AEW maintaining a slight lead in both average viewership and the 18-49 demo.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow (Apr 25, 2013)

The 2nd show is interesting, I imagine it goes on Mondays, I think they can pull decent numbers against RAW, they won't beat RAW, but I think they can pull some of the viewers just from a curiosity standpoint. 

They have to acquire more top talent to justify a second show tho. Putting the Jimmy Havoc's, Joey Janela's and Kip Sabian's of the world don't call for a second show.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

V-Trigger said:


> $175 million


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

175m

that is a pretty good chunk of money


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

But this goes against the reports on this very forum that TNT might not be happy with AEW. Could those reports have been unsubstantiated ?


----------



## I'mTheGreatest (Aug 3, 2019)

Now go out and get Rusev make a side deal so he doesn't reup with the WWE.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

DOTL said:


> But this goes against the reports on this very forum that TNT might not be happy with AEW. Could those reports have been unsubstantiated ?


You’re right. I didn’t think they could fetch this kind of deal for the types of numbers they were doing.

I was definite wrong.

It’s tremendous that they’re getting this much money, hopefully they can pump it back into the product.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop (Nov 2, 2015)

Tsvetoslava said:


> @LifeInCattleClass You're hella annoying dude, chill the fuck out with the spam.


What?!??!!


----------



## rbl85 (Nov 21, 2017)

Not bad for a show who was supposed to get canceled.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Wasn’t it reported USA paid 50m p/year for NXT?

that number is most likely going to drop now? Or was that reported wrong?


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Reggie Dunlop said:


> What?!??!!
> 
> View attachment 82106


hehehe. Yeah mate.... got a chuckle out of that


----------



## V-Trigger (Jul 6, 2016)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> Wasn’t it reported USA paid 50m p/year for NXT?
> 
> that number is most likely going to drop now? Or was that reported wrong?


AEW is getting more money than NXT right now but less than RAW and SD.


----------



## domotime2 (Apr 28, 2014)

No 2nd show! NEVER a 3rd hour. Lets just double down and make all the things that make WWE awful. Don't oversaturate yourelf....don't make storylines harder to accomplish... one of the things i love about AEW is that it's ONE 2 hour show a week. That's it

And in fact, i hate that they're doing youtube shows also. 

the only thing i'd consider is but BTE on like TRUtv before Dynamite as the '3rd hour'. but otherwise, guys keep it simple!


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

optikk sucks said:


> Someone a bit upset that Dynamite is on for another 3 years ? Even with all of its cons.


Oh, they mad! ?


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

@Chris JeriG.O.A.T what would Mcdonalds do? ?


----------



## LongPig666 (Mar 27, 2019)

V-Trigger said:


> just under $45 million per year


Thats enough for one Okada, all of Suzuki Gun, a couple of Ospreays, a few David Starrs, a dozen Joey Ryans & a trillion Seth Rollins


----------



## CenaBoy4Life (Jul 31, 2013)

not sure whats groundbreaking or redefined but good news.


----------



## tducey (Apr 12, 2011)

Good news for AEW. Gives them more time to gain more footing and become a legit alternative to the WWE.


----------



## RiverFenix (Dec 10, 2011)

I wonder if it means more money to be able to bid on certain free agents.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

I’m guessing TNT still pays for production too

so, its the tv money, fite money, ppv money, arena money, merch money

......

is it too late to start wrestling?


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)




----------



## Tilon (Jun 27, 2019)

We should all APOLOGIZE to Japanese Death Match Legend "Big Dimes" Luther for saving the dub.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

DetroitRiverPhx said:


> I wonder if it means more money to be able to bid on certain free agents.


More money
but then for the wrestler as well: increased job security, two shows so increased exposure potential than before.

This decade is about to change the game of pro-wrestling.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

Fuck yeah this is what I wanted to see. They can only get better over the next 3 years, seeing as they are mostly open to constructive criticism. Hopefully they can revamp the women’s division and build up mid-card storylines that people want to see. Because let’s be honest, everything outside of the Elite, PAC, MJF, Mox, Inner Circle and Luchasaurus is kinda weak right now. And of course it is, WWE has a stranglehold on most of the best talent the industry has.

But it’s all a learning process and anyone who has half a brain would give them more of a chance to make their show the best it can be.


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

So damn proud of AEW. Now go sign Killer Kross!!!


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

LongPig666 said:


> Thats enough for one Okada, all of Suzuki Gun, a couple of Ospreays, a few David Starrs, a dozen Joey Ryans & a trillion Seth Rollins


You're crazy if you think NJPW would ever let Okada on Dynamite.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Great news for them hopefully this will finally prove to ratings naysayers for both companies that what's considered good ratings these days is vastly different from what it was in the late 90s.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

optikk sucks said:


>


And just like that AEW now a profitable company. Thank God this officially ends all the doom and gloom talk every time it does a disappointing rating. Bad day for the haters and trolls around here. I guess they are gonna have to find something else to troll about haha.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

RainmakerV2 said:


> You're crazy if you think NJPW would ever let Okada on Dynamite.


why not?

i mean who books this shit


----------



## Reggie Dunlop (Nov 2, 2015)

At this moment in time, I’m not so sure about a second show, only because I don’t think the roster is deep enough to support it YET.

But the other thing that’s really important to consider here is AEW now has that longevity and security that some talent may have been concerned about not being there prior to this announcement. There‘s no longer the concern about whether they’d still be around in six months, which eliminates a lot of the risk that might have been keeping some talents away. This is a huge shot in the arm for the company, and the prospects of a second show could serve as even more incentive for bigger names to sign on.

So hang on folks, things could start getting vey interesting very soon.


----------



## HelloSir (Dec 11, 2019)

A 2nd show? Why not focus on making the first show good instead?


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

optikk sucks said:


> why not?
> 
> i mean who books this shit



I highly doubt they let Okada on any American program after how TNA treated him. Of course AEW would put him over like a God, but NJPW is super conservative and stubborn. Plus, doesnt look like they need any NJPW affiliation right now. Scurll is going to link them with ROH and NWA I would assume.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

RainmakerV2 said:


> I highly doubt they let Okada on any American program after how TNA treated him. Of course AEW would put him over like a God, but NJPW is super conservative and stubborn. Plus, doesnt look like they need any NJPW affiliation right now. Scurll is going to link them with ROH and NWA I would assume.


is it that you doubt? or that you hope?


----------



## Joe Gill (Jun 29, 2019)

AEW just got fleeced if the total for 2 live tv shows with 4 hours of content is only 45 mill per year.
If AEW truly believed in their product they would have waited a while until the ratings potentially climb to 1.5 mill viewers per week or more. I dont think people here realize just how lucrative live tv programing is worth these days when you can deliver a young audience.

Now AEW is locked in long term with no real shot of signing any mega stars and competing more directly with WWE.
Sad day for wrestling


----------



## Not Lying (Sep 9, 2013)

Hell Yes.
Fucking Awesome.

Now I know I will remain no matter what a wrestling fan for the next few years. This incredible news for all wrestling fans. This company is only going to get better and better.


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

RainmakerV2 said:


> I highly doubt they let Okada on any American program after how TNA treated him. Of course AEW would put him over like a God, but NJPW is super conservative and stubborn. Plus, doesnt look like they need any NJPW affiliation right now. Scurll is going to link them with ROH and NWA I would assume.


I really like the idea of an ROH partnership. AEW could use ROH as a sort of developmental territory. ROH has proven to be extremely good at developing talent.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Joe Gill said:


> AEW just got fleeced if the total for 2 live tv shows with 4 hours of content is only 45 mill per year.
> If AEW truly believed in their product they would have waited a while until the ratings potentially climb to 1.5 mill viewers per week or more. I dont think people here realize just how lucrative live tv programing is worth these days when you can deliver a young audience.
> 
> Now AEW is locked in long term with no real shot of signing any mega stars and competing more directly with WWE.
> Sad day for wrestling



Lol if this was true then maybe it will be sad. AEW is doing 1 live show for TNT. The second show is gonna be hour taped show. Meltzer said they are still doing AEW Dark YouTube show as well.


----------



## AEW_19 (May 15, 2019)

I saw this mentioned on twitter but would anybody be against the second show being an hour of a Lucha Underground styled storybuilder?


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

imthegame19 said:


> Lol if this was true then maybe it will be sad. AEW is doing 1 live show for TNT. The second show is gonna be hour taped show. Meltzer said they are still doing AEW Dark YouTube show as well.


Second show should be a DARK + BTE + Road To show


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

optikk sucks said:


> is it that you doubt? or that you hope?


I just dont see them risking letting something happen to Okada in another promotion with how much they're paying him. I could be wrong, I know he and the Bucks are really tight. I'm more interested in them doing something with NWA anyway. Aldis and Eli Drake on Dynamite would be fucking awesome.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> I’m guessing TNT still pays for production too
> 
> so, its the tv money, fite money, ppv money, arena money, merch money
> 
> ...


I hear the money includes production cost. Just like the money includes production costs for WWE. I heard TNT was paying 30 million a year in production cost already. So basically AEW is they are making 14 million a year or so off tv deal. That might seem low compared to WWE deals. But TNA only got 10 million a year from their Spike deal.


----------



## AEW_19 (May 15, 2019)

Joe Gill said:


> AEW just got fleeced if the total for 2 live tv shows with 4 hours of content is only 45 mill per year.
> If AEW truly believed in their product they would have waited a while until the ratings potentially climb to 1.5 mill viewers per week or more. I dont think people here realize just how lucrative live tv programing is worth these days when you can deliver a young audience.
> 
> Now AEW is locked in long term with no real shot of signing any mega stars and competing more directly with WWE.
> Sad day for wrestling


There's no way that TNT will throw money at AEW straight out of the gate. If we're taking what Meltzer said as true, then the potential is there for an added year with a sharp increase in money. The more that AEW hit their targets throughout the years, the more money they will receive.


----------



## FaceTime Heel (Sep 1, 2016)

Joe Gill said:


> AEW just got fleeced if the total for 2 live tv shows with 4 hours of content is only 45 mill per year.
> If AEW truly believed in their product they would have waited a while until the ratings potentially climb to 1.5 mill viewers per week or more. I dont think people here realize just how lucrative live tv programing is worth these days when you can deliver a young audience.
> 
> Now AEW is locked in long term with no real shot of signing any mega stars and competing more directly with WWE.
> Sad day for wrestling


I was waiting to see how someone would try to spin this as a negative. Nice try.


----------



## InexorableJourney (Sep 10, 2016)




----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

imthegame19 said:


> I hear the money includes production cost. Just like the money includes production costs for WWE. I heard TNT was paying 30 million a year in production cost already. So basically AEW is they are making 14 million a year or so off tv deal. That might seem low compared to WWE deals. But TNA only got 10 million a year from their Spike deal.


I seriously doubt that seeing how AEW was already getting 50% of the ad money.



FaceTime Heel said:


> I was waiting to see how someone would try to spin this as a negative. Nice try.


I mean, for real Fans will NEVER be happy


----------



## captainzombie (Oct 21, 2013)

This is good news, glad we are atleast some what guaranteed 3 more years plus the option for a fourth as long as some nutty exec decides to cancel.


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

WWE does have three weekly live brands, but each brand has its own roster. AEW only has a handful of talent that keeps ratings from dropping. You either will reach a level of overexposure with Jericho, Mox, Cody, or the second show will reach Thunder levels with no one on that fans will time in for.

Another issue will be PPVs. A consistent complaint is that only having 4 PPVs per year is causing some of Dynamite to be filler. That would just become doubled with anoyher show.


----------



## Clique (Sep 9, 2007)

Fantastic news!! More AEW Dynamite for the next few years and a 2nd show to showcase more talent and develop more stories. I love wrestling. No show is perfect and I'm not going to like everything or everybody but AEW is ever evolving.

With AEW's multi-year deal with TNT along with WWE's historic big money TV deals for Raw and SmackDown (even with NXT), this further solidifies that *wrestling fans and wrestling "journalists" don't know much about how this business works.* Stick to being a fan of the actual TV shows.


----------



## RiverFenix (Dec 10, 2011)

I'd like a Saturday Morning Studio show ideally, but given it's going to be taped at Dynamite each week that's out. Maybe a Saturday evening show - 7-8pm each week. This would like up well with PPV nights as it could be an effective "pre-show" to help sell the PPV. Outside of this time, I think AEW should have secured a 7-8pm special for nights there is a PPV. 

I'd try to make it look different - film it with the arena lights on so the crowd is lit. Have different apron and ring ropes etc.

Ideally just have midcard vs jobber matches, and maybe a mid card vs mid card match to main event the show each week. Have 10 minute time limits, with draws resulting when time expires. Maybe the ME could have 15 minute time limit. 90% of the jobber matches shouldn't go past five minutes of course - but this is AEW.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

This won’t stop posters on here from ruining every show/angle/performer unfortunately.


----------



## fabi1982 (Jun 28, 2011)

Good for AEW, means they can guarantee new prospects long time deals. Little dissapointed with the 50m, thought they would get more per year. Now they are stuck with that deal. Hope this is enough to get more talent for the new show. But good news no doubt. Just hope Cody doesnt have a snarky comment for WWE on todays show.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

I liked what Optikk suggested

2nd show should be a mix of BTE / Dynamite / DARK - use the time to get those stories ‘on air’

ideal day would’ve been Friday - as you can lead in to the Saturday PPVs

imagine the shitstorm and ‘counter programming’ messages on here though - will be hilarious


----------



## Garty (Jul 29, 2007)

Hey... where's the "God of all things AEW you must hate because I..." Woodsy too afraid to come out now? Literally, everything he has said up until today, shows the rest of us exactly what he was all along. That he's a fraud, a hypocrite, a liar and most of all, an obnoxious braggart. I can't imagine what this has done to his holier than thou ego. I think all of us can expect his 5000, nah... to low... 10000 word essay, twisting every word of every sentence of that press release. He can no longer use any of his "defenses" of why AEW sucks, why the talent sucks and why it will go out of business.

About the news in the press release... That's really outstanding to learn (and what Meltzer has been saying all along), what they have managed to accomplish in only 4 months. They've always needed more time to breathe because only having 2 hours a week, to cram as much as they can onto the show, within those 2 hours, was not that hard to notice. If they do continue with DARK on YouTube, that's also good news, especially for those outside of the US, who may not be able to watch the new show when it launches. Initially anyway. Taped show or not, fans will watch. I never understood why having a taped show is "bad"? Sure, maybe Impact and ROH are trapped by that limitation, but everyone can read the results for themselves, but still enjoy what was presented. A printed word cannot take the place of a visual image.

Hopefully this will now encourage any/all possible free-agents to take a hard, second look at AEW, before signing your life away with WWE. The only negative to this "expansion" of AEW, is that WWE will push even harder for talent to re-sign, or having indie talent sign when they see $--$ in their eyes. Today should be the immediate start of a signing frenzy. AEW cannot, should not and must not, sit back and wait for talent to come to them, for reasons said above.

Overall... this deserves two huge


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Yep - undeniable what these guys have achieved in 1 year of business and 4 months of tv

unprecedented even


----------



## Death Rider (May 18, 2011)

But I was told AEW was failing and going to die. Suck a dick trolls :heston


----------



## HankHill_85 (Aug 31, 2011)

Incredible news and an amazing display of faith and commitment by Warner and TNT, especially after just three months. Very happy for AEW's success, and it continues to be a great time to be a wrestling fan and a wrestler in general. It shows that there's another "big time" to attach your name to and that the WWE doesn't necessarily have to be the end all/be all when it comes to sustainable employment.

Somewhere, Jim Cornette just threw his Wendy's at his computer, and "totally not biased" former WWE ref Jimmy Korderas is screaming "But the refs!!! THE REFS!!!


----------



## Ham and Egger (Dec 13, 2005)

Wow, this is big news for the company. With this deal they without a doubt solidified themselves as the no. 2 promotion in North America. This obviously will lead to more big moves from them in the coming future. Congrats!


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Okay, so the AEW fans have come out in force yelling and screaming at the "haters" (I don't think we're haters just don't like the product) so I thought I'd chime in.

- Yes, it's absolutely fantastic that TNT is now giving them 45 million dollars annually but remember with that 45 million a year they need to cover roster, production, travel, accommodation, arena hires, marketing, wrestling staff, non wrestling staff etc PLUS get a return on investment. It's certainly enough money to do so but people expecting that they're now going to compete with RAW on such a limited budget are insane. When a lot of your top end talents are expecting one million plus a year and you will have to overpay massively to poach guys from WWE the figure seems much smaller.

- TNT giving them this money doesn't mean AEW is suddenly good. A TNT exec was not sitting there watching Dynamite these past few months nodding their heads saying "This is good shit!". AEW is either hitting the targets they want them to or they think AEW will eventually hit the targets they want them to. This does not magically mean AEW is a great show and the haters are wrong just that there is a built in fan base that will back them. If you all recall no matter what stupid shit TNA did in their final days on Spike they'd pull a similar number and Spike were happy to have them until it all became too much.

- The "Haha you guys were WRONG! AEW IS THE BEST AND IT'S GOING TO LIVE FOREVER! CORNETTE SUCKZERZ!" is the exact reason why AEW fans are so disliked on this forum. The arrogance coming from this fanbase based on 3 months of TV and some good news is baffling. TNT can still cancel AEW if it's not hitting ratings targets and AEW will still need to work very hard to even overtake TNA's old numbers.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

TKO Wrestling said:


> I seriously doubt that seeing how AEW was already getting 50% of the ad money.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, for real Fans will NEVER be happy


50 percent ad revenue isn't likely to add to 15 million a year. AEW got better deal then TNA had with Spike. Which is what they should be shooting for this early in the game. Not WWE money.


----------



## Death Rider (May 18, 2011)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Okay, so the AEW fans have come out in force yelling and screaming at the "haters" (I don't think we're haters just don't like the product) so I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> - Yes, it's absolutely fantastic that TNT is now giving them 45 million dollars annually but remember with that 45 million a year they need to cover roster, production, travel, accommodation, arena hires, marketing, wrestling staff, non wrestling staff etc PLUS get a return on investment. It's certainly enough money to do so but people expecting that they're now going to compete with RAW on such a limited budget are insane. When a lot of your top end talents are expecting one million plus a year and you will have to overpay massively to poach guys from WWE the figure seems much smaller.
> 
> ...


Please be more salty. Haters have been saying it is going to be canned but you were WRONG.


----------



## fabi1982 (Jun 28, 2011)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Okay, so the AEW fans have come out in force yelling and screaming at the "haters" (I don't think we're haters just don't like the product) so I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> - Yes, it's absolutely fantastic that TNT is now giving them 45 million dollars annually but remember with that 45 million a year they need to cover roster, production, travel, accommodation, arena hires, marketing, wrestling staff, non wrestling staff etc PLUS get a return on investment. It's certainly enough money to do so but people expecting that they're now going to compete with RAW on such a limited budget are insane. When a lot of your top end talents are expecting one million plus a year and you will have to overpay massively to poach guys from WWE the figure seems much smaller.
> 
> ...


Sad you will be shitted on for that statement, but at least some people who understand things


----------



## One Shed (Jan 7, 2014)

Great news! Competition is a good thing.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Of course this is turned from a win for pro wrestling to a dick swinging contest about how people know better than the facts.
Go off tho.


----------



## The Raw Smackdown (Jan 8, 2017)

Great Fucking News. Now it's clear as day that AEW ain't going anywhere for awhile and they can really improve in every way possible now. Today is a good day in wrestling.

Also. All those doom and gloomers are one again left with the egg on thier face. We love to see it!


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

Fantastic news. This should take all the pressure off of them to go grab ratings and they can focus singularly on producing a great product. I hope the second show is either Dark or some Talking Smack esque show. They do not need a Raw/Smackdown dynamic this early.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

When Meltz says $175M does he mean an additional $175M in rights fees, or does he mean their production budget was increased to $175M? 

TNT was already paying $500K per episode for production costs but they weren't paying guaranteed rights fees like WWE gets from USA and Fox. 

If it's $45M a year in production that's a decent jump from $25M but it's not world changing. If it's $45M in addition to the $25M then AEW might be competition to Raw.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Okay, so the AEW fans have come out in force yelling and screaming at the "haters" (I don't think we're haters just don't like the product) so I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> - Yes, it's absolutely fantastic that TNT is now giving them 45 million dollars annually but remember with that 45 million a year they need to cover roster, production, travel, accommodation, arena hires, marketing, wrestling staff, non wrestling staff etc PLUS get a return on investment. It's certainly enough money to do so but people expecting that they're now going to compete with RAW on such a limited budget are insane. When a lot of your top end talents are expecting one million plus a year and you will have to overpay massively to poach guys from WWE the figure seems much smaller.
> 
> ...



TNT isn't there only source of renvenue. They are on tv in Canada, UK and they have the AEW plus on Fire tv app. Heck they make money from YouTube doing AEW Dark too. 

Basically they are making 4 or 5 million more a year then TNA with Spike tv off tv deal. When you take away production costs. Remember TNA was profitable company during that time. While AEW blows them away in attendance and ppv buys.


AEW fans have every right to brag and be excited. It means the company going to be around for a while and doing well. So excuse us if we are going to gloat a bit. Four weeks ago we had idiots like the Wood and others. Predicting TNT would pull the plug in 2020. With all these doom and gloom posts. It's hilarious how much time those haters and trolls wasted there time trying to convince people that the show was going failing or going to fail. 


TNT doing this after 3 months of tv shows how well there doing and confidence they have in them. Basically this says TNT believes they will only get bigger and bigger. So they are basically redid their deal and extended them. Thinking they are getting a great deal. Since they might be worth 100-150 million three or four years from now.


----------



## Disputed (Aug 20, 2018)

TV landscape really is just totally different from the old days, this isn't really unexpected if you've paid attention. Still, nice to see


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

notice the biggest AEW hater on the board hasnt said anything you ok over there woody?


----------



## One Shed (Jan 7, 2014)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Fantastic news. This should take all the pressure off of them to go grab ratings and they can focus singularly on producing a great product. I hope the second show is either Dark or some Talking Smack esque show. They do not need a Raw/Smackdown dynamic this early.


Yes. The biggest mistake they could make right now would be to add another show or add a third hour to Dynamite. They need to concentrate on building their brand. Adding Thunder really hurt WCW and I think a major factor in why WWE has turned more and more bland is they have seven hours of TV time to fill every week. What other scripted show in history has had to keep up with that schedule?


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Roxinius said:


> notice the biggest AEW hater on the board hasnt said anything you ok over there woody?


It's 7:45 AM here in Australia. I'm only here because I start work quite early (7:00). I'd suggest you'll hear from The Wood within a few hours.


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

3-hour Dynamite dyna-might drive me back to NXT. 2 hours is perfect!


----------



## validreasoning (Jul 4, 2012)

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> When Meltz says $175M does he mean an additional $175M in rights fees, or does he mean their production budget was increased to $175M?
> 
> TNT was already paying $500K per episode for production costs but they weren't paying guaranteed rights fees like WWE gets from USA and Fox.
> 
> If it's $45M a year in production that's a decent jump from $25M but it's not world changing. If it's $45M in addition to the $25M then AEW might be competition to Raw.


Pretty sure he means Turner will be paying $45m a year in rights fees to air Dynamite.

Assuming that's the case then AEW will be paying for production themselves going forward and ad sharing will end.

NXT is being paid $30m a year but WWE pay production and get no ad revenue.


----------



## Death Rider (May 18, 2011)

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> When Meltz says $175M does he mean an additional $175M in rights fees, or does he mean their production budget was increased to $175M?
> 
> TNT was already paying $500K per episode for production costs but they weren't paying guaranteed rights fees like WWE gets from USA and Fox.
> 
> If it's $45M a year in production that's a decent jump from $25M but it's not world changing. If it's $45M in addition to the $25M then AEW might be competition to Raw.


Even as an AEW fan, they are not. They are still a new company but they don't need to be competition for Raw. They just need to be successful and clearly at the moment AEW are successful


----------



## Marbar (Dec 20, 2019)

This news made my day. Hopefully some of that money will be used to hire a booker so guys like omega can focus on wrestling. This should ease the minds of any free agent wrestlers looking for an alternative to the McMahon's. They have come a long way but they still have a lot if hard work to do.


----------



## fabi1982 (Jun 28, 2011)

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> When Meltz says $175M does he mean an additional $175M in rights fees, or does he mean their production budget was increased to $175M?
> 
> TNT was already paying $500K per episode for production costs but they weren't paying guaranteed rights fees like WWE gets from USA and Fox.
> 
> If it's $45M a year in production that's a decent jump from $25M but it's not world changing. If it's $45M in addition to the $25M then AEW might be competition to Raw.


New contracts usually have the whole amount on, means the 175m is what they get, not 175m more. At least thats what I am used to in my normal business life.


----------



## Majmo_Mendez (Jul 18, 2014)

Roxinius said:


> notice the biggest AEW hater on the board hasnt said anything you ok over there woody?


