UFC Freedom 250 | TNA Shakeup | George Barrios | Pollock & Thurston

[00:00:02]Brandon Thirstston from Wrestleomics is up next and we're going to follow Brandon with John Pollock from Post Wrestle.

[00:00:09]>> Delivering on the returns, increasing our margins.

[00:00:13]>> Ratings go down the toilet if I'm not here.

[00:00:16]>> All I do is simply put the math in my favor.

[00:00:20]>> We agree that Brandon and John do good work.

[00:00:23]>> The reason is simple wrestling economics. I've been told the Netflix numbers. I've been told the metrics a little bit probably five different times. I still don't get it.

[00:00:34]>> There were respectable wrestling journalists who needed answers.

[00:00:39]>> Thank you very much, members of the media. I hope you all go to hell.

[00:00:42]>> HOW ABOUT WE POP A NUMBER RIGHT HERE, right now?

[00:00:51]>> Whole part of the show, man.

[00:00:55]And here we are on Thursday, June the 18th. It is time for Pollock and Thirstston. I am John Pollock alongside Brandon Thirsten where today we are going to talk about everything from Instagram posts to former WWE co-presidents, TNA.

[00:01:16]Insanity, of course, it's it's we're we've been about due for a uh behind thes scenes shakeup at TNA. And we're also going to talk about UFC Freedom 250. Freedom was celebrated on the White House lawn this past Sunday night.

[00:01:32]Thanks in part to the Department of War, Truth Social, and Turning Point USA that were able to present this freedom to Americans if they were a subscriber of Paramount Plus for the people.

[00:01:47]>> Wasn't it also presented by Bud Light Dodge? What's the the the the the right to be loud or how does it go?

[00:01:58]>> Yes.

[00:01:58]>> You get those commercials in Canada?

[00:02:00]>> Was this broadcast in Canada?

[00:02:02]>> Um, >> was this allowed to be broadcast in Canada?

[00:02:05]>> This was a pay-per-view in Canada.

[00:02:07]>> What are what's our what's our foreign policy with with Canada right now? Well, you know, these you know, all these uh these tariffs um you know, some some people have been able to you know, we're we're so close to Buffalo that sometimes we get the Paramount Plus signal uh over the border sometimes.

[00:02:24]>> Do you you do get Paramount Plus though?

[00:02:27]No, no, no. Wait a minute. But there's a new Canada deal. I think we might have >> Yeah, we we get Paramount Plus in Canada, but it does not have the UFC content on it right now.

[00:02:36]>> But it will in January.

[00:02:37]>> Okay.

[00:02:38]>> Yeah. So, okay. Well, anyway, this is just >> this this past Sunday was was America's birthday, though.

[00:02:46]>> Fourth of July. Did you get the Did you get Monday off work?

[00:02:49]>> July is America's birthday.

[00:02:51]>> Oh.

[00:02:52]>> Uh, no, I didn't.

[00:02:55]>> Oh, well, this was uh, you know, the the second biggest holiday of the year, Donald Trump's 80th birthday party, which amazingly they never mentioned his birthday nor his age on on the broadcast. I don't know if that was maybe hidden in the deal points that they would not mention.

[00:03:11]>> Right. Well, I hope nobody had to to change his chair for him this time because I think they were all hopefully all all the chairs were equal this time.

[00:03:19]>> Well, he had a he had a busy couple of hours. He had to attend this event and then he had to get on a plane and head over to the G7 and congratulate Emanuel Mcron over Sierra Lagon's interim heavyweight title win. I mean, this is this is the the leader of the supposed free world at at work this past weekend. Brandon, this is breaking news, but you did tune in for UFC Freedom 250. This grabbed you. You were intrigued enough to see what what was the UFC and the United States government going to present to you, the fight fanatic.

[00:03:56]>> Yeah, I I have watched I did turn on a UFC event not too long ago, too. Um, I did watch How far in did I get you here before I before I quit? I think I watched the first two fights.

[00:04:09]>> They were quick fights.

[00:04:10]>> I'm looking at the I'm looking at the result. Yeah, there were two two knockouts not too long. Um, I think I did watch these two of the main card only.

