In fairness, we all know he's not here to really debate.

I mean, that's obvious. If he is as intelligent as he claims, you'd think he'd try to disguise it better.

But he seems to enjoy pushing his narrative/gimmick/whatever. And isn't that what really matters?

Cant lose a debate if you ignore all the facts

I would like to hear Heyman's take on CyNick's most recent posts in this thread.

Well, you can definitely lose the debate.

Cynick ignores the facts to preserve his own internal illusions that he won the debate and that he knows more than he actually does.

AKA illusory superiority or the Dunning-Kruger effect. If he truly believes what he says on here, Cynick is pretty much the personification of Dunning-Kruger.

I'm happy to have that debate, since I've done this as part of a start up. I would guess the finer details would go over the heads of most here. I'm curious, how you feel the convertible note will hurt the WWE going forward? I'm a free market type of guy (crazy, right?), So to me if the market has the stock at or near us 52 week high, that would indicate investors are not concerned.

Which ties into the over arching debate about WWE ratings. I've always conceded, yup they are down, can't deny that. But the context of being down is important. They have a very strong social media presence, the network continues to grow, rights fees for TV properties continues to increase. These are all measures that actually contribute to the bottom line of the company. One of the most under reported stories of 2016 was that NBCU in conjunction with WWE added 50+ blue chip advertisers. That coupled with their strong performance relative to other cable properties and other USA properties should result in a healthy rights fees deal in a couple years.

Heyman is an intelligent person, he weighs out what people say. I value his opinion because he hears both sides. Unlike others who think they know everything because they read a paragraph in 30,000 word newsletter.

this thread is more entertaining than RAW, proving that CyNick is great for ratings.

He makes a fine jester

He reminds me of Patterson and Brisco

not an insult btw best friend, Pat and Gerald had one of the most epic fucking runs as Mr. McMahon's trusted right hand men during the attitude era.

Ha!

So he would make...the 3rd stooge

lol


Mister MAC-MAH-HIN

I think the solution to WWE's plummeting ratings is to build a big, giant wall. It makes sense because walls keep people in AND out of things. I have been in TONS of buildings with walls and if not for doors I would NOT be able to go from one side of the wall to the other. So you build a wall. Mexicans can't come in, WWE fans can't leave. Problem solved.

Don't know about a wall, but WWE is going to be making some great deals.

Ouch.

I will also remind people that the most complicated thing CyNick has said re: business is an Investopedia reply to a question about revenue versus profit. When he tried to hang with BigCrippyZ in a ratings discussion, BigCrippyZ pulled out his lawyer and put CyNick in an ambulance for him to chase so he could school CyNick twice.

Not to get too political, but this is also a man who considers Trump an unblemished businessman, despite his Chapter 11 appeals. How are those steaks doing? As long as you back pocket a few billion nothing else matters, right?

You remind me of an old friend I used to have. I say used to, because he eventually got so tedious people stopped feeling sorry for him and his self-aggrandizing need to argue points, usually incorrectly, to the point where he thought he had won because people stopped conversing with him. He was the sort of prick that would hear an out-dated trivia fact and claim it as gospel until he was blue in the face, even if more modern information was available and proved him wrong. Sometimes he would be just plain wrong, but usually he was so firmly confident in his own intelligence, he would just embarrass himself and alienate others, who were actually more correct than he was.

Turns out people who think they are so much smarter than other people because they do "harder" degrees (and as I said in your rep, my sister did a Bachelor of Business and can't change her oil), aren't that smart at all. Isn't it funny how you're around a bunch of like-minded people in one scenario, but when it suits you suddenly you are around "smart" people when you are being agreed with? I've never met someone who describes themselves as a genius who wasn't an underwhelming bore. Real geniuses don't need to go around doing that.