Woody and his six sock accounts that he uses to validate his opinions with likes


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> I’m guessing TNT still pays for production too
> 
> so, its the tv money, fite money, ppv money, arena money, merch money
> 
> ...


Im guessing they won't be paying for production any longer if they are moving to a rights fee arrangement.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Ham and Egger said:


> Wow, this is big news for the company. With this deal they without a doubt solidified themselves as the no. 2 promotion in North America. This obviously will lead to more big moves from them in the coming future. Congrats!


this might make them no. 2 in the world?

i don‘t know if NJPW can match this if you add all the other revenues

then again, who knows with private trading companies


----------



## Bosnian21 (May 27, 2019)

This is great news. This gives a lot of people long-term security. Hopefully it makes AEW more attractive to future free agents. 

i’m not quite sure I’m sold on a second show though. Might be a bit early for that.


----------



## Garty (Jul 29, 2007)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Okay, so the AEW fans have come out in force yelling and screaming at the "haters" (I don't think we're haters just don't like the product) so I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> - Yes, it's absolutely fantastic that TNT is now giving them 45 million dollars annually but remember with that 45 million a year they need to cover roster, production, travel, accommodation, arena hires, marketing, wrestling staff, non wrestling staff etc PLUS get a return on investment. It's certainly enough money to do so but people expecting that they're now going to compete with RAW on such a limited budget are insane. When a lot of your top end talents are expecting one million plus a year and you will have to overpay massively to poach guys from WWE the figure seems much smaller.
> 
> ...


Nobody thinks that AEW will "defeat" WWE and put them out of business, that's just more spin, coming from "your side" of the coin. There is no AEW vs WWE. Don't forget that NXT was put on the air only because of AEW's pending show. Everything that WWE has done these past few months (many multi 5-year contracts, signing anyone they can get, using NXT as a 3rd brand only now after exsisting quietly for the past, what 8+ years, etc.) is completely a reaction to AEW.

AEW was created as an alternative to WWE. The ways in which "your side" takes "alternative" to mean, does not mean that you are right, or that I am wrong. They are opinions. Not facts. Not law. You are no better than I or anyone else here and "we" are no better than you either. We all have differing opinions (WOW shocking I know) on things. That does not mean that what you say should be taken as Gospel, nor should it allow you to call "us" losers, crybabies, pussies, psychos, delusional... whatever, for disagreeing with your "factoids". This forum is not a one-way street.

If an AEW fan cannot express their excitement and thoughts about this announcement, after all has been said, done and torn apart by the "haters", I think we can express that excitement, without being called "fanboys" for 1 day.


----------



## Whoanma (Apr 5, 2016)




----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

I really love seeing these anti-AEW goofs being proven wrong consistently.

1. Pushing guys like Sonny Kiss, who hasn't been on TV for a long time.
2. Not being able to do more than 6-700k in ratings. What did they do these past couple weeks?
3. AEW being cancelled by the end of the year.
4. TNT not being happy with AEW.

What do you guys think the next agenda is? I personally they will just attack AEW fans now. To be honest, it's already starting.


----------



## qntntgood (Mar 12, 2010)

imthegame19 said:


> And just like that AEW now a profitable company. Thank God this officially ends all the doom and gloom talk every time it does a disappointing rating. Bad day for the haters and trolls around here. I guess they are gonna have to find something else to troll about haha.


Are you serious cornette, is going to shit a brick tonight.according,to his fans his rants are the stuff legend's are made of.cornette predicted they would off the air in a year,he's never.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> When Meltz says $175M does he mean an additional $175M in rights fees, or does he mean their production budget was increased to $175M?
> 
> TNT was already paying $500K per episode for production costs but they weren't paying guaranteed rights fees like WWE gets from USA and Fox.
> 
> If it's $45M a year in production that's a decent jump from $25M but it's not world changing. If it's $45M in addition to the $25M then AEW might be competition to Raw.


It's not world changing where they are gonna start throwing big money around at FA or do anything different then they have been. 


But the money should help them be a profitable company and its good to have security of knowing they will be making millions and have tv deal on major network until the end if 2023. With TNT having option for 2024 at much larger number.


----------



## RiverFenix (Dec 10, 2011)

Monday is Raw, Tuesday would be a full week later and already when Dark streams, Wednesday is Dynamite, Thursday would be too close after Dynamite, Friday is Smackdown. 

I think a Saturday air day would be the way to go. Going up against SDL might be alluring, but it's a one hour taped show. 

Saturday Night 7-8pm or Saturday mornings 10-11am depending on what they'll be going for with the secondary show. Cody promised Dynamite is all any fan would need to invest, I'm hoping it's still the case and this new show will be stand alone matches (no angles outside of W-L's) and recap of Dynamite/preview next show. 

Is Shotgun Saturday Night still trademarked by WWE? Sunday Night Heat?


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

> The deal would also include adding another hour of television later this year, which would be taped on Wednesdays but air on another night, likely on TNT but could be on another Turner station. Full details of the new show have not been worked out past an agreement to add a third hour.


This report says the new show will be taped on Wednesday, so it won't really increase their production costs to do another hour.





__





AEW Dynamite extended through 2023, WarnerMedia adding second show


AEW Dynamite will be on TNT through 2023 with another show coming to WarnerMedia soon.




www.f4wonline.com


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

optikk sucks said:


> I really love seeing these anti-AEW goofs being proven wrong consistently.
> 
> 1. Pushing guys like Sonny Kiss, who hasn't been on TV for a long time.
> 2. Not being able to do more than 6-700k in ratings. What did they do these past couple weeks?
> ...


the real sad thing is..... how sad it all is.

i mean, its f’kn wrestling


----------



## Chan Hung (Dec 28, 2011)

Fuck it! Id put on another show against Raw.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

validreasoning said:


> Pretty sure he means Turner will be paying $45m a year in rights fees to air Dynamite.
> 
> Assuming that's the case then AEW will be paying for production themselves going forward and ad sharing will end.
> 
> NXT is being paid $30m a year but WWE pay production and get no ad revenue.


If that's the case then this was a great move from TNT and possibly a shortsighted one by AEW. Let's say AEW stayed on their original deal and had another 2 left, but in that time they consistently got around .5 in the demo, when their contract would've been up they could've gotten TNT in a bidding war with other networks and gotten significantly more money.

But by reupping they've gotten guaranteed money but they stay off the market for an additional 2 years. We know right now that networks are willing to pay a premium for live TV but who knows what the market is going to look like in 2023. The guaranteed money they got isn't even that much if they have to pay their own production costs and lose the ad split.

It's like a NBA star extending his rookie deal for a small bump in pay rather than hitting the market and getting his max deal sooner.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

I’m going to start calling them ‘big tv dick Marko Stunt’ and ’Awesome draw Darby Allin’ just for shits and giggles


----------



## Benoit's Weight Machine (Dec 28, 2019)

This is definitely good news but remember, all it takes is one Jamie Kellner. Both WCW and ECW were successful and highly rated shows whose companies were killed on the whims of network executives.

I would still like to see them start a streaming service as a contingency plan and also to capture more of the cord cutting market.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

qntntgood said:


> Are you serious cornette, is going to shit a brick tonight.according,to his fans his rants are the stuff legend's are made of.cornette predicted they would off the air in a year,he's never.


Lol yeah great to see the haters wrong. The funny thing is haters and trolls and gonna be like. Well they aren't making what WWE is so they are failure lol. Or saying stuff like oh wow big deal after production costs they will be only making 5-10 more then TNA did or whatever. 


People don't realize you can be pretty successful wrestling company making 20 million a year or whatever. As long as you don't overpay on talent. As well as ticket sales are good and ppv buys. Especially since it's not there only tv deal or profit from tv.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Benoit's Weight Machine said:


> This is definitely good news but remember, all it takes is one Jamie Kellner. Both WCW and ECW were successful and highly rated shows whose companies were killed on the whims of network executives.
> 
> I would still like to see them start a streaming service as a contingency plan and also to capture more of the cord cutting market.


Turner owned WCW so they could do what they want with it. That's not the case here. While ECW never had this long term deal with Spike. So once they got WWE they can choose to not keep ECW.


This is different situation then both of those. This is more like TNA with Spike in 2008-2013 with security of long term tv deal and network not owning the company.


----------



## Garty (Jul 29, 2007)

optikk sucks said:


> I really love seeing these anti-AEW goofs being proven wrong consistently.
> 
> 1. Pushing guys like Sonny Kiss, who hasn't been on TV for a long time.
> 2. Not being able to do more than 6-700k in ratings. What did they do these past couple weeks?
> ...


The only agenda is to hate, so I really don't know where else they go from here.

It's just like the Democratic Party in the US going after Donald Trump, even before he took office. Constantly conjuring up some type of "gotcha, exclusive, this is the most damaging sourced insider information in the history of the free-world that we (meaning media) has unearthed", to try and take him down 24/7 365. Some 50 year-old records in economy, employment, wages, business and commercial enterprise, have been shattered by Trump's turn-around of the countries standing. The Democrats cannot counter any of those statistics (all they ever talk about is how bad Trump is), so the only way to fight against him, is to have him scrutinized every minute of his Presidency.


----------



## Garty (Jul 29, 2007)

Benoit's Weight Machine said:


> This is definitely good news but remember, all it takes is one Jamie Kellner. Both WCW and ECW were successful and highly rated shows whose companies were killed on the whims of network executives.
> 
> I would still like to see them start a streaming service as a contingency plan and also to capture more of the cord cutting market.


Hey look everyone! Woodsy is here!


----------



## reyfan (May 23, 2011)

Good for them, they have more time to iron out the cons now and hopefully grow.


----------



## Jazminator (Jan 9, 2018)

Great news, although not very surprising.

I'm really curious as to what the new show will be. Maybe it can be a package show that airs relevant bits from BTE, a featured match, profiles and previews. I can see Tony Schiavone and Dasha hosting it, with maybe a rotating wrestler every week. Looking forward to i!


----------



## Benoit's Weight Machine (Dec 28, 2019)

Garty said:


> Hey look everyone! Woodsy is here!


----------



## ripcitydisciple (Dec 18, 2014)

The Inbred Goatman said:


> The 2nd show is interesting, I imagine it goes on Mondays, I think they can pull decent numbers against RAW, they won't beat RAW, but I think they can pull some of the viewers just from a curiosity standpoint.
> 
> They have to acquire more top talent to justify a second show tho. Putting the Jimmy Havoc's, Joey Janela's and Kip Sabian's of the world don't call for a second show.


Maybe this gets New Japan/Stardom on board now they have a second show.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Bloody Warpath said:


> WWE does have three weekly live brands, but each brand has its own roster. AEW only has a handful of talent that keeps ratings from dropping. You either will reach a level of overexposure with Jericho, Mox, Cody, or the second show will reach Thunder levels with no one on that fans will time in for.
> 
> Another issue will be PPVs. A consistent complaint is that only having 4 PPVs per year is causing some of Dynamite to be filler. That would just become doubled with anoyher show.


Idk why folk believe in over exposure. WWE was showing in 2000 and 2001 that you can do 2 shows with a roster that isn't gargantuan. The key is good writing and not having your talents wrestle all show.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

The extension period is good news for them, but this is also a lot of posturing. They aren’t getting a significance increase in revenue from this, which has always been the game. They also don’t get 32 million viewers.

This is very similar as to when WWE put out the Saudi statement that basically confirmed the deal they already had.

The Good:

+ AEW tentatively has more time.

+ TNT seem to want to put faith in them that they can convert more DVR viewers to live viewers.

+ Because of Meltzer’s bias and AEW trolls being markish, this will be interpreted as a huge deal and marker of success. The illusion of stability to try and lure talent, although I don’t think any major star’a contracts are xoming

The Bad:

- No significant increase in revenue. Khan’s essentially had to give up potential TV rights fees in two years for this deal. He knows they aren’t ready.

- They’re giving away more content? That’s incorporated into the $45 million? Sounds like TNT are getting even more for free so AEW can make this announcement.

- There is now a pretty public standard. 1.2 million viewers being emphasized. How happy do you think TNT will be is that number drops significantly in a few weeks/months?

- More content is not good. This is WCW Thunder again. Might fatigue and dilute fan-base, as well as make them more vulnerable.

There’s good and bad in the deal. When you cut through the PR bullshit, what you really get is that TNT are willing partners and see value in wrestling content, which they can commit to in good faith, but also the reality that AEW is not as hot as it could be. Tony Khan is potentially leaving a lot of money on the table for the security of time.


----------



## elidrakefan76 (Jul 23, 2018)

It's good that they'll have 2 shows but they need to sign a lot more talent if that's the case. I'm not talking about Q.T. Marshall's and Kip Sabians, I'm talking about guys with big potential. I'm assuming they have talent scouts and they should be busy at work now scouring wrestling promotions all over the world for new talent as well as monitoring when WWE contracts are set to expire. Right now their product gets a B- grade in my view. I've been tuning in every week since Dynamite debuted and it delivers the goods some weeks but has fallen totally flat in others.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Jazminator said:


> Great news, although not very surprising.
> 
> I'm really curious as to what the new show will be. Maybe it can be a package show that airs relevant bits from BTE, a featured match, profiles and previews. I can see Tony Schiavone and Dasha hosting it, with maybe a rotating wrestler every week. Looking forward to i!


This is probably their best idea. It’ll give AEW the opportunity to develop their wrestlers. BUT that would rely on Dynamite viewers also watching this show. How likely is that, I don’t know


----------



## Brodus Clay (Jan 6, 2012)

Congrats AEW,also I'm sure Cornette gonna be mature enough to congratulate them too, so lets wait to hear his opinion before shat on him.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

DetroitRiverPhx said:


> Monday is Raw, Tuesday would be a full week later and already when Dark streams, Wednesday is Dynamite, Thursday would be too close after Dynamite, Friday is Smackdown.
> 
> I think a Saturday air day would be the way to go. Going up against SDL might be alluring, but it's a one hour taped show.
> 
> ...


Go Sunday as everybody is in the house. You can't expect folk to commit to your Saturday show year round.



Jonhern said:


> This report says the new show will be taped on Wednesday, so it won't really increase their production costs to do another hour.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Financially smart hope it's not burn out with the crowd. Because on some Darks you can already see the crowd tone kind of change for the dark matches filmed after Dynamite.


----------



## One Shed (Jan 7, 2014)

RapShepard said:


> Go Sunday as everybody is in the house. You can't expect folk to commit to your Saturday show year round.


I think a lot depends on the content of the show. If it is more like Dark or even if it literally is putting Dark on TV vs YouTube it could work. It would be a good way to show off talent they are building up with the occasional star from the main show coming on. Kind of like what NXT is for WWE. I would be all for that. But if it is like what Thunder was, which was continuing main show storylines, they will burn themselves out. It helped WCW fail and they had over a decade of history and large fan base. I do not think Tony Khan would be dumb enough to make that kind of mistake so I will be optimistic.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

imthegame19 said:


> Wait a minute TNT isn't cancelling AEW? Haha must be a sad day for haters like the Wood. It will be interesting to hear if AEW got some up front money from TNT. Considering they signed extension and do a 2nd show. Tells me they got some upfront cash as part of this deal.


I was going to ignore the marks who can’t see through this as a pub stunt/quid pro quo, but since you specifically mentioned me by name:

I’ve never said Dynamite is going to be cancelled. I’ve suggested that I think their time slot could be moved by the end of the year. Nothing in this extension precludes that. Hell, nothing in this suggests they _can’t_ be canceled, should they start taking more of a hammering should WWE decide to get nasty. Especially when the marks start running around gloating.

I _don’t_ think this has been part of WWE’s plan. Their strategy has been to wear AEW out and not go in too strong from the start, but they can definitely turn this to their advantage, as AEW will look _really_ bad if that viewership starts to erode just after doing this deal. Not sure they will or even can turn it up that quickly. I’ve called Mania season as the turnaround.

But to answer your question: AEW doesn’t seem to be getting any additional revenue out of this deal. It’s said to be for $45 million a year, which was about what I estimated their old deal to be for. Given that they are also putting additional content on the network, you could even speculate that this deal is actually more content for less money, and Khan is essentially “buying” the extension.

But no, I didn’t say they would be cancelled, lol. You’ve made that up, because the specialty of AEW fanboys is to outright lie and indulge in hypocrisy. Imagine if WWE released a statement saying they have signed on with FOX that will see them through to the end of 2024 with a deal worth $200 million a year, because they have 64 million viewers. WWE will also be doing a new show coming soon to the FOX family. FOX will also get the right to pick up an additional year if they so choose. That is essentially what you’re celebrating.

This is quid pro quo. Khan needs something to make AEW look successful and secure. TNT get free content and first dibs if this pays off.

Random thought: It wouldn’t surprise me if the Khans are planning a partial sale of AEW. Not to the point that Shad Khan loses control, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see 40% of the company sold off soon. If you can get $40 million in and still retain control, a statement like this spinning how hot and secure it is makes sense.


----------



## Whoanma (Apr 5, 2016)




----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Lheurch said:


> I think a lot depends on the content of the show. If it is more like Dark or even if it literally is putting Dark on TV vs YouTube it could work. It would be a good way to show off talent they are building up with the occasional star from the main show coming on. Kind of like what NXT is for WWE. I would be all for that. But if it is like what Thunder was, which was continuing main show storylines, they will burn themselves out. It helped WCW fail and they had over a decade of history and large fan base. I do not think Tony Khan would be dumb enough to make that kind of mistake so I will be optimistic.


I just don't agree with burnout and over exposure being a thing on such a small scale. I lived through folk enjoying both Raw and SmackDown. Thunder was a bust because it felt like a clear secondary show due to big names not having to work it. The secondary show has to have big names show up or they'll just run into the same problem they have now with a lot of people confused on advancements that took place on Dark or BTE


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

The underlying message with this deal for me is how Tony talks about his father in relation to AEW working out.

Seems like a lifelong buildup of yearning for respect there, and now he's earning that respect outside his father's sphere of influence.

It's every rich kid's dream. That's an immensely powerful and often overlooked factor in what drives AEW.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Brodus Clay said:


> Congrats AEW,also I'm sure Cornette gonna be mature enough to congratulate them too, so lets wait to hear his opinion before shat on him.


Russo congrated them. I would be surprised if Cornette does. Maybe some half hearted well it's good for the business comment from Cornette. Or say stuff he liked carried the show or whatever. But he won't say good things.


----------



## Scissor Me Daddy-O!! (Apr 13, 2011)

optikk sucks said:


> "nearly 32 million viewers across *all platforms* in only three months"
> 1.2 million viewers on average per week
> fuck me


It's almost like the sole argument of ratings holds MUCH less weight in 2020 and people still arguing over live TV ratings are wasting time.

Almost....


----------



## One Shed (Jan 7, 2014)

RapShepard said:


> I just don't agree with burnout and over exposure being a thing on such a small scale. I lived through folk enjoying both Raw and SmackDown. Thunder was a bust because it felt like a clear secondary show due to big names not having to work it. The secondary show has to have big names show up or they'll just run into the same problem they have now with a lot of people confused on advancements that took place on Dark or BTE


I am not saying it is impossible for it to work, I just have serious doubts and I think both Thunder and SmackDown show how likely burnout is to happen. It can work short term, but I doubt it would long term. I could be wrong though of course. The brand extension is what made it work, but when they had the same writers on both shows, they definitely had burnout. The brand extension works for me since I only watch RAW. AEW does not have the roster yet for any kind of brand extension. I think we as fans sometimes rush things too, and I think Tony Khan is smart enough and conservative enough not to rush.

Bischoff gave some good insights into Thunder recently. They had too many Nitro recaps and made it feel like the secondary show.

I also think it would be a mistake to film Dynamite, potential new show, AND Dark in one night. They are going to run into the ridiculously long WWE show issues which kill audience response.


----------



## One Shed (Jan 7, 2014)

imthegame19 said:


> Russo congrated them. I would be surprised if Cornette does. Maybe some half hearted well it's good for the business comment from Cornette. Or say stuff he liked carried the show or whatever. But he won't say good things.


But he HAS said many positive things, purists just want to ignore them and call him a hater. He makes his thoughts on what he hates very extreme because, shockingly, that is what wrestling heels do and he had a long career being one of the best heels in wrestling history. Boring criticism gets no heat and he gets people listening to his podcast by making waves. He has also no doubt gotten lapsed fans to tune into Dynamite due to him talking about it and a subset of them have stayed. Those are good things.

He said very recently he believed this was the one chance in this generation to truly have a second national promotion and he does not want it to fail. He simply hates some of the stupid things being presented on the show, and I agree with him on what those things are for the most part. I mean, he watches them every week and buys all their PPVs so he gets to have his opinion right?


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Meltzer said Dark is staying. And they are still filming every thing on Wednesday night. 


So I'm expecting maybe some type of Sunday Night Heat show on TNT. With AEW Dark more of Shotgun Saturday Night show. This is way to get their large and growing roster more work. I don't expect another Dynamite show with storylines and stop feuds on it.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Lheurch said:


> I am not saying it is impossible for it to work, I just have serious doubts and I think both Thunder and SmackDown show how likely burnout is to happen. It can work short term, but I doubt it would long term. I could be wrong though of course. The brand extension is what made it work, but when they had the same writers on both shows, they definitely had burnout. The brand extension works for me since I only watch RAW. AEW does not have the roster yet for any kind of brand extension. I think we as fans sometimes rush things too, and I think Tony Khan is smart enough and conservative enough not to rush.
> 
> Bischoff gave some good insights into Thunder recently. They had too many Nitro recaps and made it feel like the secondary show.
> 
> I also think it would be a mistake to film Dynamite, potential new show, AND Dark in one night. They are going to run into the ridiculously long WWE show issues which kill audience response.


I do agree they shouldn't film all 3 on one night. But in the binge watch finish a series in a week era I don't think 2 shows with the same characters is too much. Putting my WWE fandom aside. I think folk are so used to not liking WWE that they because WWE has failed to entertain them with a fuck ton of content, that nobody can do it. As long as AEW can tell great stories folk will enjoy both shows. Think people didn't start disliking SmackDown until it was the 2nd part of a show they already weren't enjoying.


----------



## One Shed (Jan 7, 2014)

RapShepard said:


> I do agree they shouldn't film all 3 on one night. But in the binge watch finish a series in a week era I don't think 2 shows with the same characters is too much. Putting my WWE fandom aside. I think folk are so used to not liking WWE that they because WWE has failed to entertain them with a fuck ton of content, that nobody can do it. As long as AEW can tell great stories folk will enjoy both shows. Think people didn't start disliking SmackDown until it was the 2nd part of a show they already weren't enjoying.


Yeah, you might be right. I definitely was excited to watch both RAW and Nitro back in the day. There is definitely a possibility it could succeed with two main shows, I just do not want them to expand too quick and fail as a result. I guess we will see their plan soon.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Lheurch said:


> Yeah, you might be right. I definitely was excited to watch both RAW and Nitro back in the day. There is definitely a possibility it could succeed with two main shows, I just do not want them to expand too quick and fail as a result. I guess we will see their plan soon.


That definitely makes sense not wanting them to expand too quick. But these networks are desperate for live content. They might as well take the money now.


----------



## Taroostyles (Apr 1, 2007)

The goal post movers must be losing their shit at this one. 

The company is an undeniable hit, time to accept that.


----------



## Gh0stFace (Oct 10, 2019)

The Dude said:


> Congrats to AEW. This is HUGE news and gives them the stability they need to really start growing. It’s also tremendous that they’re getting another show, which will help them counter act WWE’s stranglehold in terms of content.
> 
> I will say that I was wrong in terms of TNT’s commitment based on the numbers. They are clearly happy with the viewership the show is bringing in and that’s good for everyone.
> 
> ...


You just gained a lot of respect from me. It takes a real man to own up to being wrong about something.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

RapShepard said:


> I just don't agree with burnout and over exposure being a thing on such a small scale. I lived through folk enjoying both Raw and SmackDown. Thunder was a bust because it felt like a clear secondary show due to big names not having to work it. The secondary show has to have big names show up or they'll just run into the same problem they have now with a lot of people confused on advancements that took place on Dark or BTE


Raw and SmackDown were enjoyed for a very brief period when the WWF was super-hot, had giant stars and some decent storytelling. It's a very tenuous situation to maintain. There are people who are already getting tired of seeing the same people each week in AEW.

Sometimes you have a show that needs an arena, and sometimes you have an arena that needs a show. AEW are building themselves an arena with this. 



Lheurch said:


> But he HAS said many positive things, purists just want to ignore them and call him a hater. Has makes his thoughts on what he hates very extreme because, shockingly, that is what wrestling heels do and he had a long career being one of the best heels in wrestling history. Boring criticism gets no heat and he gets people listening to his podcast by making waves. He has also no doubt gotten lapsed fans to tune into Dynamite due to him talking about it and a subset of them have stayed. Those are good things.
> 
> He said very recently he believed this was the one chance in this generation to truly have a second national promotion and he does not want it to fail. He simply hates some of the stupid things being presented on the show, and I agree with him on what those things are for the most part. I mean, he watches them every week and buys all their PPVs so he gets to have his opinion right?