[00:04:19]>> Mhm. Yeah, the it was a very >> on CBS actually at first and then I realized no, it's only behind the pay wall. Luckily, I am a Paramount plus subscriber.

[00:04:28]>> Well, thankfully. I mean, this was a gift to the people if if you were a subscriber. Well, there was a lot to make of this uh this particular event.

[00:04:36]Um the big take, >> this is in reverse order. I watched the last two fights on this this card then.

[00:04:41]Maybe I even you know you know what I think I watched the first three fights on this this show. I don't want to short change Dana.

[00:04:47]>> Okay. Well, you got in this was a seven fight card. You got you you got the feel of the event. What did you think about ju just watching this? I mean, I'm kind of coming at it. I'm I'm not the American here, so I don't I don't have any uh um feelings. Uh >> well, I mean, as an American, I don't I don't want to express my view on this.

[00:05:08]Um I I don't want to bear any consequences that I I may be uh that I that I may be subject to. So, it was quite the production, I'll say. Um it was on the the White House lawn there.

[00:05:23]uh Dana White and and and the president coming out together ami amid the pillars was was quite a moment. Um I I did not expect that the dressing room that the fighters would walk out from was in fact the White House. Yeah. Yeah. Justin Gatey uh his entrance he the camera just catches him in the moment uh staring at the Declaration of Independence in the Oval Office and then >> exiting the Oval Office to make his walk toward the octagon. Um, yeah, the I think the show it seems to be that the if you enjoyed the show like it was it was an incredible production and I think when you look at this like this is the closest we have got to a like so often we are asked why do you guys make such a big deal of WWE in Saudi Arabia when uh you know that's it's it's no different than running in the US. It's very different because the WWE is not being paid uh by the government of the United States of America to put on shows um that have uh either uh subtle or not so subtle messaging attached to this. This one would fall under the not so subtle and if and if you were to argue that >> wasn't paid a dime. UFC I don't think was paid a dime by the United States government for this this event that they put on.

[00:06:44]But what they got in exchange, did you happen to see this Department of War ad that they they premiered this ad later in the broadcast? I mean, dude, this was something out of a movie trailer. It was insane. Like, there was such a a fetishizing of like America like going to war, dropping bombs. Like, it was just um not not so coded in in some of this. And I mean, >> recruitment ad, what was this? Uh there were recruitment ads on on the uh you know to sign up. Um but yeah, this was a Department of War ad that had you know Pete Heg Hegathth all over this and I mean it was very much >> forward just just the department >> just to you know flex our our muscle on the on the on the Paramount Plus stage.

[00:07:31]>> What does UFC or TKO for that matter gain from this event? They spent, Mark told us, Mark Shapiro, that is TKO president told us $60 million they're going to spend. Now, they're going to recover a lot of it, $30 million in in ads and sponsorships. Hopefully, they give us an update on that in the next earnings call or something. But what >> it's also not taking into account this >> this multi-billion dollar deal that they have with Paramount that does call for these monthly events as well. So, >> it didn't require an event where they were going to lose $30 million. Well, I I think if you were are we including like their amount that they're getting for their for their media deal to to present this show? Like is that included in in in all of this?

[00:08:17]Because this would make this show uh I don't think they'd be losing 30 million if we're including like the Paramount deal.

[00:08:24]>> But but you know what I mean? Like the if this was an event at T-Mobile Arena, this would have been very profitable from it would have been more profitable from that aspect.

[00:08:34]>> They gave up a gate. Um, they certainly merchandised the hell out of this, which was a bit of a detour from originally when they were stating this about, you know, we we can't sell anything on the White House. Like, they wanted to make this feel like a pristine event that would not be overcommercialized. Well, someone missed that memo because this thing was an ad for every object you could imagine that comes into the UFC sphere. uh down to there's this new uh AI defense contractor that is now uh sponsoring the UFC. It's called Andril.

[00:09:12]And this is uh I I could not describe this off the top of my head, but it is, you know, it's an AI based defense contractor that is able to be a uh a sponsor here in the in the octagon. It's um you know it very much gives you a light onto the those that are attaching themselves to the UFC brand and what the UFC brand means in 20126 as the others that we mentioned here um that were all over this show. Like there was the commercialization. I mean it's you may be turned off by it. It's kind of part and parcel with the UFC product. And the White House was not exempt from being uh, you know, just the Trump the the Trump commemorative coins were being hawkked on the broadcast here as well. A cool $12,000 to uh land a Trump UFC commemorative coin in honor of this event.

