The Hamilton Ave Journal 08.27.09: Volume 2 – Issue 101

Posted by JP Prag on 08.27.2009

Can the WWE start their own cable network? Has TNA defeated the WWE in ratings in the UK? Can John Cena make a profitable movie? Will a kid friendly product bring back the former teenagers turned parents of the Attitude Era? What potentially illegal collusion could have led to the death of WCW? All this and more is answered in this week’s edition of the Hamilton Ave Journal!

THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL
By JP Prag

Volume 2 – Issue 101

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

The Hamilton Ave Journal is the only wrestling news report focused solely on the business of wrestling. Here in the Journal we not only look at the stories that are important to the investor and business-minded person, but also delve deeper into stories that most fans of wrestling would overlook. That is because the Journal is about getting the heart of the matters that affect the companies and outlooks of the wrestling world.

And where is Hamilton Ave? That is the location of the WWE Production Studio in Stamford, CT, and thus the most powerful place in the wrestling world. Besides, The East Main Street Journal just does not have the right ring to it.

Who am I? I am JP Prag: consultant, entrepreneur, businessman, journalist, and wrestling fan.

Now, ring the bell because the market is open.






The Journal's front page area known as What's News isn't just about telling you what has happened. The stories in this section are about what will have an effect on the wrestling industry, individual federations, and the wallets of the fans.

LEAD STORY: WWE to start their own channel?

In a recent interview with the LA Time, WWE Chairman Vince McMahon let lose that the WWE is planning to operate their own cable station within the next two years.

Logically, this would be next extension from the WWE 24/7 on-demand station they have today. The subscriber base has remained stagnant despite greater availability, so the WWE would like to capitalize on their film library in other ways. Unlike an on-demand station where the WWE gets a piece of every subscription, a true cable network pays a per-subscriber fee for every person who has that channel on the tier.

For instance, almost every tier has CNN, so the cable networks pay CNN a figure, say $0.25 per subscriber. With 100 million subscribers, that would $25 million in revenue. The rates that the cable companies pay are all negotiated individually, but they range from free for home shopping channels to $3.50 for stations like ESPN. The more important a station is to a cable provider, the higher they will have to pay.

Recently ROH home HDNet was not able to renegotiate rates with Time Warner and the two parted ways. The difference could have been HDNet wants $0.05 per subscriber and Time Warner only saw their value as $0.03. That said, will Time Warner does not believe the subscribers they would lose would amount to much without HDNet. If they lost ESPN, however, they could expect a mass exodus to DirecTV and Dish.

The WWE is banking on this model as another revenue stream. With 100 million potential domestic homes, even at $0.01 that is a straight $1 million. The question becomes, then, what is the cost of this station?

In order to run a cable network, the WWE much produce programming beyond what they do now (both original and re-run), be constantly broadcasting on a satellite to get to all their affiliates, and sell advertising time (if they so see fit). With advertising dollars, even at a lower rate then their traditional products, they could recoup some additional revenue. However, they WWE got rid of most of their ad sales staff when they returned to USA, so they would again need to expand that force.

The large issue remains one of canalization and how their current partners will react. NBC/Universal is the home for RAW and ECW. Would the WWE most likely move their shows to their own station? The answer to that seems to be no. Says MediaBuyerPlanner:

The network would not remove its Monday Night Raw from USA, McMahon has said, adding that the new channel would offer a companion to currently available content rather than a replacement for it…

This would be akin to the NFL Network. On Sundays, they do not run programming against their own games. Since the games are available on local affiliates, the NFL actually receives a much better rights fee for the programs, much like the WWE. It is better for them to get paid then to just try to make it all up themselves. On nights when they are not doing original programming on another station, the WWE could have something on their own station, much like NFL Thursday night games.

It will be a matter of keeping broadcast partners happy while also creating a station that can run on its own with re-run and original content, as well as taking advantage of the vast library the WWE owns.

There are a lot of wrinkles to iron out and a lot of costs involved, but overall it remains a solid idea for the WWE to put their library to work and to again diversify revenues. Although some specialty channels like Hallmark have done so poorly they are on the verge of insolvency, if the WWE can stay frugal and smart, then this could be another profitable venture.


Newsbites

Some items of note in the rest of the wrestling business world:

A recent article in the New York Post covered the WWE's audience shifting to more females. The Journal will cover this in greater detail next week and what it means for the company and officers involved.