Hey, it's almost like someone here listens and actually thinks about what the man says. 

I'm sure Cornette will see the good with the bad, since it's a mixed bag. He might make some quips about it being an indictment on the state of things, but ultimately he doesn't want wrestling to go back to a monopoly. I don't know if this deal ensures that though, and I wonder if Cornette will pick up on that.


----------



## Taroostyles (Apr 1, 2007)

2nd show will be on Saturday night, almost has to be.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Taroostyles said:


> The goal post movers must be losing their shit at this one.
> 
> The company is an undeniable hit, time to accept that.


Lol, that's just not true. For all we know, there was a four-year deal discussed from the start (Omega is signed on for four), and there was just a three month probationary period. I think it's far more likely there have been negotiations, but Tony Khan has had to make some (arguably wise) concessions too. More content for basically free, and potentially leaving a lot of TV rights money on the table, which in just two years could have been MASSIVELY valuable. NXT, for example, could be re-upping with USA for double, triple, even quadruple that. 

This is a safety move. And there's nothing wrong with a safety move. TNT is at least willing to allow them to do that, indicating that they are least that happy with the advertising income for now, but this is being WAY overblown as a universal positive and a sign that AEW has done it, TNT are throwing parties every week and everything is going to be peachy keen from now until the end of time. They've bought wrestling content at production price for four years. In a world where live entertainment is valuable, that's a steal. Someone at TNT is getting their arm raised in the air just as high as Dave Meltzer must be raising his.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

The Wood said:


> Raw and SmackDown were enjoyed for a very brief period when the WWF was super-hot, had giant stars and some decent storytelling. It's a very tenuous situation to maintain. There are people who are already getting tired of seeing the same people each week in AEW.
> 
> Sometimes you have a show that needs an arena, and sometimes you have an arena that needs a show. AEW are building themselves an arena with this.


But that's the thing it's proven that as long as folk are already enjoying your product, more isn't an issue. As long as they can provide an enjoyable show folk will fuck with it. You say folk are tired of seeing the same stars but I'd disagree. I have never seen somebody complain about seeing a wrestler they like too much. But I do see people complain about seeing wrestlers they don't like too much, but that's another conversation.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

RapShepard said:


> But that's the thing it's proven that as long as folk are already enjoying your product, more isn't an issue. As long as they can provide an enjoyable show folk will fuck with it. You say folk are tired of seeing the same stars but I'd disagree. I have never seen somebody complain about seeing a wrestler they like too much. But I do see people complain about seeing wrestlers they don't like too much, but that's another conversation.


What you're saying is strictly true. I'm not arguing that. I can binge watch hours of good television. I'm just saying that AEW is not really 2000 WWF. And wrestling fans are fatigued. There's just too much for so many people.

And I'm not having a go with this, I mean it, but I've seen you say that you want Chris Jericho gone just because you've seen too much of him over the years and he's been around so long. Genuinely not taking a swipe with that, because I think you're talking about a slightly different thing (hot young stars), but overexposure is definitely a thing. When you're hot, people can't get enough of you, but the last thing you want is someone realizing they could live with a lot less of ya.


----------



## chay007 (Oct 15, 2017)

For the second show can they change the presentation to make it stand out more. Iv always liked the idea of doing a theatre style venue instead of the big arenas. You could do 2 nights in a city, 1 big arena show then a 2nd more intimate theatre style show. Staying in the area keeps costs down while make both feel different. 

I think the way pwg looks in their current theatre is great


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

chay007 said:


> For the second show can they change the presentation to make it stand out more. Iv always liked the idea of doing a theatre style venue instead of the big arenas. You could do 2 nights in a city, 1 big arena show then a 2nd more intimate theatre style show. Staying in the area keeps costs down while make both feel different.
> 
> I think the way pwg looks in their current theatre is great


It's not a bad idea, but given they don't seem to be getting any more production money, they'll be doing it on the same night as Dynamite. This will be like Superstars or Main Event. They will put more effort in than WWE did for those, but that's going to stretch them too. Unless they get someone else to book it, which would be a plus.


----------



## Garty (Jul 29, 2007)

The Wood said:


> I was going to ignore the marks who can’t see through this as a pub stunt/quid pro quo, but since you specifically mentioned me by name:
> 
> I’ve never said Dynamite is going to be cancelled. I’ve suggested that I think their time slot could be moved by the end of the year. Nothing in this extension precludes that. Hell, nothing in this suggests they _can’t_ be canceled, should they start taking more of a hammering should WWE decide to get nasty. Especially when the marks start running around gloating.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's hard to believe that you WOULDN'T respond to "us" fanboys. It wasn't "if", it was only "when".  You shitting on AEW every day, is as sure as, tonight being dark and tomorrow being sunny. Your phone must have been on fire all day, waiting to spin this good news, into, no surprise, bad news. Your "facts" again are not proof of anything! You're assuming that they're not profitable. You're assuming they'll still go out of business in a year or two. You're assuming that the ratings don't prove anything to "bestow" such a huge (small and worthless) re-negotiated TV contract. Do you ACTUALLY believe your own "fact", that this was a PR stunt?! REALLY? Nothing but a PR stunt?  So, what you're saying, using your spin, this whole thing is a charade, or that none of it is real?! Holy shit Wood, just stop and read your own words for a change.

READ CAREFULLY WOOD...

_- "I don’t think they’ll be dead within a year, but I think the dream might be over within one." _

- _"I think this will happen by the end of 2020, but don't be surprised if it happens way sooner than you that."_

- _"That's what we're trying to tell you. We don't actually know whether or not the network constitutes it a success."

- "I don't watch every week."

- "Lol, why does a commercial prove anything? That could be them wanting to get more word out because they aren't happy. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's no more unreasonably speculative."

- "AEW has had their "83 weeks." They've got nowhere else to go."_

AND THE PIECE DE RESISTANCE...

- _"And this isn’t being smug and self-congratulatory, as Garty would frame things?"_

Now Wood, would you like to clarify these "facts" of yours with the rest of the users of this board? Although I'm sure you'll try and find a way to even spin and twist your own words a second time. __


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

The Wood said:


> What you're saying is strictly true. I'm not arguing that. I can binge watch hours of good television. I'm just saying that AEW is not really 2000 WWF. And wrestling fans are fatigued. There's just too much for so many people.
> 
> And I'm not having a go with this, I mean it, but I've seen you say that you want Chris Jericho gone just because you've seen too much of him over the years and he's been around so long. Genuinely not taking a swipe with that, because I think you're talking about a slightly different thing (hot young stars), but overexposure is definitely a thing. When you're hot, people can't get enough of you, but the last thing you want is someone realizing they could live with a lot less of ya.


They're not 2000 WWF no, but I'm just saying that as long as the shows are good fans will mostly tune in. 

As for Jericho I think as you acknowledged it's different as I've got 20 years of seeing a lot of Jericho. 2005 Jericho totally fine with 2010 still fine. Now it's like ehh lol. So I believe in overexposure in the "wow Simpsons is still coming on" way lol.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

The Wood said:


> The extension period is good news for them, but this is also a lot of posturing. They aren’t getting a significance increase in revenue from this, which has always been the game. They also don’t get 32 million viewers.
> 
> This is very similar as to when WWE put out the Saudi statement that basically confirmed the deal they already had.
> 
> ...


But it shows faith and gives them stability, something no one else in the game has had in quite some time.

It isn’t proof of a win in the Wednesday Night Wars, but you’ve got to admit it is a win for the wrestlers and community as a whole.


----------



## Ham and Egger (Dec 13, 2005)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> this might make them no. 2 in the world?
> 
> i don‘t know if NJPW can match this if you add all the other revenues
> 
> then again, who knows with private trading companies


New Japan made 50 million in revenue last year so I currently hold them as the second biggest in the world. AEW is certainly a mystery as to what kind of money they'll be making but they havent even been around for a full calendar year so it's to early to tell.


----------



## JJKING13 (Jan 11, 2020)

Awesome news. My guess is the extend the live shows slightly with Dark being the second show with highlights, pre-recorded interviews, personality profiles and the like.


----------



## taker1986 (Sep 14, 2016)

I think the second show will be similar to Heat or Velocity back in the day. A few matches and a few recaps of dynamite with some backstage segments. Basically like Dark. In fact it probably will be dark, just moved into TV. They simply don't have the depth for an equal show to Dynamite. That's definitely not what I want.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217588044112416768


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217589663294033920


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217590098524438528


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217590386434068481

So better verison of AEW Dark coming to TNT. While they will probably do shorter or different YouTube show.


----------



## Garty (Jul 29, 2007)

And just like that, POOF, Wood has disappeared. Maybe he's going over his facts, charts, graphs and any other thing he can use to try and once again prove to "us" that he's right. Don't worry everyone, he'll be back with, not a 5000 word essay, but a 10000 word essay. Then we're all in trouble.


----------



## Gh0stFace (Oct 10, 2019)

imthegame19 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217589663294033920
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217590098524438528
> ...


This is great. BTW I'm pretty convinced now that no matter happens that The Wood will find a way to spin reality in order to not injure his ego such as by calling this a "PR stunt", lol. The Dude is man and mature enough to transcend his ego and admit he was wrong about certain things which is very admirable.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

Gh0stFace said:


> You just gained a lot of respect from me. It takes a real man to own up to being wrong about something.


Much appreciated.

It’s not something that was hard to do....I 100% underestimated AEW’s expectations for ratings. To give them $45 million a year for their content clearly shows they’re good with the viewership.

That being said, AEW should still be striving to grow that number as much as possible and their show still needs a boat load of improvement.

What I really hope to see happen is them pumping some of this rights revenue back into the product, improving production, theme music, etc, etc.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

The Wood said:


> Lol, that's just not true. For all we know, there was a four-year deal discussed from the start (Omega is signed on for four), and there was just a three month probationary period. I think it's far more likely there have been negotiations, but Tony Khan has had to make some (arguably wise) concessions too. More content for basically free, and potentially leaving a lot of TV rights money on the table, which in just two years could have been MASSIVELY valuable. NXT, for example, could be re-upping with USA for double, triple, even quadruple that.
> 
> This is a safety move. And there's nothing wrong with a safety move. TNT is at least willing to allow them to do that, indicating that they are least that happy with the advertising income for now, but this is being WAY overblown as a universal positive and a sign that AEW has done it, TNT are throwing parties every week and everything is going to be peachy keen from now until the end of time. They've bought wrestling content at production price for four years. In a world where live entertainment is valuable, that's a steal. Someone at TNT is getting their arm raised in the air just as high as Dave Meltzer must be raising his.


Did you underestimate TNT’s viewership expectations? I did.

I did not think they would give them this kind of rights deal for the numbers they’re doing.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Dynamite extended? Great news! 

A second show???? Eh...depends on what it is I guess, but part of what turned me off to WWE is that it just became too much to follow.


----------



## Gh0stFace (Oct 10, 2019)

RapShepard said:


> They're not 2000 WWF no, but I'm just saying that as long as the shows are good fans will mostly tune in.
> 
> As for Jericho I think as you acknowledged it's different as I've got 20 years of seeing a lot of Jericho. 2005 Jericho totally fine with 2010 still fine. Now it's like ehh lol. So I believe in overexposure in the "wow Simpsons is still coming on" way lol.


Jericho is a GOAT. Ratings prove it. His segments have so far never lost any viewers.


----------



## Joe Gill (Jun 29, 2019)

they should put the 2nd show on monday night.... create a buzz in the industry....and if its only 1 hour put it head to head with raws 3rd hour and there is a chance they could beat raw in the young demo for that hour.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Sounds like mixing Road to into AEW Dark for TNT verison. If it's only hour show. Then i think they will do different YouTube show still. 


Because the purpose of it is to give lower talent work and longer matches. So maybe they shorten YouTube show to 30 minutes with lesser matches. Then do AEW Dark with two decent level matches and road to type segments.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Garty said:


> Yeah, it's hard to believe that you WOULDN'T respond to "us" fanboys. It wasn't "if", it was only "when".  You shitting on AEW every day, is as sure as, tonight being dark and tomorrow being sunny. Your phone must have been on fire all day, waiting to spin this good news, into, no surprise, bad news. Your "facts" again are not proof of anything! You're assuming that they're not profitable. You're assuming they'll still go out of business in a year or two. You're assuming that the ratings don't prove anything to "bestow" such a huge (small and worthless) re-negotiated TV contract. Do you ACTUALLY believe your own "fact", that this was a PR stunt?! REALLY? Nothing but a PR stunt?  So, what you're saying, using your spin, this whole thing is a charade, or that none of it is real?! Holy shit Wood, just stop and read your own words for a change.
> 
> READ CAREFULLY WOOD...
> 
> ...


Holy shit, man. You're actually losing it. I probably shouldn't do this, but I will reply: 

You overuse quotation marks too much. They're not for emphasis, and you shouldn't put emphasis on the things you put emphasis on. Also, it's creepy you have my thoughts saved into your computer somewhere. _shudder_

- Wait a minute, didn't you just say I said that they would be dead in a year or two? Your first quote is me _literally_ saying they won't be dead. It'd be nice if in your obsessive stalking you provided some context as to where your quotes comes from. This one is me talking TV rights fees, right? The "dream" I was referring to was them getting a huge TV rights deal, which is what will make the Khans richer than rich. How did this extension work out for them? $45 million? I've explained how that is probably close to their production costs. So far I haven't been proven wrong on that one, since unless they renegotiate they won't be making that until 2024. 

- Again, you provide no context. I believe this was about them possibly being rescheduled. Not cancelled. Not dead. Rescheduled. It obviously hasn't happened yet, but what about this deal would preclude that from happening? 

- Yeah, and? We still don't know if the network considers it a success. Keep in mind this deal merely seems to be an extension with free content attached. They obviously don't consider it a blind failure, but we _still_ don't know what they were expecting. And even if TNT came out and said "this show has exceeded our expectations," then all that would mean is "oh, now we know." Before it was just made up off bizarre Meltzer speculation. 

- What the fuck does me watching every week have to do with _anything_? What a weird point to bring up...

- I've forgotten I said that about the commercial. Thanks for bringing that up, because the same thing could be said for this PR statement. They're huffing and puffing for some reason. When they sign SVU does NBC talk about them being watched by 9 billion people since the show began in 1999? The same thing for this deal goes for that commercial -- you're projecting moods onto business. 

- This was a creative discussion about them not being able to lean on any hot angles and in regards to how I think NXT is going to have a much deeper well to combat them going into the future. How does this change any of that? 

You've brought up some pretty silly stuff. I mean, some of it kind of proves my points. The rest is completely irrelevant, lol. It's flattering that you're obsessed with me, but you should really give yourself a break. I know what I've said and how I meant it. I stand by it all and I don't even think anything has been proven to be a false prediction yet. If AEW are winning after Mania, I'll be surprised. If they're still in the Wednesday slot at the end of 2020, that will be a prediction I missed. But I'm not sure why you think any of this is a "gotcha!" grab. 



bdon said:


> But it shows faith and gives them stability, something no one else in the game has had in quite some time.
> 
> It isn’t proof of a win in the Wednesday Night Wars, but you’ve got to admit it is a win for the wrestlers and community as a whole.


I do think it definitely gives them stability. There are definite upsides to this agreement. It's good to reassure wrestlers, investors and fans too. Although I think the fans celebrating like they still couldn't just get cancelled or flop and that this somehow proves every criticism wrong are acting silly and borderline insane, lol. 

Look at this way: If the shoe was on the other foot and NXT signed a new deal with USA Network, and they released a press statement that they were watched by millions of people around the world, and the new deal was for $45 million a year for four years, instead of two, and 205 Live was now going to air on USA too...what would the AEW trolls do? 
"HAHAHA! WWE basically had to bribe USA to keep them on! HAHAHA! Lol! Look at those bastards lying about how they have a better deal than before! It's the same amount of money dey just got more time ! HA! HA!"

And you know that's true, lol. And there would be genuine good and bad with that deal. It's good because it means NXT can guarantee that it will be raking in $140 million over four years. It gives them another property on television and it allows them showcase more wrestlers, even if it isn't getting them more revenue. But there are fair negatives too. They could be leaving money on the table and they're putting out free content that could otherwise be monetized. Potentially. I don't think anyone is paying for 205 Live, lol. 

It's unreasonable to see these scenarios in, how would you put it -- absolute truths? There are some clear reassurances with a deal like this. But there are some clear flags too. Just stop and think why they're using the biggest numbers they can to try and posture themselves as being as big as possible to make an announcement they have already signed. 



Garty said:


> And just like that, POOF, Wood has disappeared. Maybe he's going over his facts, charts, graphs and any other thing he can use to try and once again prove to "us" that he's right. Don't worry everyone, he'll be back with, not a 5000 word essay, but a 10000 word essay. Then we're all in trouble.


What are you talking about? I'm right here. Who is "us?" Is that what you call your collection of personalities?


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

TripleG said:


> Dynamite extended? Great news!
> 
> A second show???? Eh...depends on what it is I guess, but part of what turned me off to WWE is that it just became too much to follow.


It's new version of AEW Dark that will mix matches with Road to like story segments.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

I definitely hope this show isn’t just DARK with meaningless matches and guys cutting promos about “I dreamed about being a wrestler all my life”. I don’t think that kind of thing will draw good numbers.

Hopefully this show is more story based and maybe produced by a writer.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Joe Gill said:


> they should put the 2nd show on monday night.... create a buzz in the industry....and if its only 1 hour put it head to head with raws 3rd hour and there is a chance they could beat raw in the young demo for that hour.


Ooh, ambitious. My first instinct was "really bad idea," but if you're going against the third? Hmm. I think Dynamite would stand a better chance, to be honest.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Gh0stFace said:


> Jericho is a GOAT. Ratings prove it. His segments have so far never lost any viewers.


I didn't say Jericho was bad for business or it's logical to get rid of him. I said I'm personally over him.


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

Joe Gill said:


> they should put the 2nd show on monday night.... create a buzz in the industry....and if its only 1 hour put it head to head with raws 3rd hour and there is a chance they could beat raw in the young demo for that hour.


On a bad night RAW still hovers close to 2 million viewers for the 3rd hour. AEW would hardly get noticed at 10. Not to mention would have the NFL to contend with as well.


----------



## Derek30 (Jan 3, 2012)

Great news. I've heard Dynamite is doing quite well up here in Canada and can't wait for them to tour north of the border. I know Winnipeg will go haywire for Jericho and Omega.

I don't post much but I do enjoy the Wood/Garty rivalry. A little too much flipping for my liking but I'll accept it


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

The Dude said:


> Did you underestimate TNT’s viewership expectations? I did.
> 
> I did not think they would give them this kind of rights deal for the numbers they’re doing.


Well I thought this was close to the deal they were on. As of 2016, your average Raw cost $880k to put on. 51 shows a year, that's close to $45 million. AEW were getting their production costs covered. 

AEW gets 900k, which is about 45% of Raw's 2 million or so (let's just call it an even 2). AEW is getting $22.5 million per hour per year. A little less now with the new show. WWE gets $100 million. So they're not even charging a quarter of what WWE is for an hour of content when they've got about 45% of the viewership. It's a steal from TNT's perspective. 

I thought the goal was always to get _more_ rights. $100 million per year, or something like that. Would make the Khans richer and more than cover production and talent. Still puts you at about half-price what WWE is, which means you could probably safely get away with 1 million viewers before questions really start getting asked. 

The big victory would have been if AEW could have challenged Raw and SmackDown in the ratings (and there's no reason why a wrestling show couldn't), and they still undercut WWE's rights fees. Because USA and FOX are not going to want to pay $100 million per hour if Tony Khan is only asking for $50 for the same thing. 

And I guess that's kind of what's happening here, except Tony hasn't really entered the giant profit margins. If this were $100 million? Man, that would be fucking glorious for them.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Derek30 said:


> Great news. I've heard Dynamite is doing quite well up here in Canada and can't wait for them to tour north of the border. I know Winnipeg will go haywire for Jericho and Omega.
> 
> I don't post much but I do enjoy the Wood/Garty rivalry. A little too much flipping for my liking but I'll accept it


Haha! I'm ground-and-pound, thank you very much. I only bust out the dives for the large crowd.


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

Gh0stFace said:


> This is great. BTW I'm pretty convinced now that no matter happens that The Wood will find a way to spin reality in order to not injure his ego such as by calling this a "PR stunt", lol. The Dude is man and mature enough to transcend his ego and admit he was wrong about certain things which is very admirable.


of course he will they could come out this week and bust out 3 million views and he'd still spin it as a negative


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

The Wood said:


> Well I thought this was close to the deal they were on. As of 2016, your average Raw cost $880k to put on. 51 shows a year, that's close to $45 million. AEW were getting their production costs covered.
> 
> AEW gets 900k, which is about 45% of Raw's 2 million or so (let's just call it an even 2). AEW is getting $22.5 million per hour per year. A little less now with the new show. WWE gets $100 million. So they're not even charging a quarter of what WWE is for an hour of content when they've got about 45% of the viewership. It's a steal from TNT's perspective.
> 
> ...


Great points. You’re absolutely right that there is no reason why a wrestling show can’t be doing at least 1.5 million viewers and eventually what WWE is doing.

However, I was under the impression that Turner is still covering the production cost and this $45 million a year was a rights fee on top of that.

Maybe I’m wrong


----------



## Benoit's Weight Machine (Dec 28, 2019)

I would rather that Dark stay on YouTube in its current form because TNT will go overboard with the commercials just as they do with Dynamite. I think that the 2nd TNT show should be a combination of Road to with some promos and dark matches sprinkled in.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Roxinius said:


> of course he will they could come out this week and bust out 3 million views and he'd still spin it as a negative


No, 3 million would be great. Much better than 900k.



The Dude said:


> Great points. You’re absolutely right that there is no reason why a wrestling show can’t be doing at least 1.5 million viewers and eventually what WWE is doing.
> 
> However, I was under the impression that Turner is still covering the production cost and this $45 million a year was a rights fee on top of that.
> 
> Maybe I’m wrong


If they're getting production costs AND $45 million, that's closer to the $100 million, which is excellent for them. But I read the deal is worth about $125 million or something, so I took that to mean that they're now getting those rights fees _instead_ of production costs, because if they're getting production costs and the rights, it puts the deal as being worth about $250 million, which I'm sure Dave would have been all over.

If it is for both, then that's a stellar deal, and I don't know why TNT would negotiate that when they've got them locked in for just production costs for two years. Idiots, lol.

Although that might explain why they would double-down on a deal with AEW...


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

If they bring DARK to TV then they will need to step up their post-production game. Having nearly a week to make edits and they are have plenty of technical issues still. And please do not allow another botch like last week when she sold the air of Kong moving her arms. That never should have made the show.


----------



## RiverFenix (Dec 10, 2011)

> > TNT is taking over YouTube series “AEW Dark,” Turner president Kevin Reilly told TheWrap hours later during his executive session at the Television Critics Association press tour.
> > “AEW Dark” currently streams Tuesdays on YouTube, but Reilly told us he does not yet have a weeknight for the cable version. The adapted show, which he said may be rebranded and renamed, will air weekly on TNT — though perhaps not 52 weeks per year, Reilly said.
> > “We’re going to embellish [‘AEW Dark’ on YouTube] and put some additional material, kind of behind-the-scenes, kind of docu-follow stuff, if you will, about the athletes and the stories,” Reilly said. “We think that’s going to end up being a really good, robust, different kind of show.”
> > But will there still be an “AEW Dark” presence on YouTube? Or any original All Elite Wrestling matches, for that matter?
> > ...











TNT Renews 'All Elite Wrestling: Dynamite' Through 2023, Will Adapt YouTube Series 'AEW Dark' for TV


"All Elite Wrestling: Dynamite" has been renewed by TNT through 2023. Additionally, TNT is adopting YouTube series "AEW Dark."




www.thewrap.com





So basically DARK in-ring + Road To character segments

Also seems like it will be a weekend show. Being on television will surely up the production value from youtube. I wonder if Taz and Goldenboy will get the commentary gig, leaving Ross, Excalibur and Schiavone on Dynamite.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

optikk sucks said:


> I really love seeing these anti-AEW goofs being proven wrong consistently.
> 
> 1. Pushing guys like Sonny Kiss, who hasn't been on TV for a long time.
> 2. Not being able to do more than 6-700k in ratings. What did they do these past couple weeks?
> ...


Don't forget the arbitrary they can't reach a million viewers posts which makes them failures. They will keep pushing that one I guess.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

Ham and Egger said:


> New Japan made 50 million in revenue last year so I currently hold them as the second biggest in the world. AEW is certainly a mystery as to what kind of money they'll be making but they havent even been around for a full calendar year so it's to early to tell.