You're constantly outsmarted by people on these forums and they never describe themselves as geniuses. While I do think you are trolling, I actually do think you believe yourself to be smarter than most people. The thing is, you're not very good at debating. You constantly make huge leaps in logic. You're constantly projecting and generalizing (you constantly reference people reading Meltzer like it's a fetish, but I can honestly say I've never read anything other than an extract -- this makes you WRONG). The straw-men are abundant and you shift the goals so much they aren't even on the field anymore. I mention RAW's audience being worse than decimated since it's gone to three hours and you respond with an IRRELEVANT side to this not being notable because cable television is generally decreasing. How does this at all retort the possibility that a two hour show would be more digestible, as the third hour drop-off seems to imply? Which other cable television show even goes three hours to compare it to? It completely evades the question and addresses a different issue. A smarter response would have been to point out that correlation is not causation, but you have already proven in the Baron Corbin thread that you do not understand that argument. Some genius you are. #AlternativeFacts

I used to buy the argument that you are a nice dude with some alternative viewpoints, but your inability to structure an argument, respond to what is being discussed, address criticisms of your arguments without resorting to personal dismissals and your displayed sense of superiority makes me think that you are probably the poster in here that I'd least like to catch up with over a beer. I bet you have a lot of opinions about things that you try to pass off as facts, and, perhaps even worse than that, I bet you're fucking boring.

You're worse than a troll pretending to be a WWE mark -- you're a mark for yourself. And it's clear that:

Where have I ever called Trump an unblemished businessman? His name does spot many skylines of the great cities in the world. He did build a multi billion dollar empire. And oh yeah, he did just become President even though the entire media was against him and he was up against the entire Republican party and a person who has literally lived her whole life to become President. But in Noid's world his steak business didn't hit it out of the park, so lol Trump. And this is the guy who's logic leads him to think I lost a debate. Sounds like a credible source to me!

And now #1 fan will quote that last sentence and miss the context in which it was written.

You're also not successful as a troll. You're the sort of person who thinks that people spending time on you means you are, but look at the time you spend here. You're breaking even at best. But you don't really understand business that well, so I can imagine that is lost on you.

Speaking of taking things out of context...

You're missing the point like a liberal arts student there, and proving it. Are you sure you didn't take calligraphy in college?

That sounds like a history wanker writing an introductory paragraph to their self-published book. Are you sure you aren't of the homosexual persuasion or a Hillary supporter?

Wow, now you're stealing fans gimmick. Sad.

I'll address the ratings piece, because the rest is a bore. My deal with ratings, and I've said this about a hundred times, is that WWE is a business. They are trying to make money. The state of the cable industry is RELEVANT because the WWE will generate a rights fee deal based on their numbers vs the competition and what USA or another network thinks that's worth. WWE was asked to add a third hour and they got paid big dollars for it. Unless WWE can drive ratings in two hours that would lead to a larger rights fee deal than the current three hour state, they would be stupid to do that. For USA, RAW doing the ratings they do still drives up their averages. That leads to more as money. The problem is I present these positions to guys like you, and then you claim I don't back anything up. You're just ignorant to the industry. And the guy who you think is spot on, doesn't even understand a year over year chart.

As for me as a person, I have met people from F4W and was universally well liked. I don't really care if you think I'm a mean person. But if you met me, I guarantee you would like me. Frankly, everyone does.

Hilary supporter? That's the worst thing you can call sound minded person. Didn't realize we were taking low blood at one another. Time to rise above hate.

The day after WWE's announcement of the notes, WWE's stock, which reached a near annual record high close the day prior, fell and remained below $19 for over a month. Sure, it was temporary, but WWE investors were at least initially concerned about the possibility of dilution of their stock.

What you're also failing to address is that WWE, not the note purchaser, has the option to convert these notes to common stock. While that's good for WWE in regards to the debt, in the event they can't repay the notes by 2023, it's actually bad for their existing investors and potentially for WWE's future stock value. If WWE elects or simply has no better alternative but to convert the notes to common stock, this will dilute the stock for existing shareholders and decrease the stock value.

I love how Cynick thinks I don't understand a year over year chart.