In a continued effort to more specialize PPVs in the hope of boosting buyrates, the WWE is again considering some new themes. These include one where the main events are in street fights, another where the main events are TLC matches, and yet another where the night contains a tournament. The WWE has had the first and last one before as Extreme Rules and King of Ring, so it remains to be seen how these would differentiate from the older versions.

Over this past weekend in LA, the WWE began their new effort to chum up to Hollywood types with the help of media relations firm The William Morris Endeavor. The WWE hosted several parties to meet with executives and agents.

Corporate.WWE.com recently got a small facelift. The site now focuses on the WWE's public image endeavors like the PG-rating, Wellness policy, and corporate responsibility instead of the financial news. Both sections are still there, it is just that they have been reversed to gather more eye traffic to the areas the WWE wants visitors to focus on.

TNA has had some tremendous ratings success in the UK recently. The company stated that the August 8, 2009 edition of iMPACT scored "its highest rating ever on Bravo". It is unknown at this time what that rating is, but the August 1, 2009 drew 70,000 viewers, which again defeated the RAW replay (57,000 viewers) and the SmackDown first run (45,000 viewers).




In the Marketplace we look at the trends in television ratings. This section is less for critical analysis by the Journal but more for the reader to see what is really going on and to draw their own conclusions.

As with stocks, here in the Journal we track the progress of television ratings. If ratings are the barometer by which we judge the product, then over the course of 52 weeks we should be able to see patterns, trends, and anomalies.

For the week ending Wednesday August 26, 2009, here are the current standings of our shows:





RAW
Close (This Week's Rating): 3.9
Open (Last Week's Rating): 3.8
Percentage Change: ▲ 2.6%
52-Week High: 4.5
52-Week Low: 2.6
All Time High: 8.1
All Time Low: 1.8

SmackDown*
Close (This Week's Rating): 1.9
Open (Last Week's Rating): 1.7
Percentage Change: ▲ 11.8%
52-Week High: 2.5
52-Week Low: 1.6
All Time High: 5.8
All Time Low: 1.0

* SmackDown! ratings may include fast overnight if final ratings are not posted. Also, SmackDown! ratings are for the prior week as overnights are not available before this article goes to print.

ECW
Close (This Week's Rating): 1.2
Open (Last Week's Rating): 1.2
Percentage Change: UNCH
52-Week High: 1.4
52-Week Low: 0.7
All Time High: 2.3
All Time Low: 0.6

TNA iMPACT**
Close (This Week's Rating): 1.2
Open (Last Week's Rating): 1.1
Percentage Change: ▲ 9.1%
52-Week High: 1.3
52-Week Low: 1.0
All Time High: 1.3
All Time Low: 0.6

** TNA iMPACT's are for the prior week as ratings may not be available at the time of the Journal's posting

SuperStars***
Close (This Week's Rating): 1.0
Open (Last Week's Rating): 0.8
Percentage Change: ▲ 25.0%
52-Week High: 1.0
52-Week Low: 0.7
All Time High: 1.0
All Time Low: 0.7

*** SuperStars ratings may include fast overnight if final ratings are not posted. Also, SuperStars ratings are for the prior week as overnights are not available before this article goes to print.

Analysis:

For those hoping RAW's guest host program would be going away, the ratings would seem to indicate there is no need to do that anytime soon. RAW has proven that the system is thus far working and has taken their four week moving average from a 3.4 on June 1, 2009 to a 3.8 this week. How long this can last remains to be seen, but for now the WWE is doing what USA Network wants: just boosting the ratings a little.

Meanwhile, their other show SuperStars seems to be bouncing all over the map. Two weeks ago the show scored its lowest rating ever; yet this week SuperStars tied their highest rating. The last time SuperStars saw a 1.0 rating was on June 4, 2009. The important note is that the WWE is getting all the revenue they ever wanted from SuperStars and that WGN is happy with the ratings, so everyone seems to be winning in this case.




We all know that wrestling is a business, but we don't often pay attention to what sells and makes money. Money and Investing looks into the top selling items in the world of wrestling and any interesting figures that may have come out this week.