If that's all new Japan made then aew will surpass them by a lot this year revenue wise. Remember this is just one part and it's 45million. Just 2 ppvs doing 100k buys would give them the extra 5 million to match njpw. Then the other two ppv, ticket sales, merch and international tv deals AEW would definitely be the number 2 company in the world if we are measuring it by revenue.



All Elite Wanking said:


> It's almost like the sole argument of ratings holds MUCH less weight in 2020 and people still arguing over live TV ratings are wasting time.
> 
> Almost....


Tv ratings is still what pays the most money, and is why they got this deal. That's why it's talked about more than the other things. Plus it's publicly available info and it's audited, unlike steaming views, so it's the only reliable thing we have to go by. 

But that 32million from all platforms, not just cable, that's an average of almost 2.3 million per episode over the first 14 weeks. That's really important for aew because those are people who will be likely to buy merch, tickets and ppv.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Well, they won't get that much off PPV. They don't charge as much for it internationally as they do domestically, and they only get 60k domestically. The four PPVs should get over that line though. Then it's just a matter of comparing it to the expenses as to where they come up.


----------



## Soul Rex (Nov 26, 2017)

NXT Only said:


> Now go back to being a primary wrestling based show with stories told through in ring action.


No fuck that boring shit ya nerds.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

I hope with this new deal tnt will give them an overrun. Would help the end of the show be less predictable.


----------



## Death Rider (May 18, 2011)

Took Wood off ignore to have a laugh at his spin. Was not disappointed.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Death Rider said:


> Took Wood off ignore to have a laugh at his spin. Was not disappointed.


Would love to hear what's spin about it.


----------



## the_flock (Nov 23, 2016)

So the 2nd show is Dark and more interview segments, meaning all the stories which are being played out on BTE still don't get shown on TV, so no one knows what the fuck is even happening still. 

Not the way I would have gone personally. I would have called it Lightning as a rib on Thunder and had all the flip floppy shit on there with a secondary title being introduced.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

The Wood said:


> Well I thought this was close to the deal they were on. As of 2016, your average Raw cost $880k to put on. 51 shows a year, that's close to $45 million. AEW were getting their production costs covered.
> 
> AEW gets 900k, which is about 45% of Raw's 2 million or so (let's just call it an even 2). AEW is getting $22.5 million per hour per year. A little less now with the new show. WWE gets $100 million. So they're not even charging a quarter of what WWE is for an hour of content when they've got about 45% of the viewership. It's a steal from TNT's perspective.
> 
> ...


I think it is Tony Khan betting on themselves. I’m sure he had $100m as THE number daddy would let him burn. Now they are likely to get that back quickly. Who is to say Daddy Khan doesn’t let him drop a fat check on Cena and Lesnar NOW, now that he sees what Tony and the boys have done?


----------



## Dark Emperor (Jul 31, 2007)

It's a good deal for AEW in terms of security and long term. Everyone in the company should be pleased with this.

However fans losing their shit over this deal are clearly unaware of the numbers WWE generates from TV deals

Smackdown: $200m per year for 5yrs ($1bn)
WWE Raw: $270m per year over 5yrs ($1.35bn)
NXT: Rumour is $30m but not quite sure.
So as The Wood says, AEW with around 40-45% of Raw and Smackdown viewership had the potential to get much higher fees if they bided their time and allowed other networks to get into a bidding war. However from a new company's perceptive, i understand why they took the current deal on offer.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

bdon said:


> I think it is Tony Khan betting on themselves. I’m sure he had $100m as THE number daddy would let him burn. Now they are likely to get that back quickly. Who is to say Daddy Khan doesn’t let him drop a fat check on Cena and Lesnar NOW, now that he sees what Tony and the boys have done?


That’s a fair point. If it encourages Shad to pony up, then that’s good. But they’ll have to wait until Lesnar’s contract is up, and Heyman is figured in right now. And Cena is the one guy that has not been interested.

They could probably have gotten more with a stronger investment in stars earlier too.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Dark Emperor said:


> It's a good deal for AEW in terms of security and long term. Everyone in the company should be pleased with this.
> 
> However fans losing their shit over this deal are clearly unaware of the numbers WWE generates from TV deals
> 
> ...


That's 45+m a year is a lot for a company barely a year old.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Chip Chipperson said:


> - TNT giving them this money doesn't mean AEW is suddenly good. A TNT exec was not sitting there watching Dynamite these past few months nodding their heads saying "This is good shit!". AEW is either hitting the targets they want them to or they think AEW will eventually hit the targets they want them to. This does not magically mean AEW is a great show and the haters are wrong just that there is a built in fan base that will back them.


I think it's funny you left out the third possibility of TNT thinking AEW is a huge success. That makes more sense considering the amount of investment in both money and TV time they're putting in. And les's not pretend that AEW's fate on TV wasn't a subject of interest for AEW haters.


----------



## dolphin1989 (Jan 7, 2020)

imthegame19 said:


> I'm guessing it will be like Dark. Or some type of talk show like WWE backstage or something. I don't expect another weekly live show or anything.


Honestly they have some many story lines and things going on , I personally think they need to add a 2nd two hour show. Everything is too congested, right now.


----------



## Balor fan (May 9, 2017)

Well honestly this deal is just ok. AEW wrestlers can sleep at night knowing they are safe for 3 years.

But this is not some jaw dropping deal like some people are imagining. The average AEW wrestler pay will be very low since they cant do high salaries with just 45 million. Also it rules out any major name signing in the next 3 years.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Balor fan said:


> Well honestly this deal is just ok. AEW wrestlers can sleep at night knowing they are safe for 3 years.
> 
> But this is not some jaw dropping deal like some people are imagining. The average AEW wrestler pay will be very low since they cant do high salaries with just 45 million. Also it rules out any major name signing in the next 3 years.


They also make money through ticket sales, PPV, merchandise, international tv deals, fitetv, youtube etc. Not just this money.
its a fantastic deal for a start-up.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Balor fan said:


> Well honestly this deal is just ok. AEW wrestlers can sleep at night knowing they are safe for 3 years.
> 
> But this is not some jaw dropping deal like some people are imagining. The average AEW wrestler pay will be very low since they cant do high salaries with just 45 million. Also it rules out any major name signing in the next 3 years.


It's almost 4 years and AEW wrestlers work one day a week. Wrestlers shouldn't come here expecting million dollars per year to work 50 something dates or less.


Also you are ignoring other t.v. deals in Canada, UK and money got AEW plus on Fite as well. Along with attendance, YouTube, merchandise and ppv buys. If TNA could get major names to sign(AEW making more from TNT then TNA did from Spike). AEW will have no problem doing it as well. That's if they are interested.


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

Balor fan said:


> Well honestly this deal is just ok. AEW wrestlers can sleep at night knowing they are safe for 3 years.
> 
> But this is not some jaw dropping deal like some people are imagining. The average AEW wrestler pay will be very low since they cant do high salaries with just 45 million. Also it rules out any major name signing in the next 3 years.


They still get 1/2 the ad money on top of the $45 million. Let that digest for a second. If TNT is willing to pay $45 million for rights, that means the ad money is damn high to give that out and 1/2 of the ad money on top of it.

And that doesn’t even begin to describe their other revenue. It’s a landmark deal, no other company in the history of pro wrestling has had anywhere close to this level of revenue 12 months in. 

Haters will hate but AEW is like a shrimp boat and that net keeps getting bigger and bigger. And after the shows they’ve been putting on, wow, what momentum for AEW.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

TNT President Kevin Reilly discussed All Elite Wrestling Dynamite's new TV pact during the Television Critics Association press tour in Los Angeles yesterday, commenting, “I just had this idea that this was the time to invest. This is a startup. It’s already over-delivered out of the gate. That’s really when you want to hit the gasoline a little bit. The guys already have ideas about additional talent and things they want to do and I wanted to incentivize them as a partner to do that. We also wanted to gave fans and talent who potentially want to come work with us the sense that this is here to stay. You can invest in it, it’s here to stay, and it’s only going to get better.”


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

Dark Emperor said:


> It's a good deal for AEW in terms of security and long term. Everyone in the company should be pleased with this.
> 
> However fans losing their shit over this deal are clearly unaware of the numbers WWE generates from TV deals
> 
> ...


It took WWE decades to get those deals and years of working with advertisers to change their image from trash to family-friendly. Compared to the current deals yeah they are not comparable, but just look at what Smackdown was making in the previous contract that ended last fall, $30-50 million a year, as most of the money USA was paying was because of the flagship show RAW. Combined they made $150-180million a year for the last contract that just ended. For a brand new league, AEW made out well.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

The Wood said:


> That’s a fair point. If it encourages Shad to pony up, then that’s good. But they’ll have to wait until Lesnar’s contract is up, and Heyman is figured in right now. And Cena is the one guy that has not been interested.
> 
> They could probably have gotten more with a stronger investment in stars earlier too.


The second show could potentially lead to, what I’m sure a segment of the fanbase will cry about, more promos and backstage story-telling stuff. You don’t have to go full-on Russo, but there can absolutely be more story-based drama. Put some of the BTE stuff on that you plan to develop into the main show to further angles and start new ones.

It isn’t a massive win, but this is a win for wrestling as a whole. You bring the investment, show that there is an audience for it, and the entertainment industry will be interested in what you’re providing.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

imthegame19 said:


> TNT President Kevin Reilly discussed All Elite Wrestling Dynamite's new TV pact during the Television Critics Association press tour in Los Angeles yesterday, commenting, “I just had this idea that this was the time to invest. This is a startup. It’s already over-delivered out of the gate. That’s really when you want to hit the gasoline a little bit. The guys already have ideas about additional talent and things they want to do and I wanted to incentivize them as a partner to do that. We also wanted to gave fans and talent who potentially want to come work with us the sense that this is here to stay. You can invest in it, it’s here to stay, and it’s only going to get better.”


another interesting quote from that article


> And although fans of pro wrestling are no doubt hoping for a repeat of the so-called Monday Night Wars between WCW and WWE, Reilly says there are currently no plans to air the new show on Monday nights against WWE’s “Raw.”


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

“Over-delivered” :banderas:


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

I listened to Meltzer he said AEW still splitting ad revenue for Dynamite and this second show. While production costs now go into the 44 million a year. Still AEW should be making 20 million plus a year from this tv deal. He said this deal now makes AEW profitable company. Which probably wasn't going to happen without this deal.


Original deal with TNT was for two years. So TNT decided to redo the deal now. Giving them money now they didnt have to. In order to likely get them at a cheaper price then they would have in 2022-2023. Plus TNT has option for 2024 at larger amount. 

It's a good deal for both TNT and AEW IMO. AEW would have jumped at this money and security 4 months ago. While TNT sees the asset they have and its potential growth. So they are making big investment in them. Thinking they are saving millions and millions of dollars a few years now.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

Death Rider said:


> Took Wood off ignore to have a laugh at his spin. Was not disappointed.


why did I do that, I wasted time I will never get back lol.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

imthegame19 said:


> I listened to Meltzer he said AEW still splitting ad revenue for Dynamite and this second show. While production costs now go into the 44 million a year. Still AEW should be making 20 million plus a year from this tv deal. He said this deal now makes AEW profitable company. Which probably wasn't going to happen without this deal.
> 
> 
> Original deal with TNT was for two years. So TNT decided to redo the deal now. Giving them money now they didnt have to. In order to likely get them at a cheaper price then they would have in 2022-2023. Plus TNT has option for 2024 at larger amount.
> ...


Wow, that's a great deal if they still get ad revenue plus more production costs. From that quote of the exec at TNT, he said this was the time to invest in the startup because it will help them grow, and that's what they are doing, and both parties will see long term benefits if it works out well. With this, I could see them singing more guys to be exclusive so they don't have scheduling conflicts as they had with Starlander a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## umagamanc (Jul 24, 2018)

This is excellent news. I'm very happy that TNT are pleased with AEW's performance. It really does provide AEW with security and stability for three years to grow their product. 



Jonhern said:


> I hope with this new deal tnt will give them an overrun. Would help the end of the show be less predictable.


Yes, and less rushed too.



imthegame19 said:


> TNT President Kevin Reilly discussed All Elite Wrestling Dynamite's new TV pact during the Television Critics Association press tour in Los Angeles yesterday, commenting, “I just had this idea that this was the time to invest. This is a startup. It’s already over-delivered out of the gate. That’s really when you want to hit the gasoline a little bit. *The guys already have ideas about additional talent and things they want to do and I wanted to incentivize them as a partner to do that.* *We also wanted to gave fans and talent who potentially want to come work with us the sense that this is here to stay.* You can invest in it, it’s here to stay, and it’s only going to get better.”


After missing out on some wrestlers they may have wished to sign (e.g. Orton, Scurll), it looks like AEW are trying to improve their pitch to attract more renowned names. It's very plausible then that Brodie Lee, Brian Cage, and possibly Matt Hardy are incoming. The Revival too. This is very good because their singles roster outside the main event, other than for a few names (Guevara, MJF, Darby Allin, Luchasaurus), it is relatively thin. Let's hope they improve their women's division too.


----------



## Balor fan (May 9, 2017)

TKO Wrestling said:


> They still get 1/2 the ad money on top of the $45 million. Let that digest for a second. If TNT is willing to pay $45 million for rights, that means the ad money is damn high to give that out and 1/2 of the ad money on top of it.
> 
> And that doesn’t even begin to describe their other revenue. It’s a landmark deal, no other company in the history of pro wrestling has had anywhere close to this level of revenue 12 months in.
> 
> Haters will hate but AEW is like a shrimp boat and that net keeps getting bigger and bigger. And after the shows they’ve been putting on, wow, what momentum for AEW.


Like someone pointed out above, the production costs will be about 44 million a year. They will be profitable with this deal but not by much. They just avoided a loss with this deal.

AEW has a net alright but someone else has a massive net-WWE. The real danger is when WWE will start poaching AEW talents. WWE can easily throw a million $ plus contract at someone like MJF and poach him at the right time. 

Only time will tell if AEW wrestlers will jump ship or not when WWE opens that fat wallet.


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

TKO Wrestling said:


> They still get 1/2 the ad money on top of the $45 million. Let that digest for a second. If TNT is willing to pay $45 million for rights, that means the ad money is damn high to give that out and 1/2 of the ad money on top of it.
> 
> And that doesn’t even begin to describe their other revenue. It’s a landmark deal, no other company in the history of pro wrestling has had anywhere close to this level of revenue 12 months in.
> 
> Haters will hate but AEW is like a shrimp boat and that net keeps getting bigger and bigger. And after the shows they’ve been putting on, wow, what momentum for AEW.


Need to subtract at least $26 million from that $45 million. TNT will no longer be covering the costs of production.


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

imthegame19 said:


> TNT President Kevin Reilly discussed All Elite Wrestling Dynamite's new TV pact during the Television Critics Association press tour in Los Angeles yesterday, commenting, “I just had this idea that this was the time to invest. This is a startup. It’s already over-delivered out of the gate. That’s really when you want to hit the gasoline a little bit. The guys already have ideas about additional talent and things they want to do and I wanted to incentivize them as a partner to do that. We also wanted to gave fans and talent who potentially want to come work with us the sense that this is here to stay. You can invest in it, it’s here to stay, and it’s only going to get better.”


Exactly what I figured. Folks, someone BIG is _this close_ to signing in AEW and this announcement was used as a way to lure them past the finish line.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

Balor fan said:


> Like someone pointed out above, the production costs will be about 44 million a year. They will be profitable with this deal but not by much. They just avoided a loss with this deal.
> 
> AEW has a net alright but someone else has a massive net-WWE. The real danger is when WWE will start poaching AEW talents. WWE can easily throw a million $ plus contract at someone like MJF and poach him at the right time.
> 
> Only time will tell if AEW wrestlers will jump ship or not when WWE opens that fat wallet.


Mjf signed till 2024


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Balor fan said:


> Like someone pointed out above, the production costs will be about 44 million a year. They will be profitable with this deal but not by much. They just avoided a loss with this deal.
> 
> AEW has a net alright but someone else has a massive net-WWE. The real danger is when WWE will start poaching AEW talents. WWE can easily throw a million $ plus contract at someone like MJF and poach him at the right time.
> 
> Only time will tell if AEW wrestlers will jump ship or not when WWE opens that fat wallet.


The production cost is said to be 20m to 25m - so, this is still a pretty big hike


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

With creating potential four hours of tv. Signing Cage, Brodie Lee and Matt Hardy and Revival. Would be a big addition to their roster. If they can those guys they can do mid card title. Make second TNT show good and still do YouTube show with lower card matches.


----------



## Taroostyles (Apr 1, 2007)

Just imagine if they had listened to Cornette and his minions, gonna be interesting to hear what he has to say.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

Taroostyles said:


> Just imagine if they had listened to Cornette and his minions, gonna be interesting to hear what he has to say.


You can see what happens to with the wrestling Courgette and his minions like..... every week on Youtube with NWA powerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhwattaworldwhattaworlddrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

Balor fan said:


> Like someone pointed out above, the production costs will be about 44 million a year. They will be profitable with this deal but not by much. They just avoided a loss with this deal.
> 
> AEW has a net alright but someone else has a massive net-WWE. The real danger is when WWE will start poaching AEW talents. WWE can easily throw a million $ plus contract at someone like MJF and poach him at the right time.
> 
> Only time will tell if AEW wrestlers will jump ship or not when WWE opens that fat wallet.


that was raw's production cost, AEW is not going to have the same production costs, WWE is a bigger company and has a ton of writers and producers and crew, which AEW does not have. I have been to both shows and the difference in the size of crew is very noticeable. Reports have said AEW has $500k production per episode, which would be $26 million a year in production costs. TNT is not just giving them what they were already paying for, they are giving them an infusion to go out and get new talent and be able to persuade other talents that AEW will not be a flash in the pan and can provide some stability. 

Yes, that is always the danger, WWE can go and poach talent, but NJPW has been able to survive that, not to mention the core AEW talent leaving, with their developmental system. That is one-way AEW can protect against that, start-up their own pipeline of young talent, maybe partner with a current indy to run it for them like WWE used to do with OVW or currently does with Evolve even though they have NXT in house.


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

I worry about Dark being on TV and failing. Are people going to expect the same ratings as Dynamite, kinda like Raw & Smackdown are so similiar, or are they going to be realistic and allow for a Raw to NXT rating ratio drop from Dynamite to Dark?

Because if Dark is taken of TNT it will make AEW look really bad.


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

By the quotes given by the TNT gentleman above and what we know they are not willing to go up against, then it sounds like Friday is the only option available. 

Khan has said they will never oppose the NFL. That removes Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. TNT will not consider Tuesday and Thursday due to the NBA. And of course Dynamite is Wednesday. 

I just am not sure how well a second AEW show will fair going head-to-head with SmackDown


----------



## TheFiend666 (Oct 5, 2019)

Who said it was even going to cancelled? lol


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

TKO Wrestling said:


> I worry about Dark being on TV and failing. Are people going to expect the same ratings as Dynamite, kinda like Raw & Smackdown are so similiar, or are they going to be realistic and allow for a Raw to NXT rating ratio drop from Dynamite to Dark?
> 
> Because if Dark is taken of TNT it will make AEW look really bad.


TV wants content - by sounds of it will be mainly promos & videos. Ratings expection from network would be low


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

Bloody Warpath said:


> By the quotes given by the TNT gentleman above and what we know they are not willing to go up against, then it sounds like Friday is the only option available.
> 
> Khan has said they will never oppose the NFL. That removes Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. TNT will not consider Tuesday and Thursday due to the NBA. And of course Dynamite is Wednesday.
> 
> I just am not sure how well a second AEW show will fair going head-to-head with SmackDown


I doubt they won't do Saturday because the NFL does one or two games a year on Saturday once College Football is done. Also, it could still be Tuesday, the exec said it might not be on all year, so maybe when they don't have NBA games, they don't have games every Tuesday during the season, and during the off-season. I actually think Saturday would work best, could be similar to how WWF used Heat. A show to put on other talent and then during a PPV week a live lead-in on freeish tv to hype the show up and do some preshow matches.


----------



## kingfrass44 (Sep 19, 2019)

DOTL said:


> That's 45+m a year is a lot for a company barely a year old.


45+m Not much Regardless Age


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

kingfrass44 said:


> 45+m Not much Regardless Age


It's more than what they've been getting and according to reports they still get ad rev from Dynamite and the new Dark show. There's no way to look on this as a loss.


----------



## Aedubya (Jul 12, 2019)

A Saturday morning show I'll bet


----------



## Cult03 (Oct 31, 2016)

NXT Only said:


> This won’t stop posters on here from ruining every show/angle/performer unfortunately.


If a few words on here ruins it, it can't have been that good in the first place.

This is good news by the way. For the most part I am excited and I hope they grab the opportunity with both hands and offer us some must see television. Half of this thread is filled with some bullshit though. They have plenty to fix and now they have the time to fix it. Surely even the most staunch AEW sycophants can admit this?


----------



## Cult03 (Oct 31, 2016)

Death Rider said:


> Please be more salty. Haters have been saying it is going to be canned but you were WRONG.


Can you post the comments saying this? I haven't seen it as often as this thread is trying to make out. And even if I have it was by people who just want them to get better. Like what the fuck is wrong with wanting them to get better?


----------



## Cult03 (Oct 31, 2016)

Garty said:


> Nobody thinks that AEW will "defeat" WWE and put them out of business, that's just more spin, coming from "your side" of the coin. There is no AEW vs WWE. Don't forget that NXT was put on the air only because of AEW's pending show. Everything that WWE has done these past few months (many multi 5-year contracts, signing anyone they can get, using NXT as a 3rd brand only now after exsisting quietly for the past, what 8+ years, etc.) is completely a reaction to AEW.
> 
> AEW was created as an alternative to WWE. The ways in which "your side" takes "alternative" to mean, does not mean that you are right, or that I am wrong. They are opinions. Not facts. Not law. You are no better than I or anyone else here and "we" are no better than you either. We all have differing opinions (WOW shocking I know) on things. That does not mean that what you say should be taken as Gospel, nor should it allow you to call "us" losers, crybabies, pussies, psychos, delusional... whatever, for disagreeing with your "factoids". This forum is not a one-way street.
> 
> If an AEW fan cannot express their excitement and thoughts about this announcement, after all has been said, done and torn apart by the "haters", I think we can express that excitement, without being called "fanboys" for 1 day.


By all means, express your excitement. But the first 4 pages in here are specifically calling people out and straight up trolling. There are a few good AEW fans on here but there's 3 specifically that can't accept criticism without going off their rocker and that isn't what a good fan does. To those who can carry out conversations without getting weird like this bloke does, I thank you for not being a massive embarrassment. The sooner you super fans can talk about the flaws the better this company will become and that's an exciting prospect.


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

Jonhern said:


> I doubt they won't do Saturday because the NFL does one or two games a year on Saturday once College Football is done. Also, it could still be Tuesday, the exec said it might not be on all year, so maybe when they don't have NBA games, they don't have games every Tuesday during the season, and during the off-season. I actually think Saturday would work best, could be similar to how WWF used Heat. A show to put on other talent and then during a PPV week a live lead-in on freeish tv to hype the show up and do some preshow matches.


I don't know man, the NBA season is so stinking long. I no longer follow the NBA so I am sure that I am wrong, but it feels like there are games on every night. We are just all sitting in the speculation phase at the moment. I was just basing my opinions on what the TNT dude said and Meltzer. For all we know, a new day of the week could be created lol


----------



## Cult03 (Oct 31, 2016)

Garty said:


> Yeah, it's hard to believe that you WOULDN'T respond to "us" fanboys. It wasn't "if", it was only "when".  You shitting on AEW every day, is as sure as, tonight being dark and tomorrow being sunny. Your phone must have been on fire all day, waiting to spin this good news, into, no surprise, bad news. Your "facts" again are not proof of anything! You're assuming that they're not profitable. You're assuming they'll still go out of business in a year or two. You're assuming that the ratings don't prove anything to "bestow" such a huge (small and worthless) re-negotiated TV contract. Do you ACTUALLY believe your own "fact", that this was a PR stunt?! REALLY? Nothing but a PR stunt?  So, what you're saying, using your spin, this whole thing is a charade, or that none of it is real?! Holy shit Wood, just stop and read your own words for a change.
> 
> READ CAREFULLY WOOD...
> 
> ...


First of all, you're getting creepy man

And second, I think we can all agree that those who are constantly negative aren't as bad or dramatic as the three wise men who can't stand anything negative being said about AEW? Everyone needs to settle the fuck down, this is good news and a small win but the way some of these weirdos are acting it's just dishonest. Very few people have said the company will go out of business. Even these quotes don't say it.


----------



## BigCy (Nov 10, 2012)

Pretty sweet deal for AEW. Looks like it will be then end of 2023 when they go out of business then 

I'm glad they could pull it off, AEW isn't much my cup of tea but I know so many others like them and it creates more interest and work for wrestlers and gives fans something else to watch. Can't see anything but an overall net positive on all fronts. I won't get too excited and do the truffle shuffle yet though unless their ratings get over a mil CONSISTENTLY. As some have stated, TNT is likely expecting a 1.1-1.2 if I'm reading the reports right so they have their work cut out for them. I figured it would be the end of 2020 before something like this occured and that only being if they were always above a mil. 