[00:10:06]Have you seen I think this is from the the Washington Post. Somebody wrote, "Uh, bring me your you're tired, you're poor, your huddled masses advertising Bud Light and trucks, among other things."

[00:10:21]Well, that's uh there was there was like a unprecedented level of coverage that this show received because it went far beyond just the sport uh just sports media. I mean, you had I've never seen so many think pieces on what exactly the UFC means to uh society at large. Um, and >> our friend Ariel Hani doesn't want to hear that. He's all he he loved this event.

[00:10:47]>> Well, there were those that I mean looked at this. It's interesting that you look from some MMA fans that this sport has always been positioned as like the this this outcast of the elite sporting class. It's always had this chip on its shoulder because it's been it's been so hard to gain regulation and it's been like this fight and for some they viewed this as like some victory like this is this is the ultimate legitimization of the UFC and >> this campaign coming out here saying this is [ __ ] fighting all over again except for instead of a moderate Republican it's a bunch of liberals saying this is so this is desecrating the the White House. This is this is, you know, having this violent event with advertising and sponsors on at this sacred ground on the south lawn, right?

[00:11:41]I'm sorry, I was looking up this Andreal uh partnership and this is uh from a past guest of the show, our friend Kareem Zedan, who mentions that um it's this controversial defense tech startup um that has all these contracts with the US government, including a deal with Border Patrol. basically to use AI powered surveillance tech to patrol the US Mexico border.

[00:12:05]All right. So, you know, all all things that I'm sure fight fans are um desperately in uh curious about um and what what you will be uh subject to when you're tuning into your next UFC broadcast and being told about the wonders of Andril, which apparently its origin and its name comes from Lord of the Rings.

[00:12:26]Did you have any other um >> do you think that I I want to talk about the the the money that they sunk into this? They sunk $30 million into this that they do not immediately recover, but do they recover um the enhancement of their relationship with anything or anyone because of this? Is that part of why they're doing this? I I know I know Mark Spiro's justified it as it's going to be amazing marketing value.

[00:12:49]Everybody's going to see and think about UFC and that's true. Is that it?

[00:12:54]I thinkion in value.

[00:12:57]>> I think that this is um I think I will assess this is that it is certainly this culmination of this like 10-year relationship that has seen the UFC and Donald Trump that have benefited one another. It has not been a one-sided relationship. It was the UFC was there when Donald Trump was excommunicated from the Republican party after January 6th and they stayed with him. He gets back into office and what has been the the the benefits for the UFC. It's like they have they stayed loyal to this guy and this event was sort of this to to them this giant spotlight on our brand that has come with the perks of like this Muhammad Ali revival act that that's going through that comes with like the influence that Dana White has been able to uh wield that has been able to you know this this has been a very politically advantageous relationship that the UFC has taken a calculated risk of the chance of turning off a lot of our fans but doubling down on this growing audience that we have cultivated that has turned the UFC into like you say you're a UFC fan. I think that means something different now that you almost have to if you're not of the of the political ideology of Donald Trump. You almost have to caveat that if you're bringing up like the UFC because now today this is what people think of the UFC and the audience like this is the sport where young angry men go to watch and it's very very like unapologetically aligned with this administration and it projects something and politicians now see it as it's like a status symbol to be seen at a UFC event because it it identif identifies your brand. This ideology that Donald Trump has espoused.

[00:15:03]Here's a sport that exemplifies it in the rawest form of like the message that we are trying to project. And I think it's become like the UFC has now become this um like this lifestyle for the this fan base and for for for the culture as well that is just as deeply aligned as any entity could be with this this form of politics.

[00:15:28]Is UFC a stronger brand after this? I'm sure they got a lot of criticism from people like Hunter Biden. I just saw a very uh thorough post about uh about this event. But is this a is this a net gain though for for UFC? Did they get their $30 million worth?

[00:15:48]>> I would say short term I I I think Sunday was a great night for the UFC.