It never occurred to him the reason for the criticism of WWE's chart indicating "Top 25 reflects average U.S. national ratings from 2015" is that the chart compares WWE's ratings to Top 25 from 2015 and Top 25 from 2016 but using the top 25 national networks from 2015 as the basis for both top 25 2015 & 2016 ratings data. Why would you base top 25 2016 ratings on the top 25 networks from 2015?

Now sure, it's possible that the top 25 national networks from 2015 were the same in 2016. However, without that clarification on the chart or going and looking at the data, it's just as possible that the top 25 average of U.S. national ratings in 2016 that are actually based on the top 25 in 2016, were higher than those same top 25 ratings in 2016 that are (for some reason) determined from what were the top 25 networks in 2015.

If that's your logic for your criticism, you come off better if you just didn't understand how a year over year chart works. Have a look at the top 25 cable networks year over year and see what the difference would be using your methodology.

You're so anti WWE (well you pretend to be anyway) that you will grasp at anything to try to paint a Rosey picture with a doom and gloom brush. The company is very profitable, has more cash than debt, and is growing revenue in virtually every revenue stream.

So did it occur to you that investors dug into the deal and the numbers and came to the conclusion that it was a good business move? Considering the stock is now near their 52 week high, your fear about the deal is unfounded. Or are you smarter than the market?

I can't believe you haven't processed that it's not that one possible hypothesis you draw from the information that people don't like -- it's your fucking pigheadedness towards any other possibility. EVERYBODY has considered that the WWE will get offered more money for more television in the future. Fuck's sake, man. That does not mean that it also couldn't come tumbling down like a house of cards either.

There are several reasons that the USA Network might decide that WWE RAW isn't performing like they'd like it to when the contract comes up. In fact, given that they will be requested to spend more money for the same amount of content reaching a decreasing number of viewers each week, it'd be insane if they didn't try to get it for cheaper, and right now the WWE is depending a lot on that money.

Cable is going down. Clap, clap -- you fucking idiot. That doesn't mean that the WWE's downward spiral in ratings -- actually a greater decrease than most other shows on cable -- is a healthy trend. It feels obvious stating that, but it seems to evade you. It also is NOT relevant to whether or not three hours is detrimental to the product or not, you fucking muppet.

If I watch Smackdown replay on Hulu, am I watching TV or television? Also, lay off Trump steaks. They were really good it's justnthatnthe idiots that bought them were burning them. Medium rare ONLY.

Calm down PAL, you're getting really worked up.

USA asked for the extra hour because even with the decline it's still far greater than any show USA could air in its place.

WWE would be in more trouble if the demos were weak, but they are strong. WWE would be in more trouble if they had trouble getting advertisers, but they had a laundry list of new BLUE CHIP sponsors are to partner with them and USA. That's a direct result of the years of effort to change the image of the product.

So yeah, it could go down, rights fees could tank across the board, maybe Cable disappears in two years. If I were a betting man, I would say WWE either stats flat or increases their rights deal. The third hour of RAW will be a major factor in that. But to mention they will have other suitors, maybe an ESPN looking at them.

:lol:

Only an idiot would conclude that there's nothing worry about and everything is great.

I'm not smarter than the market, but I get paid everyday to help individuals and companies build and protect their wealth by spotting, analyzing and evaluating issues and risks, usually before they occur or become bigger problems.

Well at the end of the day, let's see what happens when the new contract is signed. We'll see what your vast vast experience is worth. Maybe you'll want to put this warning to WWE on your business card...or maybe not.

Again, you're projecting. It takes no energy at all to call you a moron. None at all. In fact, it keeps me calm as more important shit goes on around me. Calling you a cunt is like sniffing lavendar.

Medium-well or GTFO because you're not enjoying steak properly.

Raw broke the record this week for the lowest audience to watch the show since 1997 on a night when they weren't facing major sports competition or it being a major holiday, with 3.04 million viewers.

8 p.m. 3.16 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.12 million viewers
10 p.m. 2.87 million viewers

:|

The word "well" should not be anywhere in the same sentence as "steak".

Pls take it to the Trump Steaks thread

Oh, man. Raw's falling ratings and Trump steaks in the same thread? Someone's gonna have a rationalization field day with this!