You can add me in with @The Dude being surprised by the news and partly being wrong (partly because I DID think they at least had all of 2020 regardless of what happened.) 

I'll still stick with NJPW as my primary viewing but congrats AEW fans!


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

BigCy said:


> Pretty sweet deal for AEW. Looks like it will be then end of 2023 when they go out of business then
> 
> I'm glad they could pull it off, AEW isn't much my cup of tea but I know so many others like them and it creates more interest and work for wrestlers and gives fans something else to watch. Can't see anything but an overall net positive on all fronts. I won't get too excited and do the truffle shuffle yet though unless their ratings get over a mil CONSISTENTLY. As some have stated, TNT is likely expecting a 1.1-1.2 if I'm reading the reports right so they have their work cut out for them. I figured it would be the end of 2020 before something like this occured and that only being if they were always above a mil.
> 
> ...


Why shouldn't fans get excited? It doesn't matter if they average 750,000 viewers they are on TNT through 2023.


Look at it this way. If Raw and Smackdown are worth 200-260 million per year at 2 to 2.4 million viewers. Well AEW at 900,000 viewers is clearly worth 44 million a year. What happen is TNT is projecting them to grow into the 1.2-1.4 range by end of 2021(when AEW deal with TNT ended).

So if they are doing even 1.3 million viewers and obviously good in 18-49 demo. Well their value could be over 100 million a year. 

So TNT basically said you proved your worth to our network. How about we redo the contract and pay you upfront money for 2020 and 2021. 


With in return TNT getting two year extension. So AEW is taking the guaranteed money now and security. Even though they might have gotten a lot more money in 2022. 


While on TNT side they get a extra show and if it does even 400,000-500,000 viewers it's better then what they usually showing. So even if AEW ratings never increase and they drop to say 700,000 range. Well TNT still likely to get their money's worth between two shows. But they won't likely get better tv deal then that in 2024.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

Cult03 said:


> First of all, you're getting creepy man
> 
> And second, I think we can all agree that those who are constantly negative aren't as bad or dramatic as the three wise men who can't stand anything negative being said about AEW? Everyone needs to settle the fuck down, this is good news and a small win but the way some of these weirdos are acting it's just dishonest. Very few people have said the company will go out of business. Even these quotes don't say it.


I can assure uou the negative people are just as bad.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

TKO Wrestling said:


> I worry about Dark being on TV and failing. Are people going to expect the same ratings as Dynamite, kinda like Raw & Smackdown are so similiar, or are they going to be realistic and allow for a Raw to NXT rating ratio drop from Dynamite to Dark?
> 
> Because if Dark is taken of TNT it will make AEW look really bad.


Don't be worried. It's going to be a taped one hour show. Yes I think they will have better matches (or at least one big match) then we currently get most weeks on Dark. Then they will mix in a lot of the Road to stuff or BTE or promos that go on social media that a lot of fans miss. 

Now if they watch these two shows they probably won't miss storyline stuff if they are. If this show even doing even 400,000 viewers TNT will be happy. This is bonus for them and kind of insurance incase Dynamite numbers drop some. Since now they have two shows that will do better ratings when they usually have.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> I think it's funny you left out the third possibility of TNT thinking AEW is a huge success. That makes more sense considering the amount of investment in both money and TV time they're putting in. And les's not pretend that AEW's fate on TV wasn't a subject of interest for AEW haters.


It’s not much money to invest in live entertainment over four years AT ALL. In two years, NXT could realistically be making double that. This is a very safe move. 



bdon said:


> The second show could potentially lead to, what I’m sure a segment of the fanbase will cry about, more promos and backstage story-telling stuff. You don’t have to go full-on Russo, but there can absolutely be more story-based drama. Put some of the BTE stuff on that you plan to develop into the main show to further angles and start new ones.
> 
> It isn’t a massive win, but this is a win for wrestling as a whole. You bring the investment, show that there is an audience for it, and the entertainment industry will be interested in what you’re providing.


For the record, I’m not even one of those fans. I want pro-wrestling. I want a blend of promos and psychology. Guys talking shit then beating the shit out of each other.

I think an extra show stretches them too far, will dilute them, and create similar problems for them as it does WWE, but magnified. 



Pippen94 said:


> Mjf signed till 2024


He could always ask for a release. 



Taroostyles said:


> Just imagine if they had listened to Cornette and his minions, gonna be interesting to hear what he has to say.


They might have gone after some real stars and cultivated a culture that may have encouraged CM Punk, Randy Orton and Cain Velasquez to sign. They could have been signing a $100 million a year deal. 



TheFiend666 said:


> Who said it was even going to cancelled? lol


Literally no one. It’s made-up nonsense by AEW fanboys because they need to lie to feel better about their points.

On the subject of cancelling: we don’t know the details of this deal. I have always been very skeptical that FOX is actually stuck with AEW, and I’d be surprised if there isn’t an out-clause with AEW and TNT. There’s no guarantee they can’t be cancelled with this deal. If Dynamite is getting <450k viewers, I don’t expect TNT to keep running it in prime time.

I’m not saying that WILL happen! Calm your nerdy farms. I’m just saying they’re not bulletproof simply because they’ve tentatively got a total of $125 million or whatever coming in.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Bloody Warpath said:


> By the quotes given by the TNT gentleman above and what we know they are not willing to go up against, then it sounds like Friday is the only option available.
> 
> Khan has said they will never oppose the NFL. That removes Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. TNT will not consider Tuesday and Thursday due to the NBA. And of course Dynamite is Wednesday.
> 
> I just am not sure how well a second AEW show will fair going head-to-head with SmackDown


If they go on Friday they could start an hour before SD. It won’t be 2 hour show. Idk about the watershed issue, but I would not be opposed to a PG second show.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

It could be on Tuesday before NBA(which isn't on every Tuesday on TNT) or Friday at 9pm. I don't think TNT expecting big ratings from this show. They will put it in time slot usually they consider weak or dead one. Then hope wrestling fans can watch it and give that time slot a boost from what they normally get.


----------



## Hangman (Feb 3, 2017)

Mox bringing home the bacon.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

Bloody Warpath said:


> I don't know man, the NBA season is so stinking long. I no longer follow the NBA so I am sure that I am wrong, but it feels like there are games on every night. We are just all sitting in the speculation phase at the moment. I was just basing my opinions on what the TNT dude said and Meltzer. For all we know, a new day of the week could be created lol


It is long but TNT does not carry it every week, like this week they had games on Tuesday but they were on ESPN, not TNT.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

BigCy said:


> Pretty sweet deal for AEW. Looks like it will be then end of 2023 when they go out of business then
> 
> I'm glad they could pull it off, AEW isn't much my cup of tea but I know so many others like them and it creates more interest and work for wrestlers and gives fans something else to watch. Can't see anything but an overall net positive on all fronts. I won't get too excited and do the truffle shuffle yet though unless their ratings get over a mil CONSISTENTLY. As some have stated, TNT is likely expecting a 1.1-1.2 if I'm reading the reports right so they have their work cut out for them. I figured it would be the end of 2020 before something like this occured and that only being if they were always above a mil.
> 
> ...


Again, over a million doesn't matter, its an arbitrary number being thrown around by people who were all wrong, and those of us focusing on the demo have been proven right. TNT won't give a fuck if they do a million but do the same demo, and they will be ecstatic if they do under a million but do a .50 demo like south park for instance. The only mention of 1.2 million was about the dvr +7 numbers which they just use for press releases to give out higher numbers, it doesn't mean much to them business-wise, TNT anyway, it's just good copy.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> It’s not much money to invest in live entertainment over four years AT ALL. In two years, NXT could realistically be making double that. This is a very safe move.


The conversation isn't about how much they're risking. It's the fact they're willing to double down on AEW at all. No one is doing that for NXT.


----------



## Zapato (Jun 7, 2015)

I’d wager no one is doing it for NXT yet. Not to downplay AEW, fairplay to them and the competition is great. But that‘s not to say someone does not double down on NXT at some point. Here in the UK at least we actually have it on BT Sport now, so using my Dad as an example he now knows it exists and was excitedly telling me about NXT UK.

I wonder if ITV are picking up the secondary AEW show (sorry if someone has already answered that)? Kahn will have to fully stock up his roster too you’d expect.


----------



## incomplete moron (Nov 28, 2019)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> bEiNg CaNcElLeD
> tHeY’rE dOiNg iT wRoNg
> lEsS fLiPs
> nO sToRiEs


 just cuz they got a deal til '23 doesn't mean those weren't valid criticisms lol. u fanatics (doesn't matter if it's for wwe or aew or njpw or mjw, y'all the same basically) are embarassing




Chip Chipperson said:


> Okay, so the AEW fans have come out in force yelling and screaming at the "haters" (I don't think we're haters just don't like the product) so I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> - Yes, it's absolutely fantastic that TNT is now giving them 45 million dollars annually but remember with that 45 million a year they need to cover roster, production, travel, accommodation, arena hires, marketing, wrestling staff, non wrestling staff etc PLUS get a return on investment. It's certainly enough money to do so but people expecting that they're now going to compete with RAW on such a limited budget are insane. When a lot of your top end talents are expecting one million plus a year and you will have to overpay massively to poach guys from WWE the figure seems much smaller.
> 
> ...


 how DARE u to use logic u freaking hater!!11



LifeInCattleClass said:


> this might make them no. 2 in the world?


 they're already no. 2, u can't possibly seriously mean that freakin njpw is no.2 wrestling company in the world lol wtf



Cult03 said:


> By all means, express your excitement. But the first 4 pages in here are specifically calling people out and straight up trolling. There are a few good AEW fans on here but there's 3 specifically that can't accept criticism without going off their rocker and that isn't what a good fan does. To those who can carry out conversations without getting weird like this bloke does, I thank you for not being a massive embarrassment. The sooner you super fans can talk about the flaws the better this company will become and that's an exciting prospect.


 this 1000x times


----------



## incomplete moron (Nov 28, 2019)

and yes, congrats are due..good for them, and for us fans..but let's not get over our heads lol and exaggerate things smh


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> The conversation isn't about how much they're risking. It's the fact they're willing to double down on AEW at all. No one is doing that for NXT.


They’re not doubling-down though, lol. That’s the exaggeration. They’re getting more content for dirt cheap. $45 million per year for three, maybe four hours of content a week is ridiculous. Even taking Meltzer’s maths (which is dubious when it comes to AEW), then TNT are paying $15 million per hour of content versus $13 million. That’s if the new show is only a third hour and production is as dirt cheap as Meltzer says.

We also don’t know what the outs are in terms of the duration. Does TNT reserve the right to cancel? If they do, the amount of time on this thing is arguably arbitrary. Not in the sense that they will be getting $125 million or whatever by the time it’s fulfilled, but in terms of them having no worries and being guaranteed to stay on the air.

And that’s ridiculous to say about NXT. They ARE the “doubling-down.” They’re hours four and five on the USA Network. They are an extra $35-$50 million or whatever into WWE on top of the $1.5 billion USA are already sinking into them over five years. In two years they will likely negotiate a new deal where NXT brings in even more for WWE, and is more financially viable than AEW. Just because they haven’t signed on four years at a flat rate right now doesn’t mean WWE is losing, lol. Get real.


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

I seriously doubt NXT gets both Wednesday nights and a new deal. Now Tuesday nights? That makes a hell of a lot more sense from USAs perspective, not Vinces. But until someone actually competes with Vince on Monday nights, Vince probably controls USA.


----------



## RiverFenix (Dec 10, 2011)

When does Football usually start on Saturday Nights? And how many weeks a year - I know it's not the whole season. So something like 6-8 weeks, and the game starts at 8pm? 

AEW Saturday nights 7-8pm is still my guess.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

DetroitRiverPhx said:


> When does Football usually start on Saturday Nights? And how many weeks a year - I know it's not the whole season. So something like 6-8 weeks, and the game starts at 8pm?
> 
> AEW Saturday nights 7-8pm is still my guess.


College football starts in September, it normally pulls in big numbers

Better than the NFL does on Saturdays


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> They’re not doubling-down though, lol. That’s the exaggeration. They’re getting more content for dirt cheap. $45 million per year for three, maybe four hours of content a week is ridiculous. Even taking Meltzer’s maths (which is dubious when it comes to AEW), then TNT are paying $15 million per hour of content versus $13 million. That’s if the new show is only a third hour and production is as dirt cheap as Meltzer says.
> 
> We also don’t know what the outs are in terms of the duration. Does TNT reserve the right to cancel? If they do, the amount of time on this thing is arguably arbitrary. Not in the sense that they will be getting $125 million or whatever by the time it’s fulfilled, but in terms of them having no worries and being guaranteed to stay on the air.
> 
> And that’s ridiculous to say about NXT. They ARE the “doubling-down.” They’re hours four and five on the USA Network. They are an extra $35-$50 million or whatever into WWE on top of the $1.5 billion USA are already sinking into them over five years. In two years they will likely negotiate a new deal where NXT brings in even more for WWE, and is more financially viable than AEW. Just because they haven’t signed on four years at a flat rate right now doesn’t mean WWE is losing, lol. Get real.



I don't think you understand the deal.

TNT who was paying 250k per hour of TV is now paying 288.5k per hour. But it doesn't stop there. They're also buying content. This means they are paying an additional 100+% more to AEW for another hour of TV. The ad split deal stays for both shows, and there is an escalator clause. With the extra 77k for existing programming and the cost of the new show that's 365.5k additional a week. Add on to that the lost opportunity cost of the new hour, the ad split, the escalator clause and that number is probably well north of 500k a week. So no, Warner "doubling down" is probably an understatement.

And who cares if the contract has an out? It also has an option to extend the deal to 5 at an increased rate. Even by your nonsensical standard those things would cancel out.

USA may have aired NXT but it hasn't put any more money into it since then, which is my point.I never said anything about winning or losing, so that's a huge strawman, but in light of AEW's new deal having TNT paying 15m more than what Forbes reported USA paid for NXT, I will say now, AEW is winning. It's obvious.









Analysts Project Up To $100 Million For WWE NXT-To-USA Deal, Raising Questions Of How Much The Wrestlers Will Receive


WWE's deal to move NXT to the USA Network means even more record-breaking revenue for the company, but just how much of this added revenue will the wrestlers see?




www.forbes.com





EDIT: This Article puts 30m at the low end of the estimate and that also within the range Meltzer was talking about. Because of my personal bias, that;s the number I'll go with.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

It 


Jonhern said:


> Again, over a million doesn't matter, its an arbitrary number being thrown around by people who were all wrong, and those of us focusing on the demo have been proven right. TNT won't give a fuck if they do a million but do the same demo, and they will be ecstatic if they do under a million but do a .50 demo like south park for instance. The only mention of 1.2 million was about the dvr +7 numbers which they just use for press releases to give out higher numbers, it doesn't mean much to them business-wise, TNT anyway, it's just good copy.


It absolutely does matter. The more people watching your show, the more market share you’ll start to gain, the more people will go to your live events, order PPV’s, etc.

Yes, the demo is super important especially to networks but to pretend the raw number of people watching your show isn’t important is silly.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

I see some people talking about “4 hours of TV”.

This new show will not be a 2 hour show. It’ll be one hour.

I also read that by no means will it be a “B show” and that the intention is indeed to make it appointment television.

I really hope that’s the case. You can produce a really good fast paced show with storylines and character development that if done right can match Dynamite’s numbers.

But I truly hope they get off their high horse for this about “no writers” and hire some talented people to write the show within the framework that the executives want it to be in.


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

DOTL said:


> I don't think you understand the deal.
> 
> TNT who was paying 250k per hour of TV is now paying 288.5k per hour. But it doesn't stop there. They're also buying content. This means they are paying an additional 100+% more to AEW for another hour of TV. The ad split deal stays for both shows, and there is an escalator clause. With the extra 77k for existing programming and the cost of the new show that's 365.5k additional a week. Add on to that the lost opportunity cost of the new hour, the ad split, the escalator clause and that number is probably well north of 500k a week. So no, Warner "doubling down" is probably an understatement.
> 
> ...


Don't forget to factor in that TNT will no longer be covering the production cost for AEW. They were budgeted $26 million for production. So at the minimum, we will need to subtract $26 million for production from the $45 million annual. So we factor (as a guestimate) 153 hours of weekly TV per year giving a one week off for a Holiday again. $19 million divided by 153 hours equals $124,183 per hour of TV. Of course, there is the ad revenue that we can only guess and speculate on for now.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Bloody Warpath said:


> Don't forget to factor in that TNT will no longer be covering the production cost for AEW. They were budgeted $26 million for production. So at the minimum, we will need to subtract $26 million for production from the $45 million annual. So we factor (as a guestimate) 153 hours of weekly TV per year giving a one week off for a Holiday again. $19 million divided by 153 hours equals $124,183 per hour of TV. Of course, there is the ad revenue that we can only guess and speculate on for now.


I did account for that. The cost wasn't lost, it just migrated under different terms. Instead of being a production cost deal it's a deal over TV rights. But they're still paying over 288k per hour of TV. If AEW was previously now being paid for rights AND production costs, your numbers would be the ones we use.

Actually if you think about it, each dollar is worth to TNT more in this deal than the other because the contract ties up 4 years of TV space, when the other one didn't.


----------



## Psychosocial (Jul 13, 2018)

Does anyone have the numbers for how much the current wrestling TV shows are making from their current deals?

Smackdown (FOX) - $1bn / 5-year deal
RAW (USA) - ?
Dynamite (TNT) - $175m / 4-year deal (does this include the 2nd show?)
NXT (USA) - $60m / 2-year deal
Impact (AXS) - ?
MLW (beIN) - ?
ROH (FS/Sinclair stations) - ?


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Psychosocial said:


> Does anyone have the numbers for how much the current wrestling TV shows are making from their current deals?
> 
> Smackdown (FOX) - $1bn / 5-year deal
> RAW (USA) - ?
> ...


Raws making 265 million a year from USA. None of the other wrestling companies are making up front money from Tv deals. Last non-WWE wrestling company to make money from tv was TNA/Impact in 2015 with Destination America. Which is why it's amazing AEW is doing this already. 


These other companies were like Impact with Pop. They aren't making money from tv deals. Basically benefit for them is to get their product on tv.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

DOTL said:


> I don't think you understand the deal.
> 
> TNT who was paying 250k per hour of TV is now paying 288.5k per hour. But it doesn't stop there. They're also buying content. This means they are paying an additional 100+% more to AEW for another hour of TV. The ad split deal stays for both shows, and there is an escalator clause. With the extra 77k for existing programming and the cost of the new show that's 365.5k additional a week. Add on to that the lost opportunity cost of the new hour, the ad split, the escalator clause and that number is probably well north of 500k a week. So no, Warner "doubling down" is probably an understatement.
> 
> ...


Do you have a link about contract having a out for TNT and when?


----------



## Psychosocial (Jul 13, 2018)

imthegame19 said:


> Raws making 265 million a year from USA. None of the other wrestling companies are making up front money from Tv deals. Last non-WWE wrestling company to make money from tv was TNA/Impact in 2015 with Destination America. Which is why it's amazing AEW is doing this already.
> 
> 
> These other companies were like Impact with Pop. They aren't making money from tv deals. Basically benefit for them is to get their product on tv.


$265m a year for how many years though? I couldn't find that info.

Impact's not making money from AXS who are owned by Anthem who own them? And ROH isn't making any money from the many Sinclair stations they're on country-wide?

I wonder how much MLW could make with the rumored Showtime move.


----------



## Cult03 (Oct 31, 2016)

Cult03 said:


> Can you post the comments saying this? I haven't seen it as often as this thread is trying to make out. And even if I have it was by people who just want them to get better. Like what the fuck is wrong with wanting them to get better?


I guess not then?


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

imthegame19 said:


> Do you have a link about contract having a out for TNT and when?


Nope. That was Wood assuming such a clause exists. I was just giving him a benefit of a doubt. Personally, I don't think there is one. Otherwise why have an option to extend the contract an extra year?


----------



## Bloody Warpath (Jan 6, 2020)

DOTL said:


> Nope. That was Wood assuming such a clause exists. I was just giving him a benefit of a doubt. Personally, I don't think there is one. Otherwise why have an option to extend the contract an extra year?


There is a good chance that there is a contingency written into the contract. Must stay within blah blah range or not drop below blah for a specific amount of time. Pure speculation on my part, but it would make sense to have something in place.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Bloody Warpath said:


> There is a good chance that there is a contingency written into the contract. Must stay within blah blah range or not drop below blah for a specific amount of time. Pure speculation on my part, but it would make sense to have something in place.


Maybe. It just seems strange to me that they would add the option provision if this wasn't something they were locked into.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

DOTL said:


> Nope. That was Wood assuming such a clause exists. I was just giving him a benefit of a doubt. Personally, I don't think there is one. Otherwise why have an option to extend the contract an extra year?


Oh so it's BS he's making up like usual. Since he always has to come up with some negative spin haha.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Bloody Warpath said:


> There is a good chance that there is a contingency written into the contract. Must stay within blah blah range or not drop below blah for a specific amount of time. Pure speculation on my part, but it would make sense to have something in place.


It would have to drop to extremely low for AEW to agree to that stip. That's point of a contract if AEW starts doing 3 million viewers a year from now. Then can AEW opt out? 


TNT wouldn't agree to that like AEW wouldn't agree to that stip. The whole point of the deal. Is AEW got security and money now. Even if that means they are going to miss out on bigger money at and of 2021. While TNT making the investment in AEW now. Because they believe they will grow and be worth more. There's a reason why the only reported option is 5th year option.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Psychosocial said:


> $265m a year for how many years though? I couldn't find that info.
> 
> Impact's not making money from AXS who are owned by Anthem who own them? And ROH isn't making any money from the many Sinclair stations they're on country-wide?
> 
> I wonder how much MLW could make with the rumored Showtime move.


5 years for USA and WWE. Like they did with Fox. AXS owns the network so they aren't paying them for being on tv. Anthem probably makes money for them being on tv. But it's not like they are investing that until the company. Other wise Impact wouldn't be losing So much talent and only adding old ECW guys or guys straight off the indies. 


Yes ROH not making money off tv. Benefit for ROH is their product gets exposure on tv. Which would hopefully lead to more ticket sales and ppv buys. Impact last deal with Pop tv was the same. Which is why Hardys, Lashley, Drew Galloway and EC3 left the company. Because they couldn't pay them anymore.


----------



## Psychosocial (Jul 13, 2018)

imthegame19 said:


> 5 years for USA and WWE. Like they did with Fox. AXS owns the network so they aren't paying them for being on tv. Anthem probably makes money for them being on tv. But it's not like they are investing that until the company. Other wise Impact wouldn't be losing So much talent and only adding old ECW guys or guys straight off the indies.
> 
> 
> Yes ROH not making money off tv. Benefit for ROH is their product gets exposure on tv. Which would hopefully lead to more ticket sales and ppv buys. Impact last deal with Pop tv was the same. Which is why Hardys, Lashley, Drew Galloway and EC3 left the company. Because they couldn't pay them anymore.


So Raw makes more than SD? Wow. Why wasn't that talked about as much as the Fox deal then? Insane to think that 3 wrestling shows are making nearly $2.5bn combined over the next few years.

Sounds like you think Anthem looks at Impact the same way Sinclair does with ROH which I don't think is the case. If Impact aren't making any money from them though, then they may be fucked since I don't think Anthem will let them leave the network any time soon since they own both. I don't think that's true because they're doing better these days than they have since the Spike era.

ROH get exposure but at midnight on Fridays/Saturdays which hardly does anything for them.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Psychosocial said:


> So Raw makes more than SD? Wow. Why wasn't that talked about as much as the Fox deal then? Insane to think that 3 wrestling shows are making nearly $2.5bn combined over the next few years.
> 
> Sounds like you think Anthem looks at Impact the same way Sinclair does with ROH which I don't think is the case. If Impact aren't making any money from them though, then they may be fucked since I don't think Anthem will let them leave the network any time soon since they own both. I don't think that's true because they're doing better these days than they have since the Spike era.
> 
> ROH get exposure but at midnight on Fridays/Saturdays which hardly does anything for them.


WWE gets more from USA because it's 3 hours vs 2 hours. Fox deal is more value per hour of tv. Impact doesn't appear to be doing well at all. If they are anthem is pocketing the money. Other wise explain why they didn't resign LAX, Johnny Impact or Brian Cage. Look at what Killer Kross has said how poorly they pay their talent. It's not like they got a network to air them after Pop tv dropped them. Anthem bought t.v. network and put them on. They were doing slightly over 100,000 viewers on Pop this time a year ago. When they decided not to renew contract.