What are the top ten selling items for the WWE? From WWEShopZone.com:

1. D Generation X Worlds Biggest Member T-Shirt ($25)
2. The Rise and Fall of WCW DVD/NWO Retro T-Shirt Package ($54.95, on sale $26.99)
3. Triple H Fear No Man T-Shirt ($25)
4. Hardys Green Pendant ($10)
5. Jeff Hardy 2 Armband Package ($40, on sale $14.99)
6. John Cena Attitude Adjustment T-Shirt ($25)
7. D Generation X Basics YOUTH T-Shirt ($9.99)
8. Triple H Eversoris T-Shirt ($28)
9. D Generation X Basics T-Shirt ($14.99)
10. Randy Orton Root of Evil T-Shirt ($25)

Unfortunately for new ideas, Degeneration X seems to sell well whenever they get back together. The groups took 3 spots by itself and Triple H took 2 more, meaning the list was 50% controlled by DX-related persons. The number one item was the lauded "World's Biggest Member" shirt which was criticized in comparison the WWE's TV-PG image. Apparently, the WWE has decided to let this one slide as the dollar signs roll in.


TNA sometimes releases a list of top selling items on ShopTNA.com. According to the site the top selling items were:

1. TNA Stars 8 X 10 Extravaganza ($29.99)
2. Beer Money - Daily Buzz Shirt ($19.99)
3. Bobby Lashley T-shirt ($19.99)
4. Hot Sizzling Summer Sale ($335, on sale $69.99)
5. TNA Logo T-Shirt Special ($24.99)
6. LAX Theme Featuring F.I.L.T.H.E.E ($0.99, on sale $0.89)
7. Beer Money T-shirt ($19.99)
8. Burn It Down (Hard Justice 2009 Theme) ($0.99, on sale $0.89)
9. TAZ Autographed Special ($39.99)
10. Destination X 2009 ($14.99, on sale $11.99)

For the first time in a month, TNA did not actually update their list. This seems quite odd since Don West was just promoted into a high position of sales and marketing. One would think that he would be on top of such things?




Wrestling isn't just about watching and reading. The best way to be a wrestling fan is to experience it live. Where is wrestling coming to in the next 2 weeks? The Personal Journal answers that question.

Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
30 (Aug) RAW Live (Valparaiso, IN) SmackDown / ECW Live (Johnstown, PA) TNA Live (Belton, TX)	31 RAW (Detroit, MI) SmackDown / ECW Live (Canton, OH) TNA iMPACT (Orlando, FL)	1 (Sep) SmackDown / ECW (Cleveland, OH) TNA iMPACT (Orlando, FL)	2	3	4 RAW Live (Sioux Falls, SD) SmackDown / ECW Live (San Juan, PR) CANCELLED	5 RAW Live (St. Paul, MN) SmackDown / ECW Live (Arecibo, PR)
6 RAW Live (Madison, WI) SmackDown / ECW Live (Ponce, Puerto Rico)	7 RAW (Chicago, IL)	8 SmackDown / ECW (Rockford, IL)	9	10 ROH Live (Phildelphia, PA)	11 TNA Live (Augusta, GA) ROH Live (Philadelphia, PA)	12 WWE SuperShow (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) TNA Live (Dalton, GA)

Do you know a wrestling event coming up? Send one in to The Hamilton Ave Journal and we'll be sure to add it to the list.




The Editorials section is designed for you, the readers, to respond to the views presented in the Journal, send an important news item, or talk about another overlooked business related item in wrestling. Just beware: the Journal reserves the right to respond back.

From the commentary section last week, AngryTas has returned much less upset and with a new thought:

Thanks to your response in regards to my previous comment.

3MW was right about the figures in his comment, and the 6-month review gave a clearer indication of where the WWE are in terms of their financials.

I read a comment in another column about the way Cena was being marketed in the movies, and the gist was that Cena is over with women and children while wrestling so his movies should be written and produced appropriately. Given Dwayne Johnson's current popularity with the under-15 audience, did you have any thoughts about Cena and WWE's movie division given what we now know about their bottom line?

It all depends on the cost of the movie being produced. Dwayne Johnson has benefitted by being in some large blockbusters that had nothing to do with his name first so that he could position himself as a leading man. It took time and a lot of movies for him to get there. Now, he can be in movies that cost $80 million to make. That said, an $80 million move may only make $10 million in profit. If Cena is put into a WWE Studios movie that costs $5 million to make and the movie makes $8 million in profit, is he really that much worse off?

The WWE is concerned about the bottom line, not making a major figure in the market of movies. Some of the top grossing movies of the year are not profitable in the theater. Right now, WWE Studios has not produced anything new, so they are not selling. The plan was to restructure to more direct-to-DVD features with one theatrical release a year, but right now they are behind the curve. Also, last year was an anomaly because they ended up booking unexpected revenue from the rental market. As it is, the WWE has a long way to go to understanding the ebbs and flows of the movie business and will have to spend years working out ways to make the revenue stream more constant.