[00:15:53]like you may have like a really like bad taste in your mouth about watching something like this, but there were plenty that tuned in that I think were blown away by this. And I think I I think the UFC would look at this as like this was a calculated choice that that paid off for us. The show went off generally generally well. It's like and it and it's also a brand that has like this Josh Hokitic comment about Michelle Obama that seems to be the thing that everyone is is jumping on to. It's like is the UFC going to face any any downturn from that? It's doubtful. like they've they've kind of made this like that is like that is part of the UFC identity is comments like this and it got shared on its biggest platform to this national audience that that was tuning in. Um I I would say to I I'll throw it back to you that if we look you know two years down the road and there is you know Donald Trump is not in power any longer like do you see like are there are there going to be fans that revolt against the UFC? Is there a backlash to going this this far or do you think that they are largely insulated from like they they have so much of their revenue that that's guaranteed? Like what does a downturn even represent for UFC?

[00:17:21]>> I guess a decreased popularity, but I don't I don't see that happening. uh as long as just like wrestling, as long as you remain among the more highly viewed things uh in your in in terms of live sports, it'll continue to be, you know, do do quite well. Um, no. I mean, I don't see if we're talking about like a future where Donald Trump is not the president anymore and and maybe, you know, the uh the Trumpian politics that have become so ingrained in the United States since 2016 is less of a of a cultural phenomenon. I don't think UFC really will be dramatically impacted. I think you they've gained a lot of fans through this and hopefully, you know, in a few years things will normalize and uh we won't uh live in such a a uh divisive society, but I don't think the removal of that divisiveness hurts UFC if that's entailed in in what you're getting at.

[00:18:20]I think I think they've found a way like they have found it advantageous to dial this up and I think if if needed they'll dial it down and I think they're banking on the fact that our audience is still going to come back for this product.

[00:18:33]like you still have to present a product that's appealing to people, but it's been like it's it's hard to sit here and say that this has not grown the UFC over the last like 5 years and that it has ingrained itself into what is what what is also for for Donald Trump at a time when his polling is doing terrible that this sector of his electorate like this audience he can do no wrong to this audience like he shows up at these um you know when when there's something going down for him and he shows up at a UFC broadcast and he gets this kind of this kind of presentation and he's treated like a hero by this audience. It's been very helpful to him a as well >> and UFC is more than willing to just be you know uh an accessory to that as well. We did get the viewership numbers just uh before the show tonight. So, Paramount has put out a press release um using Neielson data stating that there were 8.2 million viewers across the US and Latin America, which is broken down to 7 million in the US, 1.2 million in Latin America. Correct?

[00:19:52]Is is that what it says? Of those 8.2 2 million average viewers. That that tells me maybe they're doing this minute-by-minute uh in a Neielson like way. I did not see Neielson here. You could be right though. But anyway, of the 8.2 million average viewers, 7 million came from the US, 1.2 million were in Latin America. Um you'll see we'll release viewership numbers outside the US and Latin America next week. Um >> yeah, these were Neielson's streaming figures. I'm I'm on the Hollywood Reporter site and it is listing Neielson here.

[00:20:25]>> Okay.

[00:20:26]>> Yeah.

[00:20:26]>> All right. Um that's a really good number. I mean, it's probably a lot more than I mean, what did they do on on CBS when they were on CBS?

[00:20:36]>> Two, three million.

[00:20:37]>> Oh, UFC is um I mean, for I mean, granted, it was it was not the the full cards that were airing on on CBS, but the first card did um I'd have to look it up. It was like under two million.

[00:20:50]like it certainly was. It wasn't this uh level as well. I would have been really curious to see what the ceiling would have been on CBS for them to do, but um it was not mentioned about like signups for Paramount Plus. I would be curious cuz I imagine there would have been a lot of signups on on on this show as well. They're also promoting that >> 327 peaked at 2.65 million viewers on CBS two months ago.

[00:21:14]>> Okay. So, um, yeah, I I looked at this as a very good number. It's it's very difficult to compare this with the Rousey Corono number that was on Netflix, which was a live plus 24 hours number. It was also using video AMP. Um, and that would also be worldwide figures as well. Whereas this we're looking at US and Latin America where the where Paramount Plus airs the UFC events uh free with a subscription and then in other territories it has different broadcast uh arrangements as well. So I mean those are the those are the figures that we have for the UFC card. Paramount Plus also says uh nearly 17 million people watched at least one minute of the event. You watched more than a minute, correct?