----------



## Psychosocial (Jul 13, 2018)

imthegame19 said:


> WWE gets more from USA because it's 3 hours vs 2 hours. Fox deal is more value per hour of tv. Impact doesn't appear to be doing well at all. If they are anthem is pocketing the money. Other wise explain why they didn't resign LAX, Johnny Impact or Brian Cage. Look at what Killer Kross has said how poorly they pay their talent. It's not like they got a network to air them after Pop tv dropped them. Anthem bought t.v. network and put them on. They were doing slightly over 100,000 viewers on Pop this time a year ago. When they decided not to renew contract.


LAX and Johnny left before the move to AXS, same with Kross pretty much even though he only officially left last month. Johnny always had his heart set on one more payday in WWE it looks like. I'm not sure what the situation with Cage is, but we don't know the full story there yet.

We can't find any numbers so it's hard to prove it, but I'm sure their numbers on AXS are at least as good as they were on Pop last year if not better. They're clearly in a better position as a whole now than they've been in years. Their product is consistently solid, their YT views are regularly in the hundreds of thousands weekly, they've got stability with the security of the network they're on now, they had their highest attended Bound for Glory in years in October, and so on. They'd have bit your hand off to be in this position a few years back when it looked like they were on the verge of extinction after so many bad business decisions.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Psychosocial said:


> LAX and Johnny left before the move to AXS, same with Kross pretty much even though he only officially left last month. Johnny always had his heart set on one more payday in WWE it looks like. I'm not sure what the situation with Cage is, but we don't know the full story there yet.
> 
> We can't find any numbers so it's hard to prove it, but I'm sure their numbers on AXS are at least as good as they were on Pop last year if not better. They're clearly in a better position as a whole now than they've been in years. Their product is consistently solid, their YT views are regularly in the hundreds of thousands weekly, they've got stability with the security of the network they're on now, they had their highest attended Bound for Glory in years in October, and so on. They'd have bit your hand off to be in this position a few years back when it looked like they were on the verge of extinction after so many bad business decisions.


I'm not saying there product is bad. I like a lot of stuff there doing. But I can't see how they were doing better then a year ago. I don't think they've been on verge of extinction since Anthem bought them and Dixie left. But they clearly aren't doing well to bring in talent or keep talent. Who any other place really wants. 

Maybe that will change in the future. But it feels like Anthem is fine having small wrestling company and show. Since it gives them some sports content. While ownership won't pay to keep talent and expects them to just make next star off the Indies.


----------



## Psychosocial (Jul 13, 2018)

imthegame19 said:


> I'm not saying there product is bad. I like a lot of stuff there doing. But I can't see how they were doing better then a year ago. I don't think they've been on verge of extinction since Anthem bought them and Dixie left. But they clearly aren't doing well to bring in talent or keep talent. Who any other place really wants.
> 
> Maybe that will change in the future. But it feels like Anthem is fine having small wrestling company and show. Since it gives them some sports content. While ownership won't pay to keep talent and expects them to just make next star off the Indies.


Well, since their move to their new TV network and the exposure they're getting from that, they haven't lost anyone officially except Kross who basically was gone before that so it's hard to criticize them much there. Yes, I was referring to their situation a few years ago when I said they were on the verge of extinction. And I already named some reasons why they're doing better than last year.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Psychosocial said:


> Well, since their move to their new TV network and the exposure they're getting from that, they haven't lost anyone officially except Kross who basically was gone before that so it's hard to criticize them much there. Yes, I was referring to their situation a few years ago when I said they were on the verge of extinction. And I already named some reasons why they're doing better than last year.



I would just like to see some growth with the roster. When they lose Johnny Impact and Killer Kross. 


Then replace them with old cheap guys like Rhino,Johnny Swinger and Ken Shamrock. Or guys like Joey Ryan or Ace Romero who weren't in high demand. Now one of their top stars in Cage is leaving. It's hard to feel like they are doing well. Whdn they arent paying to keep talent or bringing in big name talent. If I see that then it will feel something changed. Right now doesn't feel any different then say year and a half ago.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Psychosocial said:


> $265m a year for how many years though? I couldn't find that info.
> 
> Impact's not making money from AXS who are owned by Anthem who own them? And ROH isn't making any money from the many Sinclair stations they're on country-wide?
> 
> I wonder how much MLW could make with the rumored Showtime move.


That’s per year, if that’s the accurate mymber



DOTL said:


> Nope. That was Wood assuming such a clause exists. I was just giving him a benefit of a doubt. Personally, I don't think there is one. Otherwise why have an option to extend the contract an extra year?


It wasn’t me “assuming” shit. It was me asking how you lot could know it doesn’t exist. I ask the same thing when WWE fans say the drop in ratings don’t matter on their side. I can’t imagine NBC Universal or FOX being stuck airing a show that gets under 1 million viewers in prime time for five years.

A contract to extend is just like having first-dibs, so if AEW ends up successful, they can retain them. That seems obvious.

And where did you see that they are getting paid for this additional show? Everything I read suggested it was under the same umbrella as the Dynamite rights fees. 



imthegame19 said:


> Oh so it's BS he's making up like usual. Since he always has to come up with some negative spin haha.


No, it’s a valid point. Shows get canceled mid-season all the time. But they don’t have contracts? All we know it is an agreed upon rate that TNT is tentatively willing to pay for an agreed upon time that TNT is tentatively willing to schedule them.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

DetroitRiverPhx said:


> When does Football usually start on Saturday Nights? And how many weeks a year - I know it's not the whole season. So something like 6-8 weeks, and the game starts at 8pm?
> 
> AEW Saturday nights 7-8pm is still my guess.


Last two weeks of the season because college football is over. Then two weeks of playoffs have two Saturday games each. That's it. Last two weeks of December and first to weeks of January. So two of the weeks fall around Xmas and new year's. So the idea that tony would say no to Saturday because of that is really stretching his statement that he would not go up against the NFL.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> It wasn’t me “assuming” shit. It was me asking how you lot could know it doesn’t exist. I ask the same thing when WWE fans say the drop in ratings don’t matter on their side. I can’t imagine NBC Universal or FOX being stuck airing a show that gets under 1 million viewers in prime time for five years.
> 
> A contract to extend is just like having first-dibs, so if AEW ends up successful, they can retain them. That seems obvious.


I know what an option is for, I just don't see the point of one if there's an easy out for the contract. Why have the option to extend for another year if you can just lock down 5 years on the provision that you can opt out?

That's because I don't think media rights work the way you think they do. TNT/Warner purchased the broadcasting rights to AEW. That means they own them. And just like everything else you own, you can only sell them back. They may have a clause that allows them to sell back at a reduced price, but odds are it would probably hurt more than a regular scripted TV show. Just ask FOX why they haven't canceled Smackdown yet.



> And where did you see that they are getting paid for this additional show? Everything I read suggested it was under the same umbrella as the Dynamite rights fees.


Semantics. They're getting rights fees, but that's effectivly the same as paying 388.5k more for a new hour of content. Plus the Ad split remains in place for both shows And the good thing for AEW is it won't cost as much to produce because they are already taping it.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> I know what an option is for, I just don't see the point of one if there's an easy out for the contract. Why have the option to extend for another year if you can just lock down 5 years on the provision that you can opt out?
> 
> That's because I don't think media rights work the way you think they do. TNT/Warner purchased the broadcasting rights to AEW. That means they own them. And just like everything else you own, you can only sell them back. They may have a clause that allows them to sell back at a reduced price, but odds are it would probably hurt more than a regular scripted TV show. Just ask FOX why they haven't canceled Smackdown yet.
> 
> ...


Why wouldn't you just sign every show FOREVER if you can just cancel them?! They should give every series 100-year deals! Think before you open your mouth. 

I don't think media rights work the way _you_ think they do. Check the newest issue of the Observer, where even Dave says basically the exact same things I've been saying, including that there is *always* a way to cancel or remove a television show. Will you accept logic now that it is coming from Dave's perspective? 

Everything I've said about this has been true. Fine deal. Relatively safe deal. $45 million for three or four hours of content a year is cheap, but it provides a security blanket for the Khans. Some good, some bad. Not a big baller move, but it's probably necessary to grow the company after some faux pas and missing out on the talent that were really going to draw you the giant ratings for giant rights fee leverage down the line. 

Dave's even settled on the same point as me, where TNT is laughing because they don't have to worry about them negotiating with other networks and pushing the rights fees up, so they've basically secured AEW on the dirt cheap way into an expensive future.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> Why wouldn't you just sign every show FOREVER if you can just cancel them?! They should give every series 100-year deals! Think before you open your mouth.


I'm not talking about 100 year deals, genius. I'm talking about an extra year. 365 days. An 100 year deal at these terms would be 4.5 billion dollars at a rate that would be a super lowball for anyone with enough value to warrant a deal that long. AEW isn't even worth that much. If you want to be a smartass, it would help if what you said was actually smart.

If the contract was easy to opt out of they wouldn't need a year long option to extend it at an increased rate. They'd just sign for a 5 year deal under the terms.



> I don't think media rights work the way _you_ think they do. Check the newest issue of the Observer, where even Dave says basically the exact same things I've been saying, including that there is *always* a way to cancel or remove a television show. Will you accept logic now that it is coming from Dave's perspective?


Of course there's always a way to do it, that doesn't mean it's easy or cost efficient to do so. It's not as simple as saying "oh, we don't want in anymore." Otherwise what's the point of a contract securing TV rights? If the whole point is to bring up possible instability of the deal in pointing out TNT has some sort of parachute, doesn't such logic dictate that any possible exit under this new deal is substantially harder now than their previous one? Use your head. It would be much easier to just stick a poorer performing show on a smaller network, than pay whatever it is they have to pay to cancel the agreement. In their old deal, they could have just dropped them any time. Just stop paying for production. Here, they have to deal with broadcasting rights for a show that doesn't draw.



> Everything I've said about this has been true. Fine deal. Relatively safe deal. $45 million for three or four hours of content a year is cheap, but it provides a security blanket for the Khans. Some good, some bad. Not a big baller move, but it's probably necessary to grow the company after some faux pas and missing out on the talent that were really going to draw you the giant ratings for giant rights fee leverage down the line.


If everything you say is true, why are you asking questions about provisions? You know the answers, you're just trying to spin a victory as a possible defeat.

It's not baller by WWE standards but Meltzer ( and the only reason I invoke him now is because you're doing it as if it helps your point) effectively said AEW won(he literally uses those words). They secured a deal that makes them the second biggest wrestling promotion in the world. Bigger than NPJW. And this is something I can believe considering that NJPW reported a record total revenue of 50m last year. AEW is making 90% of that on it's TV deal alone. Money is money, but think about how much leverage that gives them when negotiating deals with other promotions like New Japan.

Meltzer also talks about the company being profitable within a year of existing, which is unheard of in the business. Being locked up by TNT is a small price to pay for being profitable when most other start-ups would be in the red and trying to break even at that point.

You're hearing all of Meltzer's cautious wording, and ignoring the big details about the importance of the deal.



> Dave's even settled on the same point as me, where TNT is laughing because they don't have to worry about them negotiating with other networks and pushing the rights fees up, so they've basically secured AEW on the dirt cheap way into an expensive future.


If this is true then what I'm saying is absolutely correct. TNT is doubling down on it. If they thought it would fail, they wouldn't see the need in locking it up for four years out of fear of getting outbid in the future. They predict that it will grow and are investing accordingly. Stop trying to make this look like a loss for AEW. It's pathetic.

Literally you and all like you are the only ones pretending this is a minor victory. The wrestling news media, AEW, and Warner, however, are behaving otherwise. I rather trust the ones with skin in the game.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> I'm not talking about 100 year deals, genius. I'm talking about an extra year. 365 days. An 100 year deal at these terms would be 4.5 billion dollars at a rate that would be a super lowball for anyone with enough value to warrant a deal that long. AEW isn't even worth that much. If you want to be a smartass, it would help if what you said was actually smart.
> 
> If the contract was easy to opt out of they wouldn't need a year long option to extend it at an increased rate. They'd just sign for a 5 year deal under the terms.
> 
> ...


That's a perfectly valid extrapolation of your line of thinking though. If you can cancel shows, why have any set period of time, and why does any show get cancelled ever? It's a ridiculous line of thinking. The deal is tentatively for four years. You add an extra year so you get first priority and don't have to renegotiate giant rates fees in four years and have the _option_ of getting them at four years for a steal and one at a discount. It's not that hard to understand. Khan was probably pushing for more time and more money and negotiations came down to that. How does that not go to follow? 

Your next point is verbose rubbish saying basically nothing. Contracts exist and are broken and changed and disregarded all the time. The point of a contract is to trade one service for monetary compensation or some other reciprocation. TNT pays AEW (x) amount of money for (x) amount of content. That can be changed and negotiated, but while the contract is being adhered to, that is the agreement. It's possible the Khans will get a payout if TNT cancels AEW, but we don't know that. TNT may have felt they had all the leverage and just have it written in that they can give them two months notice. You don't know, I don't know, but let's not pretend that in the absence of knowledge the assumption that they're bulletproof should prevail. Not until we get details that state that TNT have to be airing Dynamite for four years, no ifs, ands or buts, which Meltzer seems to disagree with. 

Meltzer would say AEW won if they got $24.95 and a hot dog. The point is that the spin doctor is echoing everything you lot have accused me of spinning. 

_Of course_ they're the only promotion that has been profitable in a year. They are playing with Daddy Khan's toilet paper money. They _should_ be profitable. Why do people keep bringing this up like it's some sage point. They're the only promotion ever started by a billionaire. Hmm, coinky-dink? No. That is why I was so fucking positive about AEW at the start. They had the potential to snag stars, pay production and have a presentation that could secure them giant rights fees from a network like TNT. That shit is fucking obvious. That's what the game always was. They've come away _profitable_. That's the least they could have done. Almost literally. This should be the second biggest promotion in the world _inherently_. Why do people set the goals so small for what should literally be a billion-dollar enterprise? 

They're paying a fraction of what anyone else is paying for live entertainment. They're paying $45 million for three or four hours of content heading into an era where that sort of content is going to be several times that. This is a win for TNT more so than it is for AEW. In two years, AEW could have been negotiating for $100-150 million per year for just two hours of content. Now they have to do three or four to make a fraction of that over a period of four years. If you had a product you truly believed in, would you lease it for four years for dirt cheap or for two knowing you could get several times that in two years? 

Tony Khan is taking it slow, which has its upside. This is not a dirt-rotten deal or anything like that. But the fucking marks making this sound like glory, glory, holy shit are fucking insane They've traded the appearance of security for big money. If the deal is fulfilled, they will be profitable. When Vince McMahon's deals are fulfilled, he'll be a billionaire again several times over. Yep, AEW "won."


----------



## Brodus Clay (Jan 6, 2012)

Oh boy I tought Jim was going to be mature, fucking salty.


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Brodus Clay said:


> Oh boy I tought Jim was going to be mature, fucking salty.


Lol you really thought Cornette would be mature? This just proves the guy talks out of his ass and is living in the 90s. He was running his mouth about TNT cancelling AEW by April 15th. Yet the idiot had no idea the ratings they were doing are good by today's standards lol. 


At first I found his opinions on AEW assuming. Because of the bias he shows. How he loves everything Cody or Jericho and I guess MJF. Then usually and craps on every thing else. But it's just getting sad at this point. The guy should do his research and have a clue on what he's talking about. Rather then comparing to how things were 19 or 20 years ago lol. He sounded like a confused old man asking if the rating was good haha.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

imthegame19 said:


> Lol you really thought Cornette would be mature? This just proves the guy talks out of his ass and is living in the 90s. He was running his mouth about TNT cancelling AEW by April 15th. Yet the idiot had no idea the ratings they were doing are good by today's standards lol.
> 
> 
> At first I found his opinions on AEW assuming. Because of the bias he shows. How he loves everything Cody or Jericho and I guess MJF. Then usually and craps on every thing else. But it's just getting sad at this point. The guy should do his research and have a clue on what he's talking about. Rather then comparing to how things were 19 or 20 years ago lol. He sounded like a confused old man asking if the rating was good haha.


He sounds like a out-of-touch grandpa.

’is a million a good number for aaa...’ - yes motherfucker, your buddy just said they were top 5 this week and they got renewed for 4 years

’...buhh...buh.... in the 90s’’’ ?‍♂

shocker, nobody’s listening to Alanis Morissette any more either


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> That's a perfectly valid extrapolation of your line of thinking though. If you can cancel shows, why have any set period of time, and why does any show get cancelled ever? It's a ridiculous line of thinking. The deal is tentatively for four years. You add an extra year so you get first priority and don't have to renegotiate giant rates fees in four years and have the _option_ of getting them at four years for a steal and one at a discount. It's not that hard to understand. Khan was probably pushing for more time and more money and negotiations came down to that. How does that not go to follow?


Think about what you're saying. Your silly example literally proves the point I'm trying to make. If the contract didn't have any teeth at all for TNT, you'd see crazy provisions like the one you foolishly thought was an argument against what I'm saying. If there was no security in the contract people would strike deals for anything or not strike them at all as long as it suited them for the short term. The fact that TNT seeks to protect themselves without full commitment means that those four years are not something they can get out of trivially.



> Your next point is verbose rubbish saying basically nothing. Contracts exist and are broken and changed and disregarded all the time. The point of a contract is to trade one service for monetary compensation or some other reciprocation. TNT pays AEW (x) amount of money for (x) amount of content. That can be changed and negotiated, but while the contract is being adhered to, that is the agreement. It's possible the Khans will get a payout if TNT cancels AEW, but we don't know that. TNT may have felt they had all the leverage and just have it written in that they can give them two months notice. You don't know, I don't know, but let's not pretend that in the absence of knowledge the assumption that they're bulletproof should prevail. Not until we get details that state that TNT have to be airing Dynamite for four years, no ifs, ands or buts, which Meltzer seems to disagree with.


Talk about a bunch of words signifying nothing. You literally waste time reminding the class that contracts can be broken, which is redundant considering I said the same thing. You say that we shouldn't use ignorance as affirmation, yet you continue to paint the not so rosy picture that TNT is completely hedged while AEW is butt out when the provisions in the contract suggest otherwise, if you are bothered to use some logic. If escaping the terms of the contract came down to a phone call 2 months in advance, why the heck would they option that fifth year at a "significantly" higher price? Wouldn't you just lock down that fifth year for a moderate increase(I'm assuming these are paid out gradually) and then bail in November if things don't looks so hot? You do realize that there were two parties negotiating here, right?



> Meltzer would say AEW won if they got $24.95 and a hot dog. The point is that the spin doctor is echoing everything you lot have accused me of spinning.


*Translation:Anything positive Meltzer says is exaggeration. Anything [negative]? is a valid point. *

Being cautious about a tv deal is one thing. Trying to paint a universal quality of contracts as a specific deficiency in AEW's specific deal is definitely spin.

_



Of course

Click to expand...

_


> they're the only promotion that has been profitable in a year. They are playing with Daddy Khan's toilet paper money. They _should_ be profitable. Why do people keep bringing this up like it's some sage point. They're the only promotion ever started by a billionaire. Hmm, coinky-dink? No. That is why I was so fucking positive about AEW at the start. They had the potential to snag stars, pay production and have a presentation that could secure them giant rights fees from a network like TNT. That shit is fucking obvious. That's what the game always was. They've come away _profitable_. That's the least they could have done. Almost literally. This should be the second biggest promotion in the world _inherently_. Why do people set the goals so small for what should literally be a billion-dollar enterprise?











This is you.

Profit isn't guaranteed just by some rich guy flooding money into assets. That's retarded especially when you consider some key moments in history of professional wrestling. Profit is when your investment gives you more money back than what you put into it. The fact that he's a billionaire doesn't change the fact that he has a budget, expenses, a market to contend with, etc. Being profitable isn't the baseline measure of success in business. It's the only measure of success. The only question is how profitable can you get. This is a dumb paragraph and I'm slightly worse off in life having read it.




> They're paying a fraction of what anyone else is paying for live entertainment. They're paying $45 million for three or four hours of content heading into an era where that sort of content is going to be several times that. This is a win for TNT more so than it is for AEW. In two years, AEW could have been negotiating for $100-150 million per year for just two hours of content. Now they have to do three or four to make a fraction of that over a period of four years. If you had a product you truly believed in, would you lease it for four years for dirt cheap or for two knowing you could get several times that in two years?


This is nonsense for three reasons. 1) What benefits TNT in this deal is completely irrelevant to what benefits AEW. What's prioritized in AEW as a startup is not what is in TNT as an established network. Trying to paint it as if it's a zero sum game is a huge logical fallacy. For now, exposure and growth are more important than making lots of in the short term money. That comes later 2) Remember the ad split? You know who doesn't have such an arrangement? WWE. As the price for sports related advertising goes up, AEW will be able to ride that wave 3) According to WarnerTv's guy, forgot his name, they will be re-purposing Dark for their new show. AEW is already taping that stuff, but this time will be making way more money on it. So, what point are you trying to make here?



> Tony Khan is taking it slow, which has its upside. This is not a dirt-rotten deal or anything like that. But the fucking marks making this sound like glory, glory, holy shit are fucking insane They've traded the appearance of security for big money. If the deal is fulfilled, they will be profitable. When Vince McMahon's deals are fulfilled, he'll be a billionaire again several times over. Yep, AEW "won."


So because the deal wasn't for 1billion dollars it wasn't a great deal? What type of thinking is that? Nirvana Fallacy. Look it up. Kahn is playing the long game. In 4 to 5 years the rights to AEW could be massive. Just by virtue of having security and being profitable, AEW will now have the leverage to do more business in the mean time. This could help in forcing NJPW to the table, it will help them get big contracts with big talent, more tv deals, the means to fix production issues, which all would possibly contribute to bigger and better shows. Add that new investment to the natural consequence of building brands throughout the promotion, the excitement for the company by the end of the deal will make the initial heat look like a 75 year old librarian's retirement party. Why do you think they were so sure they'd be able to aquire more talent this year? They're thinking at least 3 steps ahead of you.

Your inability to see the forest from the trees has you fixated on the dollar amount, but if all goes according to plan, AEW by the end of the fifth year could be an actual competitor to the WWE, and one with the advantage of traditionally working with smaller companies.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Oh, man, this is going to be fun. Time for another round of “Feeding the Trolls.”



Brodus Clay said:


> Oh boy I tought Jim was going to be mature, fucking salty.


It’s crazy how many people actually hear what Jim says, but never listen to him. What is fucking salty about that? He says TNT doesn’t know good wrestling either. That’s a fair point. Nothing about them getting an extension says they’re good. It’s not “mature” to change your opinion on something’s quality just because it’s been given a deal.

You do realize Cornette wants wrestling to be better and do better, right? He’s not “salty” about it. Baffled and frustrated that good wrestling gets knocked back in favor of sports entertainment is one thing, but “salty?” You make it sound like the guy has a horse in the race. He 



imthegame19 said:


> Lol you really thought Cornette would be mature? This just proves the guy talks out of his ass and is living in the 90s. He was running his mouth about TNT cancelling AEW by April 15th. Yet the idiot had no idea the ratings they were doing are good by today's standards lol.
> 
> 
> At first I found his opinions on AEW assuming. Because of the bias he shows. How he loves everything Cody or Jericho and I guess MJF. Then usually and craps on every thing else. But it's just getting sad at this point. The guy should do his research and have a clue on what he's talking about. Rather then comparing to how things were 19 or 20 years ago lol. He sounded like a confused old man asking if the rating was good haha.


You may not be old enough to understand, but there’s a clue in the clip: Do you know what April 15 is? I’ll admit I took Cornette literally, but when you work out what he’s saying, you know he’s being figurative. And yo, there’s still actually time. 

Cornette is also big enough to not point out what I’ve pointed out, and Dave Meltzer has pointed out—there is always a way to cancel something. If the bottom falls out of this thing, don’t assume it is bulletproof, lol. Cornette gives them that courtesy, which is the most out-of-touch thing he says there.

The ratings aren’t even good by today standards for wrestling. They’re often getting beaten by WWE’s third-tier brand, and they have a fraction of the Raw and SmackDown audience. Cornette doesn’t follow the ratings either, because he knows how flexible they are, and is clearly taking a jab at wrestling’s falling popularity. You going “that’s a good number!” is kind of playing into it. 
“Do you really think 4 inches is big?” “It’s the biggest I’ve got!”

He’s bemused by wrestling’s faded popularity, not baffled by it. Also, telling the dude to do his research? The guy get applauded for being one of the most prepared in wrestling. Was far more knowledgeable about the current product when he worked with MLW than Bruce Prichard _because_ he researches. To think he doesn’t follow this stuff is naive, and you shouldn’t talk about biases if that’s your view.



LifeInCattleClass said:


> He sounds like a out-of-touch grandpa.
> 
> ’is a million a good number for aaa...’ - yes motherfucker, your buddy just said they were top 5 this week and they got renewed for 4 years
> 
> ...


You sound like you’re rehearsing the old cliche that avoids the point.