On a subject covered briefly above, Indianguy has some additional thoughts that tie into last week:

Hmm… WWE firing their PR in UK… Do you think this has anything to do with them losing to TNA in ratings (factual or perception wise)?

Do you think they realize UK is perhaps their top 5 market and they don't even want to take a chance or this is just a deal where they thought they want more and don't consider TNA to be in their league yet?

Actually, the UK is not a Top 5 market for the WWE anymore, though it is one for TNA. It is still in the WWE's Top 10, but there are other countries that do more business for them. That said, it is certainly a strain on the company to have TNA so close in the ratings war. More than that, attendance figures actually slipped this year during the UK and Ireland tour, so that is the bigger cause for concern. If ratings and attendance are going down, the WWE believes it is the fault of those in charge of promotions, not the product itself.

Our faithful British readers also helped clarify what this new promotional campaign intends to do. Probes begins:

Says Natalie Luke who will handle the account:

'Our remit is to really broaden appeal and take it to the mainstream, building new opportunities and finding new journalist fans. We want to be achieving hero coverage on shows like BBC The One Show, Question of Sport, GMTV Toonatik, T4 and Newsround.'

________________

T4 maybe, but the rest of those shows? Never gonna happen.

Although a major Superstar as a guest on Question of Sport would be sweet...

WhattheDeuce goes into greater detail:

Newsround - 5 minutes kids new programme.

T4 - Teenage crap presented by two twats.

The One Show - Seriously, what is the demographic for the One Show? I'd really like to know. This one puzzles me.

Toonattik - Saturday morning kids TV show.

Well, they are really pushing that PG envelope.

Why not just send out all the primary schools in London free John Cena & Jeff Hardy posters so that parents have immense pressure to but merchandise?

Here's a novel idea. Why don't WWE actually get involved in some sort of sponsorship with a children's sport activity aimed at their PG audience?

If they full intend to milk the PG audience for what it's worth - how about wrestlers, sorry superstars, sorry entertainer appearances at places like Legoland, where kids can queue like they would at Disneyland to have their picture taken with a character?

I also don't know any kids who watch A Question of Sport, so if they're trying to get parents interested, go for some of the late night chat shows like Jonathan Ross or some of the adult panel shows.

Despite the PG-rating, the WWE considers themselves "family entertainment", which means the demographic they are going for also includes the parents. At this time, those teenagers who were watching during the Attitude Era may indeed be parents now, so the WWE is hoping to press their nostalgia buttons so they will want to watch with their kids. In other words, they are working both angles to get the audience. TheTheoryofTimeandSpace, though, expounds upon the perils of this plan:

RE: WWE targeting promotion on kids shows in the UK:

The problem is the parents of these kids remember the Attitude Era. If they were anti wrestling then, they will be now. However, I was a fan, so introduced my son to the product.

Big mistake.

My son is obsessed with the WWE.

His favourites, not surprisingly, are Jeff Hardy and John Cena. He is 6 years old.

So Vince gets what he wants there with his target audience.

However, I'm the daddy and I have the money, so when he wants the shitty Cena or Hardy merchandise, he gets a swift rebuttal, as I think the current product is lazy, boring, stale and unentertaining and undeserving of my hard earned cash.

It's all well and good getting the kiddies hooked, but as I have to sit through it with my son, I expect to be entertained too dammit.

They can push the PG product in the UK as much as they want, but they'll not get my money until they improve their product.

I cannot be alone in this sentiment and no amount of promotion on kids TV shows will convince me otherwise.

The Top Ten list would suggest that you are the Daddy least likely. Most of the others are buying those Cena and Hardy pieces of merchandise!

Moving away from the UK, Jason S would like to have a chat:

Here's a question for next week's column based on your TV rights discussion:

Looking back on WWF/WWE's excursion from USA to TNN/Spike for five years, how would you say the move impacted them? Did it cost them viewers? Profits? Did it strain their long-standing relationship with the USA Network?

Further, did the move back to USA in 2005 cost them viewers they built up on Spike, in either branding or advertising costs? Did USA foot most of the bill since WWE didn't get the ad revenue they were accustomed to?

If you recall, the last few weeks of WWE on Spike were VERY tense resulting in the Jonathan Coachman outburts - and bleeps - when he tried to remind the audience they were moving back to USA the next week. Certainly, they had to find advertising and promotional outlets since Spike wouldn't let them communicate directly with their viewers, correct?