Do you really think Brian was trying to bury Cornette? Again, it’s clearly a jab at the state of things. You know, Cornette’s whole view?

Shocker, wrestling isn’t cool anymore, and even shitty wrestling survives, and some even thrives. TNA still goes on, and anyone at a certain level can get rights. But the thing is, I don’t even recall a comparison to the 90’s (a period Cornette was not a fan of, by the way). It’s almost like you’ve made that up.

Pretty sure Cornette is judging AEW by its contemporary merits, and how it’s largely bad television (which many will not disagree with — tech flubs, bad angles, forced pushes of amateur acts, etc.). The antiquated argument is a convenient way to sidestep criticism, but it always comes off to me as “Yeah, you don’t need to be good these days.”


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> He sounds like a out-of-touch grandpa.
> 
> ’is a million a good number for aaa...’ - yes motherfucker, your buddy just said they were top 5 this week and they got renewed for 4 years
> 
> ...


Problem with Corny is his standard of success is not in lockstep with reality. The guy has a mind for good wrestling, but his mind for business, I'm not so convinced of.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> Think about what you're saying. Your silly example literally proves the point I'm trying to make. If the contract didn't have any teeth at all for TNT, you'd see crazy provisions like the one you foolishly thought was an argument against what I'm saying. If there was no security in the contract people would strike deals for anything or not strike them at all as long as it suited them for the short term. The fact that TNT seeks to protect themselves without full commitment means that those four years are not something they can get out of trivially.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holy shit, and this is coming from me: *Stop being so long-winded.* It makes it too time-consuming to refute all your points. I like a good argument, but you make it too hard, and as a result people need to take short-cuts, which you call “lazy” or “cowardly” or whatever suits you at the time.

No, it doesn’t prove your point. At all. No one said anything about it not having any teeth at all. Wtf? Stop making stuff up. You know what, I’m just going to use sarcasm with you. It’s the lowest form of wit, and you might get it:

Yes, you’re right. There’s absolutely nothing TNT could do to get out of a contract with AEW at this point. No show has ever been canceled mid-season. That’s why TNT had a bonus year written in, because there’s no way they could get to end of it and just want to bypass negotiations and get it on the cheap. It definitely means the terms are super-fixed. It couldn’t just be for TNT’s convenience. They’re scared of losing them and AEW holds all the power!

Yes, I definitely said that contracts don’t provide any security at all. That is definitely what I said. Mmmhmm.

Oh, look, a South Park picture. How funny/clever? We have a genius logicker here, folks.

Oh, look, ableist language. Turns out another AEW fanboy is a fucking horrible person. Would Cody like you using discriminatory language?

Yes, I definitely said that pumping money in definitely means success. That is 100% what I said. It wasn’t that a billionaire could pay for production and a star talent roster securing TV rights fees in an environment where live entertainment is craved. Nope. I said that thing you said I said.

Yes, I definitely said that because the deal wasn’t for billions it was a flop. I didn’t compare it to the current marketplace and value of live entertainment. Nope. I certainly didn’t identify the positives in the strategy but how they’re leaving money on the table. Nah, that doesn’t feel right.

I can’t wait for them to take on this new revolutionary strategy of signing top stars from around the world, getting serious and striking up a deal with #3 promotion New Japan. Gee-willickers, wherever would an idea like that come from? If only people were saying that months ago when top name stars had their contracts coming up and ROH hadn’t double-downed on the deal with New Japan. Oh well. Worth a shot, I guess.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

DOTL said:


> Problem with Corny is his standard of success is not in lockstep with reality. The guy has a mind for good wrestling, but his mind for business, I'm not so convinced of.


I’m not even sure he has a mind for good wrestling in today’s age

if he did, somebody would back him and he’d have his own promotion, or at least be able to keep a job - seeing as there’s so many ‘money marks’ and ‘tv deals are easy’ and so on and so on.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Brodus Clay said:


> Oh boy I tought Jim was going to be mature, fucking salty.


I mean this pretty much shows how out of touch he is. He’s comparing attitude era days to today: when culture has moved on and viewing behaviour has changed.

TNT are happy so now he’s got beef with TNT too? Lol


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

optikk sucks said:


> I mean this pretty much shows how out of touch he is. He’s comparing attitude era days to today: when culture has moved on and viewing behaviour has changed.
> 
> TNT are happy so now he’s got beef with TNT too? Lol


Stop using the tired trope of “culture and viewing habits have changed.”

Nothing has changed since October when AEW showed it was possible to get 1.5 million viewers.

The only thing that has changed is they haven’t been able to put on a show interesting enough to get those people to watch.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> I’m not even sure he has a mind for good wrestling in today’s age
> 
> if he did, somebody would back him and he’d have his own promotion, or at least be able to keep a job - seeing as there’s so many ‘money marks’ and ‘tv deals are easy’ and so on and so on.


AEW tried to get him. The NWA wanted him. MLW was using him. Cornette is very happy doing what he does and how he does it. Do you really think that if he really wanted to, he couldn’t suck up to WWE for a giant paycheck to sit somewhere, throw out an idea or two, produce a tag match here or there, and do some commentary on Main Event?

The TV rights deals are new. That’s why AEW only cropped up last year. Wrestling still has a bad name. Maybe other billionaires will get involved, or maybe they’ll see AEW settling for $45 million and write off the idea. But just because Cornette doesn’t want the headache of being an executive in 2020 doesn’t mean he couldn’t do it. And if the brains that do have power think he can’t, I think they need new brains.



optikk sucks said:


> I mean this pretty much shows how out of touch he is. He’s comparing attitude era days to today: when culture has moved on and viewing behaviour has changed.
> 
> TNT are happy so now he’s got beef with TNT too? Lol


AEW has lost between 450k and half their total viewers and have about a 30% retention rate on PPV. And you want to talk about out of touch?

Yeah, he’s allowed to take a shot at TNT for enabling shitty wrestling so they can stockpile cheap content. It’s totally fair game. Why wouldn’t it be? 



The Dude said:


> Stop using the tried trope of “culture and viewing habits have changed.”
> 
> Nothing has changed since October when AEW showed it was possible to get 1.5 million viewers.
> 
> The only thing that has changed is they haven’t been able to put on a show interesting enough to get those people to watch.


Boom. There goes the dynamite.


----------



## Jazminator (Jan 9, 2018)

Jim Cornette says that AEW fan’s hate him because he tells the truth about so and so, and blah, blah, blah.

What he fails to see is that it’s truth as _HE_ sees it. He’s merely giving his opinion, not fact.

I share a lot of Cornette’s views on wrestling, but not all of them. And in the end, his opinion isn’t worth more than yours or mine.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Jazminator said:


> Jim Cornette says that AEW fan’s hate him because he tells the truth about so and so, and blah, blah, blah.
> 
> What he fails to see is that it’s truth as _HE_ sees it. He’s merely giving his opinion, not fact.
> 
> I share a lot of Cornette’s views on wrestling, but not all of them. And in the end, his opinion isn’t worth more than yours or mine.


Well, his opinion is a lot more informed than anyone’s here. He’s been wrong about a lot more than any of us have been right about, and right about more than most of us have been wrong about.


----------



## Jazminator (Jan 9, 2018)

The Wood said:


> Well, his opinion is a lot more informed than anyone’s here. He’s been wrong about a lot more than any of us have been right about, and right about more than most of us have been wrong about.


And in the end, he’s just another guy with an opinion. 

I respect his contributions to the industry, and I really respect his knowledge of its history, but I don’t respect him as a human being. He’s too full of hate.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

By the way, just want to point out that Dave just echoed what I said about it being a relatively low deal in exchange for the appearance of safety, stability and something coming in. 

I disagree with him on the point that WWE desperately wanted to stop them. I don’t think WWE gives a shit if AEW have 900k viewers and $45 million a year. That’s chump change to them and it won’t scare them. It also pushed them to monetize NXT, which has made them even more profitable.

But when the pro-AEW guy echoes your points about why this isn’t the hottest deal ever, it kind of emphasizes your point.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> Holy shit, and this is coming from me: *Stop being so long-winded.* It makes it too time-consuming to refute all your points. I like a good argument, but you make it too hard, and as a result people need to take short-cuts, which you call “lazy” or “cowardly” or whatever suits you at the time.


I'm only "long winded" because I respond to every one of your points. If I didn't, you'd probably cry about me ignoring something. If you want short replies, write short replies.



> No, it doesn’t prove your point. At all. No one said anything about it not having any teeth at all. Wtf? Stop making stuff up. You know what, I’m just going to use sarcasm with you. It’s the lowest form of wit, and you might get it:
> 
> Yes, you’re right. There’s absolutely nothing TNT could do to get out of a contract with AEW at this point. No show has ever been canceled mid-season. That’s why TNT had a bonus year written in, because there’s no way they could get to end of it and just want to bypass negotiations and get it on the cheap. It definitely means the terms are super-fixed. It couldn’t just be for TNT’s convenience. They’re scared of losing them and AEW holds all the power!


I effectively concede that there are likely things they can do to get out of the contract, but I also said that it being a sports broadcasting deal means it's probably more of a pain to cancel. This isn't like ordering 22 episodes for a scripted series by the season. This is a long term commitment from TNT. You're spending all this time trying to paint the possibility of a contract's cancellation as a dark cloud over the deal for AEW but ultimately it's like arguing against putting your money in an interest bearing account because the bank can potentially put your money on hold under certain circumstances . Only a mind warped with pessimism bias would focus on that feature and not the benefit of the deal itself.



> Yes, I definitely said that contracts don’t provide any security at all. That is definitely what I said. Mmmhmm.


That's what you're implying. You even say that the terms for cancellation might just be 2 months notice, and go on about how contracts are disregarded all the time. You're just trying to minimize the impact of the contract with the effete argument that there's a possibility it will fall flat, as if that's news to everybody or as if that's a surprising stance you'd take.



> Oh, look, a South Park picture. How funny/clever? We have a genius logicker here, folks.


I chose it because it perfectly illustrated just about how silly you sounded. "Rich guy makes moneyzz hurr durr"



> Oh, look, ableist language. Turns out another AEW fanboy is a fucking horrible person. Would Cody like you using discriminatory language?


You're barking up the wrong tree with this *retarded* non-argument. Actually, whether you're earnest or not, it's the most amusing thing I've read from you, especially considering that calling the word retard "ableist(whatever the heck that means)" is essentially calling anyone with a disability a retard. It would be like if I said your argument smells like a fat pig and you screamed "leave my mama out of this." Now if you said it was offensive-- I still wouldn't care--you'd sound less stupid.

So let's hope this is just another one of your cringeworthy attempts at "sarcasm."



> Yes, I definitely said that pumping money in definitely means success. That is 100% what I said. It wasn’t that a billionaire could pay for production and a star talent roster securing TV rights fees in an environment where live entertainment is craved. Nope. I said that thing you said I said.


You say profitability should be a forgone conclusion because they have Tony's dad's "toilet paper money." Don't get bitchy with me because what you said was so fundamentally naive that you currently are forced to reword it, while still saying the exact same thing.


> Yes, I definitely said that because the deal wasn’t for billions it was a flop. I didn’t compare it to the current marketplace and value of live entertainment. Nope. I certainly didn’t identify the positives in the strategy but how they’re leaving money on the table. Nah, that doesn’t feel right.


You're comparing a great deal for AEW to an ideal situation for any wrestling company. Nirvana fallacy. It's just your
lily-livered, backhanded attempt to undermine something you can't spin as a failure as a failure by comparing what they have with magic beans and fairy glamour. They didn't have leverage to strike a billion dollar deal. You know it. I know it. If they did, instead of everyone calling this a win, they'd take up your line.


> I can’t wait for them to take on this new revolutionary strategy of signing top stars from around the world, getting serious and striking up a deal with #3 promotion New Japan. Gee-willickers, wherever would an idea like that come from? If only people were saying that months ago when top name stars had their contracts coming up and ROH hadn’t double-downed on the deal with New Japan. Oh well. Worth a shot, I guess.


Golly gee, it looks like you missed the point! Again.
AEW's deal prioritizes security because that's what a start up needs to secure all those things. You're so caught up on what they need to happen to be on top and trying to sound all clever(and failing miserably) you completely miss such things require positioning and strategy to achieve. And this deal is a great way to go about it.

If you spent less effort in trying to turn your dead points from just a week ago, points that this deal fundamentally killed, into wins, you'd probably wouldn't need to make a jackass out of yourself in posts like you've done here just now. Because guess what, you were the one that said that TNT being happy with AEW wasn't certain. You were the one that said AEW was on the decline. And life stepped in and tore your position a new butt hole. But, let me summarize all this in the manner that you're attempting to do.

ahem. . .

Golly gee wilickers gee golly wow, yipidity do dah! You sure are a sucky prophet, mister!

Wait. That wasn't sarcasm. Darn. I'm no good at this


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> I'm only "long winded" because I respond to every one of your points. If I didn't, you'd probably cry about me ignoring something. If you want short replies, write short replies.


Nah, that's your gimmick. 



DOTL said:


> *I effectively concede that there are likely things they can do to get out of the contract,*


Cool. 



DOTL said:


> That's what you're implying. You even say that the terms for cancellation might just be 2 months notice, and go on about how contracts are disregarded all the time. You're just trying to minimize the impact of the contract with the effete argument that there's a possibility it will fall flat, as if that's news to everybody or as if that's a surprising stance you'd take.


I didn't imply shit. Stop twisting. I said "for all we know." It does seem surprising to a lot of people who think this makes them bulletproof. You can see them celebrating in the first couple of pages. 



DOTL said:


> I chose it because it perfectly illustrated just about how silly you sounded. "Rich guy makes moneyzz hurr durr"


I didn't even look at it. Legit, I don't know what it's of. Sure. Go ahead. 



DOTL said:


> You're barking up the wrong tree with this *retarded* non-argument. Actually, whether you're earnest or not, it's the most amusing thing I've read from you, especially considering that calling the word retard "ableist(whatever the heck that means)" is essentially calling anyone with a disability a retard. It would be like if I said your argument smells like a fat pig and you screamed "leave my mama out of this." Now if you said it was offensive-- I still wouldn't care--you'd sound less stupid.
> 
> So let's hope this is just another one of your cringeworthy attempts at "sarcasm."


You are a dolt. No one uses that word the way you are in 2020. Grow the fuck up and get some decorum. Take a long hard look at yourself. 



DOTL said:


> You say profitability should be a forgone conclusion because they have Tony's dad's "toilet paper money." Don't get bitchy with me because what you said was so fundamentally naive that you currently are forced to reword it, while still saying the exact same thing.


White noise. When you pump enough money into a wrestling product, it can fucking sustain itself. That doesn't mean it's going to be successful. But the bar being set at "look at them having money!" is fucking ridiculous. 



DOTL said:


> You're comparing a great deal for AEW to an ideal situation for any wrestling company. Nirvana fallacy. It's just your
> lily-livered, backhanded attempt to undermine something you can't spin as a failure as a failure by comparing what they have with magic beans and fairy glamour. *They didn't have leverage to strike a billion dollar deal. You know it. I know it.* If they did, instead of everyone calling this a win, they'd take up your line.


Should we count the fallacies you make every post? It's like you discovered a new phrase and can't wait to throw it around. There's nothing unrealistic about a wrestling product with the financial backing to have a platform synonymous to WWE should do significantly worse than WWE. You're setting the bar too low because it's convenient for your fandom. But that's for admitting they didn't have the leverage to get a deal that good. That's the point. 



DOTL said:


> Golly gee, it looks like you missed the point! Again.
> AEW's deal prioritizes security because that's what a start up needs to secure all those things. You're so caught up on what they need to happen to be on top and trying to sound all clever(and failing miserably) you completely miss such things require positioning and strategy to achieve. And this deal is a great way to go about it.


It's a tiny step. Even Dave Meltzer admits that. If they had taken baby steps earlier, they might be further along. 



DOTL said:


> If you spent less effort in trying to turn your dead points from just a week ago, points that this deal fundamentally killed, into wins, you'd probably wouldn't need to make a jackass out of yourself in posts like you've done here just now. Because guess what, you were the one that said that TNT being happy with AEW wasn't certain. You were the one that said AEW was on the decline. And life stepped in and tore your position a new butt hole. But, let me summarize all this in the manner that you're attempting to do.


What points did this deal kill? Lol, you're actually just making stuff up. We _still_ don't know that TNT are "happy" with AEW. They're fine signing them to a dirt cheap deal for the foreseeable future. That doesn't equate to happy. Of course a statement is going to say "we're super-stoked and investing for the future." But they didn't break the bank on this. Even Meltzer admits it. My prediction has _always_ been that I don't think they'll get giant rights fees -- which they haven't and won't for at least four years now (maybe five if they are still playing it safe and TNT pays them $60 million or whatever a year). There's nothing the precludes them from being moved or cancelled. My prediction was that they would be moved by the end of the year. That's a fixed prediction that you can hold me to at the end of 2020. But I'd like to know what this deal has "killed." 

If NXT got this deal, people would be mocking WWE out the ass. "Oh-ho-ho! They know they can't get a good deal in two years and they're so scared of AEW whooping them that they got a security deal for four years and are going to rely on Raw and SmackDown money!" Don't say they wouldn't. They would. And if 205 Live was also included as part of that deal, people would take it even further. That's not me putting spin on things. It's me standing back, looking at the numbers and looking at what they actually mean and what each side gets. Even Dave Meltzer is calming down and pointing out: a) it's not a lot of money, b) TNT can probably get out of it if AEW under-performs. What have I been saying?

You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. I should have just killed it when you conceded my actual points. I'll go back and bold them.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

The Wood said:


> By the way, just want to point out that Dave just echoed what I said about it being a relatively low deal in exchange for the appearance of safety, stability and something coming in.
> 
> I disagree with him on the point that WWE desperately wanted to stop them. I don’t think WWE gives a shit if AEW have 900k viewers and $45 million a year. That’s chump change to them and it won’t scare them. It also pushed them to monetize NXT, which has made them even more profitable.
> 
> But when the pro-AEW guy echoes your points about why this isn’t the hottest deal ever, it kind of emphasizes your point.


Paying more for talent doesn't make them profitable


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> Paying more for talent doesn't make them profitable


No, bringing in star talent that could increase ratings, help establish merchandising agreements and encourage TNT to fork out more money would make them more profitable.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> Nah, that's your gimmick.


My gimmick? There's been dozens of times you dropped a point you couldn't win and I let it go simply because I didn't want be bothered with pointing them out.




> I didn't imply shit. Stop twisting. I said "for all we know." It does seem surprising to a lot of people who think this makes them bulletproof. You can see them celebrating in the first couple of pages.


You're using uncertainty as an argument for a certain outlook when another outlook is more likely. You're using some possible language in a possible clause in contract to minimize the effect on the contract simply because you can't concede that you were wrong. It's nothing but hot air.




> You are a dolt. No one uses that word the way you are in 2020. Grow the fuck up and get some decorum. Take a long hard look at yourself.


I remember you calling me an idiot, which was a term used for mental disability, Captain Genius.








Idiot - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




Dolt, while not a clinical term, literally means the same thing, you festering hypocrite.
I'm pretty sure you've called someone a moron too, with your no self-awareness having ass?.
( I can't believe *this* dude is trying to get on a high horse. )




> White noise. When you pump enough money into a wrestling product, it can fucking sustain itself. That doesn't mean it's going to be successful. But the bar being set at "look at them having money!" is fucking ridiculous.


That's not how *profitability* works. Injecting your own cash into a business just increases your expenses. It's money you could have kept in your pocket and add with the profit of the so-called successful company. How can we live in a post-WCW world and you not grasp this? How can you graduate from whatever schools they have in Australia and not grasp this?



> Should we count the fallacies you make every post? It's like you discovered a new phrase and can't wait to throw it aroun...


Got tired of trying to explain why your argument is retarded and decided to use short hand. Sue me.

Anyway, it's very unrealistic to expect a 3 month old brand to cut a billion dollar deal. Heck, Meltzer was surprised how early this one was taken up. And I'm setting the bar too low? Dude, I didn't even have a bar, my mind was so wrapped up on signings, ratings, and NJ that I forgot about the need for an extended TV deal. And you didn't expect it either, I reckon from our little discussion a week and a half ago. 




> It's a tiny step. Even Dave Meltzer admits that. If they had taken baby steps earlier, they might be further along.


So tiny that they got the deal a year before he expected. So tiny he says they "pretty much won the game." So tiny, they're already in the black.

Ok.




> What points did this deal kill? Lol, you're actually just making stuff up. *We still don't know that TNT are "happy" with AEW. *They're fine signing them to a dirt cheap deal for the foreseeable future. That doesn't equate to happy. Of course a statement is going to say "we're super-stoked and investing for the future." But they didn't break the bank ...


Oh great Nostradumas (i think that's how you spell it) how the heck am I suppose to confirm all your so-called predictions? I can only speak on what I had the misfortune of reading, and what I read was in bold.

You're really trying to argue that TNT isn't happy with AEW? In your own words, you pretty much accuse them of exploiting them for easy money. Even on that front, TNT would be as happy with AEW as a cat is happy with a cornered mouse. The very fact you cannot frame it that way, even at AEW's expense, means your pride won't allow you to admit that this line of argument isn't specious, but rather, plain old untenable.



> If NXT got this deal, people would be mocking WWE out the ass. "Oh-ho-ho! They know they can't get a good deal in two ...


This type of arguing is YOUR gimmick. If they got this deal I'd say cool, I wish AEW got something similar. Why? Because it fits the size of the company and if you include ad rights it's reportedly more than what NXT is getting now. You're trying to make the argument that a company that had no such deal a moment ago is now being lowballed. Your standard is so numb-nuts, deliriously stupid.

Good grief.




> You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. I should have just killed it when you conceded my actual points. I'll go back and bold them.


You're getting so excited over me conceding the likelihood they can get out of the contract, you want to overlook the other points you make and I still disagree with.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> My gimmick? There's been dozens of times you dropped a point you couldn't win and I let it go simply because I didn't want be bothered with pointing them out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it’s your gimmick to whinge that people ignore you. They don’t, but if they post without tagging you, then you throw a tantrum. I don’t drop points I can’t win, lol. I’m pretty sure anyone here would tell you that if there’s one thing I don’t do, it’s drop it, lol. But nice try with the “I win” posturing. No dice, DOLT.

Language evolves. We don’t use “retard” that way anymore. Don’t try and use the archaic etymology of language to try and slip you being a dick past, you brothel. We have a word for folks like you over here, but you’d probably have a sook and try and get me banned for using it. 

And the rest is just bullshit. Everyone knows how expenses work. Stop trying to derail shit with blah, blah, blah. I’ve suggested many times how great rates fees would cover expenses. That has always been the plan, but they didn’t quite get there. All the talent signed with Vince and they got pocket money (in TV terms).

The rest is just more blah, blah. Honestly, you’re the most boring person here to talk to. Someone summarize this guy’s points in an interesting fashion, please. I want to reply to them, but the guy, himself, is headache-inducing. There’s something you said in there that was really nauseating, but I cannot be fucked to go and find it.

Something about uncertainty like I’m arguing that’s what’s happening. No, I wasn’t doing. Nice try. I’m just explaining that it’s not reasonable to assume this idea is bulletproof like so many of the sycophants are. You’re doing all that work in your little head.

Also, did you just call me “Captain Genius?” I’m not sure which is more disgusting, that or your ableist language.

* TNT is laughing with this deal.

* AEW stand to be marginally profitable, but aren’t bulletproof for four years.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> No, it’s your gimmick to whinge that people ignore you. They don’t, but if they post without tagging you, then you throw a tantrum. I don’t drop points I can’t win, lol. I’m pretty sure anyone here would tell you that if there’s one thing I don’t do, it’s drop it, lol. But nice try with the “I win” posturing. No dice, DOLT.


Only you'd conflate the "fear of being ignored" with "wary of someone trying to sneak one by you." But, whatever.



> Language evolves. We don’t use “retard” that way anymore. Don’t try and use the archaic etymology of language to try and slip you being a dick past, you brothel. We have a word for folks like you over here, but you’d probably have a sook and try and get me banned for using it.


Because I'm pretty sure, you're attempting to muddle sincerity with some form of tolling, I'll say this anyway.

I don't give a crap what words people use, here,over there or anywhere. I say what the hell I want to say and you can say whatever the hell you want to say(which your hypocritical ass is already doing). If I insult you personally, fine be upset, but don't talk about banning people when you're the one acting like a bitch over a word I wasn't calling you or anyone, but was referring only to a line of logic. A retarded one.

One good thing is babby's first emotion, Fahrenheit 541, beware the shrinking violet, bubble-wrap the world, tattle-tail, mealymouthed, newspeak bullshit is already dying out thanks to moral charlatans like you. No one needs some dude who's a douche bag in every way possible on this forum(not just my opinion) lecturing them on "decorum" just because of some fake, made-up, insincere outrage he chooses to align with as if it's a replacement for virtue and what seems to be a mosquito swarmed puddle of a personality. Take your retarded buzzwords and stick them sideways with a twist.



> And the rest is just bullshit. Everyone knows how expenses work. Stop trying to derail shit with blah, blah, blah. I’ve suggested many times how great rates fees would cover expenses. That has always been the plan, but they didn’t quite get there. All the talent signed with Vince and they got pocket money (in TV terms).


You want to talk about derail? You're whining and kvetching about no-no words in an effort to hide the fact that you made a point about business a snail might, if it could talk. And is currently trying to pass the word "blah" off as both clever and an argument.

Here's a tip, try facerolling the keyboard and you might actually get closer to the effect you're going for!

Apparently you don't understand expenses work because you keep repeating the same stupid line that a billionaire buying talent and being on TV is enough to make profitability a forgone conclusion, when both TNA and late WCW shows that is not historical, at all. They had talent and TV and weren't PROFITABLE. Because here's the thing. Being able to pay expenses doesn't mean your business model is generating money more money going into it. You might have leveraged it, you might be breaking even, you might have turned assets into liquid capital to pay the bills. 




> Something about uncertainty like I’m arguing that’s what’s happening. No, I wasn’t doing. Nice try. I’m just explaining that it’s not reasonable to assume this idea is bulletproof like so many of the sycophants are. You’re doing all that work in your little head.


First, learn what the word sycophant means. Hint: it doesn't mean fanboy.
No one is saying it's bulletproof. I know I'm not. I'm arguing that the future's uncertainty (you go to this well every time AEW does well, might I add.) is not a valid argument against the contract being a huge boon to AEW or it even being a point of security. This point you're trying to make is really a non-point you're using to keep the line of "reasoning" you've maintained since God knows when. The invariability in this argument in light of new information suggests it's held for biased rather than situational reasons. You've merely shifted your goalpost in a clumsy attempt to re-frame the situation from one being about clear monetary success to relative failure and doubt.



> Also, did you just call me “Captain Genius?” I’m not sure which is more disgusting, that or your ableist language.


I sure did, Captain Genius.


> * TNT is laughing with this deal.
> 
> * AEW stand to be marginally profitable, but aren’t bulletproof for four years.


* Who gives a crap if TNT is "laughing at the deal" if AEW is happy with their end. They have lawyers and business professionals and you're still struggling with the concept of profit.

*Who said anything about marginally? You don't know their overhead, their revenue, payroll, debt, any of that stuff. You're just pulling stuff out of your butt, which is good I guess, so you can make room for all those dumb buzzwords. And AEW has a contract. Not bulletproof(most business contracts aren't) but as certain as certain can get in the business world. Once again. Non-point.

Now to end post, here is the Kevin Reilly, President of TNT saying that you're full of crap they're happy with AEW, as if that was a mystery.



> “I just had this idea that this was the time to invest,” he says. “*This is a startup*. It’s already over-delivered out of the gate. That’s really when you want to hit the gasoline a little bit. *The guys already have ideas about additional talent and things they want to do and I wanted to incentivize them as a partner to do that*. We also wanted to gave fans and* talent who potentially want to come work with us* the sense that this is here to stay. *You can invest in it*, it’s here to stay, and it’s only going to get better.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now if I know you're methods well enough you'll say, " But garsh. Of corsh he'll try to put a good face on the deal." To which I'd say, true, people tend to do that when they cut good deals. Everything he says above is consistent with the contract they made. It's a smaller amount boosted by ad fees to hedge risk[start up] and structured in a way to encourage growth at by the end of the contract's life. It gives off an air of security so that talent can get a greater sense of job security.

The deal is designed to position the company to do all the stuff you'd attribute to magic billionaire sparkles and rainbows.


----------



## K4L318 (Nov 12, 2014)

The Wood said:


> No, it’s your gimmick to whinge that people ignore you. They don’t, but if they post without tagging you, then you throw a tantrum. I don’t drop points I can’t win, lol. I’m pretty sure anyone here would tell you that if there’s one thing I don’t do, it’s drop it, lol. But nice try with the “I win” posturing. No dice, DOLT.
> 
> Language evolves. We don’t use “retard” that way anymore. Don’t try and use the archaic etymology of language to try and slip you being a dick past, you brothel. We have a word for folks like you over here, but you’d probably have a sook and try and get me banned for using it.
> 
> ...


bruh you really mad about a start up becoming a profitable company in record time?

TNT signed a 4 wit a 5th year option. AEW secured TV rights for 4 years and in year 5 TNT has to pony up or else they might get in a bidding war wit NBC, FOX or ESPN for AEW's TV rights.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> Only you'd conflate the "fear of being ignored" with "wary of someone trying to sneak one by you." But, whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You’re so edgy, brah. Such a renegade saying whatever you want. True bad-asses can stay on point.

I swear to god, being stuck in a room with you would be fucking hell. I’d rather watch an entire edition of Monday Night Raw. You’re so fucking tedious and cannot...stay...on...fucking...point.

Yo, you realise we aren’t in WCW or TNA times, DOLT. The whole game is right fees. They aren’t going to make money off their other revenue streams — they have the exact same issues as WWE. That’s always been the game. It’s Vince’s game, with both WWE and the XFL. And it’s Tony’s game with AEW. And they’ve come out with a massively compromised deal.

Which. Is. Fine. You. Daft. Cunt.

It’s just not fucking excellent or as good as it could have been if they managed to actually get the people they tried to get and didn’t cap themselves through booking.

The rest of what you said is just smokescreen bullshit, and you going borderline Garty. You’re getting so obsessed you feel the need to fill in the blanks and basically have a conversation with yourself.

I’ll repeat:

* TNT are laughing with this deal. Content for dirt all.

* AEW can probably still be canceled, so the idea that this is certain security is even a myth. It’s the appearance of security. It’s tentative security. It’s a scheduled $45 million a year, which is still small enough that they could blow it, so maybe don’t count your chickens like they’re forever golden, lol. They’re not.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> You’re so edgy, brah. Such a renegade saying whatever you want. True bad-asses can stay on point.


It's not about being edgy. It's about the basic human ability not have internet douchebags coming out of the woodworks with the qualities of a hangnail telling you what to say when they themselves talk to people like crap. 



> Yo, you realise we aren’t in WCW or TNA times, DOLT. The whole game is right fees. They aren’t going to make money off their other revenue streams — they have the exact same issues as WWE. That’s always been the game. It’s Vince’s game, with both WWE and the XFL. And it’s Tony’s game with AEW. And they’ve come out with a massively compromised deal.


You have to have a show that draws to secure rights fees, stupid ass. You have to manage those rights fees properly with proper spending, stupid ass. So, once again, a guy with a bunch of money throwing it into a machine isn't going to automatically spit out more money, stupid ass. It's why we talk about ratings every month. It's why TNT isn't giving a start up like AEW 1billion dollars. And it's why your Barney Fife, tank head isn't running the company(Excuse me, Barney was actually likable). They understand this. And please, stop parroting Meltzer almost word for word as if this is your original thought. No one was talking about the XFL.




> It’s just not fucking excellent or as good as it could have been if they managed to actually get the people they tried to get and didn’t cap themselves through booking.


That's not the reason the "deal wasn't as good as it could have been." The reason is that TNT isn't ran by business illiterates such as yourself. Why the heck would you throw a billion dollars at a start up company with a brand that is barely is a year old? And what type of Nick Jr, tiddlywinks understanding of business strategy must you have to think that just because a billionaire owns a company, they have unlimited ability to outbid everyone and to be immune to creative issues, ratings killing controversies, and just plain old mismanagement? Companies have operating budgets and obviously AEW's budget didn't allow for them to sign the wrestling equivalent of the dream team. Look at the wording of the quote from Kevin Reilly you're ignoring like green jello. The deal was designed to make it easier for AEW to secure talent. You want to know why? Because just like TNT, they aren't The Weed, a dunce who'd spend 1billion dollars of the owner's money on a project that's just getting off the ground.



> The rest of what you said is just smokescreen bullshit, and you going borderline Garty. You’re getting so obsessed you feel the need to fill in the blanks and basically have a conversation with yourself.


Calling something smoke screen bullshit doesn't make it smokescreen bullshit. One of the things you're ignoring directly addresses that brain dead point you made about us not knowing what TNT feels about AEW in the president's own words. The fact you'd call that a smokescreen implies that every time you lose a point, instead of conceding, you disregard it, hoping no one calls you out on it.



> I’ll repeat:
> 
> * TNT are laughing with this deal. Content for dirt all.
> 
> * AEW can probably still be canceled, so the idea that this is certain security is even a myth. It’s the appearance of security. It’s tentative security. It’s a scheduled $45 million a year, which is still small enough that they could blow it, so maybe don’t count your chickens like they’re forever golden, lol. They’re not.


It's funny. You paint TNT as the cat that ate the canary which means their entire deal is predicated on their high potential for success, yet you dangle the small potential of failure around as if it's likely under your scenario. You've confused yourself and you don't even realize it.

If AEW's deal is a low balled offer, why wouldn't TNT keep it on TV? They'd be making money hand over fist for a show that's "dirt cheap." The ratings would have to drop as low as your brow before it wouldn't be profitable for them. See, in your quixotic quest to twist this deal into a failure, you accidentally put yourself into a double bind.

So which is it? Is the AEW deal so weak that TNT got content for lunch money or is AEW in a tentative position? I'll put like this, this way. If TNT leveraged itself into a secure position to profit off of AEW for a low low risk and at it's own expense, why would they drop it prematurely?


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

I wish they would TRULY go all in and put a show on Friday Night. Live. Friday Night Frenzy. No reason they couldn't have two shows a


----------



## The Raw Smackdown (Jan 8, 2017)

DOTL getting woody all the way together. We love to see it!


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Raw Smackdown said:


> DOTL getting woody all the way together. We love to see it!


I stupidly fell into that trap again. ?


----------



## The Dude (Jan 1, 2020)

TKO Wrestling said:


> I wish they would TRULY go all in and put a show on Friday Night. Live. Friday Night Frenzy. No reason they couldn't have two shows a


They would get slaughtered in the ratings


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

So mad


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> It's not about being edgy. It's about the basic human ability not have internet douchebags coming out of the woodworks with the qualities of a hangnail telling you what to say when they themselves talk to people like crap.
> 
> 
> You have to have a show that draws to secure rights fees, stupid ass. You have to manage those rights fees properly with proper spending, stupid ass. So, once again, a guy with a bunch of money throwing it into a machine isn't going to automatically spit out more money, stupid ass. It's why we talk about ratings every month. It's why TNT isn't giving a start up like AEW 1billion dollars. And it's why your Barney Fife, tank head isn't running the company(Excuse me, Barney was actually likable). They understand this. And please, stop parroting Meltzer almost word for word as if this is your original thought. No one was talking about the XFL.
> ...


Dude, you choose those words, you are the internet douchebag. Scrap that, the real-life douchebag. Make better choices.

But thanks for pointing out exactly why AEW aren’t getting a killer rights deal and why this isn’t cause for massive celebration like they won the SuperBowl.

I’m not even going to read the rest. You’re boring and obtuse. Aren’t you the fuck who said they have “hyper-focus?” Yeah, calling bullshit on that.

You concede all my points, then go off on tangents about completely irrelevant things:

* You concede that TNT can probably drop them.

* You concede it’s not an amazing amount of money.

Those were me points, guv. The rest of what you ramble about is irrelevant.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> Dude, you choose those words, you are the internet douchebag. Scrap that, the real-life douchebag. Make better choices.


In the haze that is your imagined greatness, you can't even comprehend what I'm saying. If the premise of no-no words is that they hurt people you're completely negating the point of not saying them by continuing to be a jack ass to people throughout this forum. The only reason I tear into your monkey ass is because how you talk to people, not the individual words you chose. I'm not perfect, but at the end of the day, I don't have people talk about me like I'm a plague of locust as they do you. And the reason why is simple. I talk to people with common courtesy until they prove they don't deserve it. 

So I will repeat. You towing the PC line doesn't make you less of a douche. In fact, the idea you have the gall to lecture me on my life makes you not just a douche, but a satiricall one deserving the scorn and laughter of small children. Once again, your "sensibilities." turn sideways. shove. twist.



> But thanks for pointing out exactly why AEW aren’t getting a killer rights deal and why this isn’t cause for massive celebration like they won the SuperBowl.


Like I said. You've gotten yourself in a double bind. If AEW's deal is dirt cheap for TNT then they shouldn't fear getting kicked off air. TNT would want to milk the deal until the cows come home. If If their position is tenuous, then that's because TNT thinks their investment was too much than their current return to be profitable. So which is it, Professor? Your dumb ass attempt to call the deal a bad one AND insecure is a contradiction, you myopic goof. 



> I’m not even going to read the rest.



Great. I guess I'll stop here too. I should have remembered that you aren't worth my time.

Shew fly. Don't forget to twist. It's very important.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

No, you use shitty


DOTL said:


> In the haze that is your imagined greatness, you can't even comprehend what I'm saying. If the premise of no-no words is that they hurt people you're completely negating the point of not saying them by continuing to be a jack ass to people throughout this forum. The only reason I tear into your monkey ass is because how you talk to people, not the individual words you chose. I'm not perfect, but at the end of the day, I don't have people talk about me like I'm a plague of locust as they do you. And the reason why is simple. I talk to people with common courtesy until they prove they don't deserve it.
> 
> So I will repeat. You towing the PC line doesn't make you less of a douche. In fact, the idea you have the gall to lecture me on my life makes you not just a douche, but a satiricall one deserving the scorn and laughter of small children. Once again, your "sensibilities." turn sideways. shove. twist.
> 
> ...


No, you use shitty language because you’re a shitty person. There’s a difference between putting someone down for being a fuck and cultivating a culture that normalizes looking down on whole classes, you absolutely toss-pot.

The rest of what you say is gibberish. Something about a double-bind. What? You’re reaching so far back you’re touching your toes. Stop making up what people say and respond to what they do.

* TNT got AEW for dirt cheap and can probably drop them if they decide they are underperforming. I’ll simplify it to one point, you obtuse fuck.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> No, you use shitty language because you’re a shitty person. There’s a difference between putting someone down for being a fuck and cultivating a culture that normalizes looking down on whole classes, you absolutely toss-pot.


Once again. Who is the one everyone hates in this forum? Is it me. Or is it *you*.

Your actions and the way people treat you says way more about who you are than your pop-philosophy armchair bullshit. You're like a person who spends all day in church, know the catechisms and rites, prayers, and sermons, says amen at all the right times, *stick*s a gigantic cross on their wall but then it comes down to it would curse someone out for denting your car.

I've been around these type of people all my life and I know one when I see him.

?You are a hypocrite of the highest order, you damn tool. And you're wasting your time trying to* twist* the discussion into you being "the good guy." I, or anyone in this forum I think, don't buy that one bit.





> * TNT got AEW for dirt cheap and can probably drop them if they decide they are underperforming. I’ll simplify it to one point, you obtuse fuck.


Let me break this down to you, you pusillanimous wart. If TNT got AEW for dirt cheap that means their ceiling for profitability will be lower than average. This means that AEW's deal would be more secure than average because it's less likely to fail in the eyes of TNT. The fact that you cling to a possible out as some point that the deal is not something to be lauded, secure, or whatever bullshit narrative you want to drum up means you're the one bending over backwards so much that the crap you're puking has gone full circle and back home like you were an ouroboros of straight, grade A feces. You're trying so hard to paint this in the negative you can't even decide what type of failure you want it to be for AEW.

The reality is the deal is both secure and a lot of money. It's a deal even AEW didn't expect at this time according to Cody.

It's a win. A big win. Deal with it.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> Once again. Who is the one everyone hates in this forum? Is it me. Or is it *you*.
> 
> Your actions and the way people treat you says way more about who you are than your pop-philosophy armchair bullshit. You're like a person who spends all day in church, know the catechisms and rites, prayers, and sermons, says amen at all the right times, *stick*s a gigantic cross on their wall but then it comes down to it would curse someone out someone for denting your car.
> 
> ...


Plenty of people here are made insecure by logic and people having a clear head about AEW. You want to use the hate? Whatever. I prefer to keep good company. There are plenty of people who value me as a poster. But sure, try and play to the crowd like you’re a babyface, you ableist fuck.

You can’t go on about philosophical bullshit and then go on to talk about “actions” and “treating people” on a wrestling forum, nerd. You used terrible language. There’s no excuse for it. I don’t know or “treat anyone” outside of discourse on here, where I have the class and taste to not mock people with disabilities.

You don’t see me, fool. You’re talking to a person over the internet. You’re getting closer to Garty levels. It’s not hypocritical to point out that someone who uses horrible language like you do a cunt.

Being cheap shows their current value for the meantime, and it doesn’t mean shit about them being more secure. It could mean they are more likely to be shelved or cut because it’s “no biggie.” Do you get more upset if an expensive or cheap toy breaks?

You are really boxing above your weight here, champ. Even half-reading your shit makes it easy enough to dismiss.


----------



## MontyCora (Aug 31, 2016)

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Wood is a douchebag and nobody likes him. Got it. Makes a ton of sense.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> Pl....


There's difference between being sober and bending over backwards to spin something that is 99% positive into a bad thing. I'm not a babyface. But you sure as hell aren't, I don't care how many times you scream your buzzwords. You're a rat-assed hypocrite. It don't get no simpler than that.



> You can’t go on abo....


Note you say "language." I never once mentioned anyone with a disability. And there's a for good reason for that. Because I'm a bigboy who understands that words and intentions aren't the same thing. In your twisted world using a particular word is a sin, but shit behavior doesn't matter as long as you say the right thing. That's why you're trying to justify how you engage people on this forum right as we speak. Your capacity for right and wrong is superficial, and it's superficial because it's easy. And it's easy because you like it easy. Like moral short hand.

This is and has always been about _you_.




> Being c...


That's gotta be the dumbest analogy ever in the history of this sad exchange. AEW isn't a toy, you dip-thong. It's not some depreciable asset. It's an investment. The low initial investment and almost guaranteed ad revenue means that AEW isn't disposable. It's safe. Safe for TNT. A better analogy would be buying a sapling for a sapling's price. If you pay the price of a tree for a sapling, you are an idiot. If you uproot a sapling before it's grown, you're also an idiot, especially if the sapling is already giving you more than it's initial value than you paid for it in apples You try to paint the deal as something insignificant for TNT ( it isn't) as if such a point matters for AEW's standing. It's a borderline non-sequitur compared to whats actually happening. You're essentially punishing AEW for being at it's beginning phases (ahead of schedule BTW) and using the vague notion of the future to justify your pessimistic position.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> There's difference between being sober and bending over backwards to spin something that is 99% positive into a bad thing. I'm not a babyface. But you sure as hell aren't, I don't care how many times you scream your buzzwords. You're a rat-assed hypocrite. It don't get no simpler than that.
> 
> 
> Note you say "language." I never once mentioned anyone with a disability. And there's a for good reason for that. Because I'm a bigboy who understands that words and intentions aren't the same thing. In your twisted world using a particular word is a sin, but shit behavior doesn't matter as long as you say the right thing. That's why you're trying to justify how you engage people on this forum right as we speak. Your capacity for right and wrong is superficial, and it's superficial because it's easy. And it's easy because you like it easy. Like moral short hand.
> ...


Lol, “99% positive.” Yes, I am the spin doctor.

No, don’t try that edge-lord “they’re just words” shit here. You’re a piece of shit and I’m going to remind you of it until you apologize for it. Intent follows the bullet, you cowardly wank.

Ugh, the rest is just a bunch of _more_ nonsense. No, it’s not about saying the “right thing.” I’ll call you a piece of shit till the wolves come home. It’s about not using discriminatory words, you fuck-cloth. That’s about you—not at the expense of other people.

The rest is just more “blah, blah, blah...this is good...blah, blah, blah...you spin...blah, blah, blah...I know what you’re thinking.” No you don’t, you scunge-fuck. I say what I think, and it isn’t fuelled by ableist fucking superiority shit. You have to do that to get away from the point:

* TNT paid dirt for this deal. They can also probably get out of it if they want.

Anything else you say is besides the point. Try and stick to it this time.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

The Wood said:


> Lol, “99% positive.” Yes, I am the spin doctor.
> 
> No, don’t try that edge-lord “they’re just words” shit here. You’re a piece of shit and I’m going to remind you of it until you apologize for it. Intent follows the bullet, you cowardly wank.
> 
> ...


lol. I ain't apologizing to you. The only apology I give is to the people on this thread who had to read this tripe. Yours and mine. As for you. I stand by the words I use ( you won't like that) And I do so with joy in my heart and a smile on my face. This is about domination in your mind. Not being good. Not being true because we know you aren't. This is about putting someone under your smelly, corn infested feet.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

No one cares! We're both the side show. Idiots spending day in arguing about stuff we have no power over, about things we're not financially benefiting from. You and I aren't better than anyone.

But the difference here is I don't care. I don't care about being the "bad guy" if means I get to deny you narcissistic supply. Call me the bad guy, baby! Because the apology can go up there with your retarded buzzwords. 

Now. 



> * TNT paid dirt for this deal. They can also probably get out of it if they want.


I'm going to go about this the way I've always should. 

And? AEW is richer and has more security than they did two weeks ago. TNT has a safe investment that will give them a lot of money for negligible cost and seems happy with them.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

DOTL said:


> lol. I ain't apologizing to you. The only apology I give is to the people on this thread who had to read this tripe. Yours and mine. As for you. I stand by the words I use ( you won't like that) And I do so with joy in my heart and a smile on my face. This is about domination in your mind. Not being good. Not being true because we know you aren't. This is about putting someone under your smelly, corn infested feet.
> 
> I'll let you in on a little secret.
> 
> ...


No, not to me. Apologize in general for using shitty language. Don’t tell me what it’s about, you wannabe pseudo-psychologist. In 2020 people don’t want to come on and read ableist, sexist, racist or transphobic language. Be better.

You’re a bad promo. I’ve never seen someone with such a small amount of charisma try and act like they have a personality on the internet.

You also don’t have the right to call anyone a narcissist when you write scripts for the people you interact with on here in your head. Very Garty-like. I apologize to anyone who reads your shit too.

Ah, something resembling a point. Yes, they are making more money now than they were. No fucking shit. The point is they could be making more if they didn’t hamper themselves at every turn. You lot are taking a molehill and making it out to be a mountain.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

How sad is it that I don’t even have to guess who @DOTL is talking to?

I can just see from the replies ? ? ?


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> How sad is it that I don’t even have to guess who @DOTL is talking to?
> 
> I can just see from the replies ? ? ?


I've never seen someone so bias and have such agenda. I can't even see what he says but just the replies DOTL having. I'm like wow he's trying so hard to spin every thing in negative way always. It's just sad he has no life.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Edit: On the advice of @*Jonhern*. I'm just going to let this go.


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> How sad is it that I don’t even have to guess who @DOTL is talking to?
> 
> I can just see from the replies ? ? ?


Im almost to the point of ignoring @DOTL too just so I don't have to hear anything about the wood lol. Stop feeding the trolls, he wants us to get railed up, that's how he gets off. The worst thing to do to guys like him is to ignore him.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Can’t y’all just agree to disagree? Neither of you seem to be looking for perspective from each other. Just shouting your perspective hoping to beat the other into submission.

The convo isn’t going anywhere.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

bdon said:


> Can’t y’all just agree to disagree? Neither of you seem to be looking for perspective from each other. Just shouting your perspective hoping to beat the other into submission.
> 
> The convo isn’t going anywhere.


You're probably right.



Jonhern said:


> Im almost to the point of ignoring @DOTL too just so I don't have to hear anything about the wood lol. Stop feeding the trolls, he wants us to get railed up, that's how he gets off. The worst thing to do to guys like him is to ignore him.


I'm sorry. I don't want to mess up your experience here.


----------



## Brodus Clay (Jan 6, 2012)

DOTL said:


> Edit: On the advice of @*Jonhern*. I'm just going to let this go.


Good, The Wood should be ignored hope people stop replying to that toddler so he just fades.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

imthegame19 said:


> I've never seen someone so bias and have such agenda. I can't even see what he says but just the replies DOTL having. I'm like wow he's trying so hard to spin every thing in negative way always. It's just sad he has no life.


it’s like watching one man fight a brave fight against madness 

mad respect DOTL.... you’re a better man than me, with tons more patience for the sounds empty cans make


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> How sad is it that I don’t even have to guess who @DOTL is talking to?
> 
> I can just see from the replies ? ? ?


Especially since he names me numerous times.



imthegame19 said:


> I've never seen someone so bias and have such agenda. I can't even see what he says but just the replies DOTL having. I'm like wow he's trying so hard to spin every thing in negative way always. It's just sad he has no life.


You can’t see what I’m saying yet you can see I have an agenda? Interesting...



Brodus Clay said:


> Good, The Wood should be ignored hope people stop replying to that toddler so he just fades.


You’re the one who called people who don’t like Pentagon’s pantomime shit toddlers, aren’t you?


----------