From a revenue and profitability perspective, the WWE has only done better. This is the first year in a decade the WWE has actually dropped in revenue, but they have still managed to increase the bottom line. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that they get much higher television rights fees than they did when they were on Spike TV. Also, the WWE used to see their own advertising and now they just get rights fees and let the stations sell the add time, so they eliminated that cost.

Also during this timeframe the WWE has greatly diversified their revenue streams. The company that was on SpikeTV has little do with the company that exists today from a financial stream perspective. They company was transformed by a former CFO who really brought the company to its financial heights. When the WWE stopped listening to him, their costs got out of control. Because revenue was growing so much, they were able to cover it up, but that all came to a head at the end of last year when revenues started to dip while costs remained high.

Now they have eliminated much of the costs issues so they are more profitable with less revenue.

As far as ratings go, In August 2000 before moving to Spike, the WWE averaged a 5.8 rating. In October 2000, after the move, they averaged a 5.2 rating. From January 2000 to January 2001, the rolling 4-week average slipped from a 6.5 to a 5.3. The thing of it is, the ratings slip started when they were still on USA. Did going to Spike TV decrease ratings? Or were ratings already declining and Spike TV just highlight and/or exacerbated the issue?

From that point on, ratings were generally in decline. In March 2001 when the WWE bought WCW, their ratings average was already a 4.7. With two years of no competition, ratings dropped to a 3.8 average by March 2003. Did this have anything to do with Spike? It seems like the WWE had already gone down the slow decline back well before they got there. Of course, the WWE and Spike did not have the greatest relationship, especially when it came to money. Even with declining ratings, the WWE wanted more money to broadcast their show, so Spike decided to let everyone know publically that they would not be renewing the contract. This happened in March 2005, just a few short months before the end of the deal.

Somehow, this did not hurt the WWE's negotiating skills as they were able to land back on USA for everything they wanted and then some. Ratings, on the other hand, did not immediately go anyway. In October 2005, ratings were a 3.9 on USA, hardly a significant jump. They did start to gain some momentum, averaging up to a 4.4 in January 2006. This was temporary, though, as the show ended up at a 4.0 in January 2007, 3.6 in January 2008, and 3.6 in January 2009. So from a ratings perspective, no the move has not really helped them.

Again, it is not the network for the most part. While in 2000 USA had a better position on the dial than Spike, today they are relatively close. In a world with 500 channels, position does not have as large of an affect. The real issue is fragmentation of audience. There are so many options for entertainment that many people are simply unavailable compared to before. Yes, the WWE is getting a 3.8 average rating now, but can they keep them long term? Or is this just another little pop before returning down to the trend we've been seeing for 9 years?

Jumping away from the WWE, Crimefighter wants to know:

What about TNA buyrates? We never hear about those numbers and WWE is always trotting them out.

The WWE is a public company and since PPV is considered one of their divisions, they are obliged to provide that information. TNA, as a private company, is not obliged to do and rarely releases that type of information. When it has become available from a credible source, the Journal has reported on them. Issue #67 has the most recent update there.

Finally, Eric sends us home with a couple of questions.

Firstly, I don't see how you can say UFC "does not really have that much of a television presence" In what sense? We know their TV ratings generally do about what "ECW" does in ScyFy, but WWE also doesn't command 10-hour TV block marathons like UFC does. UFC also counter programs their competitors, such as they did with StrikeForce this past weekend, on a whim & Spike TV always complies. Spike TV basically is the UFC channel, probably owes their success to the UFC brand, and that's to say nothing about all the lives specials and during-the-week programs they do. I think it's actually quite the opposite; I think they have a huge television presence, and they haven't even got on ESPN domestically... yet.

And how do those 10-hours block marathons do in the ratings? They average a 0.4. On top of that, the regular UFC shows struggle to be in the 0.8 to 1.1 range, even below ECW and iMPACT. The WWE commands RAW, ECW, SmackDown, and Superstars to a combined domestic viewership of 10 million people, far beyond the UFC. Then, when you add in the rest of the world in 120 countries, the WWE has clearance just about everywhere. The UFC is available in a handful of other countries. Simply put, they simply do not have the same reach as the WWE.

Where they are superior is converting that audience to PPV buyers. The UFC for their regular PPVs has conversion rates of 25%. For big events like UFC100 they had a 90% conversion rate. Can you imagine if the WWE could convert 90% of their audience to buy WrestleMania? As it is, they cannot convert 10% of their audience for the biggest show the year, nor 2.5% for a regular show. The UFC does more with their existing audience than the WWE, but the WWE surpasses them in availability and reach domestically and across the globe.

In reality, the UFC is only loosely available in a limited timeslot in a limited number of other outlets around the world. They are larger than many things, but they are not huge on television. They are huge, however, on PPV.

Now for the question : You mentioned in passing WWE buying WCW, and how there was no inquiry probe form the government as you might expect because when WCW & ECW folded within weeks of one another in 2001, WWE had - more or less - a monopoly. I know the NWA was investigated shortly after it formed in 1948, but you said that had there been an inquiry probe, "they would have found some interesting collusion and back-door deals." Could you please go in to more detail about this happening, as it does seem extremely suspicious that mere weeks after Bischoff & Fusient were about to buy WCW for $20 million or so & back out that Vince McMahon was able to sweep the entire f*cking thing for practical peanuts at only a few million dollars. This is very intriguing and I'd like to know what you meant by saying, "collusion and back-door deals."

In January 2001, word started coming out that deal between Fusient Media Ventures (with Eric Bischoff as the face of the company) and AOL-Time Warner was done. As you said, there was a monetary agreement and the rest was in the details of contracts and whatnot. By January 11, 2001, Mr. Bischoff was in negotiations with Hulk Hogan and was already sending out press releases in WCW's name, including one that stated:

Wrestling fans can rest assured that we will give the WCW the adrenaline shot it needs to once again become the most exciting brand of wrestling in the world.

At that same time, FOX and NBC began to negotiate with Fusient Media Ventures for rights to WCW programming. Do not forget: even with declining ratings WCW Nitro and Thunder were still two of the top rated shows on cable. The company of WCW was losing money from mis- and over-management, but there was the possibility of turning that around.

By February 26, 2001, something was very wrong. Mr. Bischoff and the rest of Fusient were locked out of meetings, but told everything was going to be fine. Of course, by mid-March AOL-Time Warner announced they were cancelling two of their highest rated shows. Why would they do that, especially if they were not paying for losses anymore? Then recently appointed head in Tuner Broadcasting Jamie Kellner said it was because the show did not attract the "right" kind of advertisers. This was a man who transformed the WB with shows like 7th Heaven, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Gilmore Girls, Dawson's Creek, and Charmed, so he obviously had other plans for TNT and TBS.

Jamie Kellner was appointed by Brad Siegel, and both had a close relationship with a man named Stuart Snyder. How close? Over the years, all three men have worked for or with each other in several companies. They keep appointing each other to various positions as one went up the ranks. Now why is Stuart Snyder important? Because in June 2000 Mr. Snyder became COO for the WWE. In other words, the COO for the WWE had a direct line into the two men directly responsible for controlling the fate of WCW.

In the three weeks Fusient was locked out, Mr. Synder and Mr. Kellner worked out the deal to cancel WCW (which Mr. Siegel never loved and tried to sell off as early as 1998. Ted Turner had too much control then and would not allow it, but with Mr. Turner pushed aside after the AOL merger is was quite possible) and sell the remaining assets of the company to the WWE.

On March 13, 2001, Mr. Siegel held a call with Fusient in a mock effort to try to save the deal. But without a television outlet, the major backers for Fusient walked away and the deal was done. Despite this, Mr. Bischoff went back to NBC and FOX and was working with them to try to bring WCW over. Mr. Kellner and Mr. Siegel were aware of this, but they announced the sale to the WWE anyway, thus ending any possibility of raising the bid from the paltry sum that was gained.

As you can see from this, the relationship shared between the Turner executives and a major WWE executive made this deal shady at best. Perhaps it was all above the board, but since the SEC and justice department saw no reason to investigate, the merger went through in a matter of days and created a wrestling monopoly.

Today, the Justice Department and SEC made two satellite radio companies jump through hoops for 16 months to merge while they let two oil conglomerates join forces in less than a month. It would appear they have their priorities in order and know when it is best to ask questions and actually explore what damage a monopoly will create.


Plenty more was written, so be sure to take a look. And if you enjoy the Journal, why not bookmark 411mania.com and make it your home page? You can do that by clicking here.




This concludes Issue #101 (Volume 2) of THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL. Join us next week as we get ready to ring the bell again.

Till then!