[00:22:07]>> I I watched many minutes. Um >> Okay.

[00:22:10]>> Yeah. I mean, that's we get into all all these different categories that we don't have consistently over all different kinds of uh TV shows. Um we do have a couple super chats in here.

[00:22:22]Uh we have Andrew saying that this is like the 1936 Olympics without Jesse Owens.

[00:22:28]>> Um what was going on in 1936?

[00:22:33]Um there was there was uh uh you know some stuff happening in Europe probably.

[00:22:38]>> Okay. I I understand with 50ome minutes of fight time. I don't think anybody other than existing UFC fans would have stuck with it. I mean it was I mean they were delayed an hour so it didn't start till 9 and the broadcast went just past 100 a.m. I mean it's seven fights in that time. Like there there was some downtime certainly.

[00:22:59]Um, is this more than usual?

[00:23:02]>> Um, I wouldn't say it was all that like there was probably a little bit more. I I thought we were going to be inundated with these these videos in between that where they were going to tell the the history of America and um, thank god AI was there to be able to tell us, you know, about the War of 1812. They got exclusive AI footage of the War of 1812. So that was >> Did you see the AI footage of Teddy Roosevelt walking through the I sent it to you in fact of of him walking through We didn't talk about this last week, did we? Him walking through the the White House and he goes and he he and there there's a ring set up in inside the White House and he gets into the ring with this one boxer. I don't know who it's supposed to represent. I thought it was Farmer Burns for a second, but but then I then he got into the ring with another guy wearing like a black tank top and long long, you know, tights and and and I swear this is Frank Gotch that he was he was wrestling in this AI video that I think was produced by UFC.

[00:24:03]>> Maybe >> Teddy Roosevelt versus Frank Gotch. The AI is going to unlock all kinds of new opportunities for us.

[00:24:09]Yeah, >> I don't think it was Farmer Burns, but wasn't Wasn't your old >> He was He was boxing with the guy, so it could have been.

[00:24:16]>> It wouldn't make sense to you.

[00:24:17]>> What What was your What was your your uh Twitter avatar like years ago?

[00:24:21]>> It was Farmer Burns.

[00:24:23]>> It was Farmer Burns. Okay. I was cuz there was uh before before I knew you, I only knew you through your Twitter handle and in my mind like I just thought of you as Farmer Burns uh for all those years until I actually saw a picture of you.

[00:24:39]>> Yeah, you were you were more anonymous back then.

[00:24:42]>> Yes.

[00:24:43]>> Yes.

[00:24:44]>> Okay. Well, um if anyone has any more questions about the UFC show, we we can take them up. Um let's talk a little bit about uh what's going on at TNA. We will we will do our best here to uh summarize this. So basically um they went through uh a bunch of cuts this week. They announced a workforce reduction. Um I'll pull up the this was an absolutely um carefully crafted message um that that they emailed out on uh on Wednesday.

[00:25:13]>> Did you get it? Did you get the press release? I did get the press release in fact uh labeled Anthem Sports Update and then uh the the wording here that I will uh TNA wrestling today announced a workforce reduction designed to streamline operations and sharpen strategic focus and profitability.

[00:25:33]Sharpen strategic focus and profitability. TNA's creative leadership team will see an immediate shift. Tommy Dreamer, who has worked in TNA's creative and talent relations departments, is leaving the company as TNA and Dreamer mutually agreed to part ways. TNA Wrestling has also come to terms on the release of Tessa Blanchard.

[00:25:53]We wish Tessa, Tommy, and others the best in their future endeavors, which is going to be the ultimate legacy I think Jim Ross is going to leave on wrestling related press releases.

[00:26:05]So, Tommy Dreamer is out as head of creative. Sean Rossap has reported that this is much closer to TNA is making this decision that this is not as much of a hey we both woke up today with the exact same idea. Let's stop working together. Um not how these things typically work out. Dreamer is out. Uh Sammy Callahan who was working in a behind-the-scenes role as a producer. He is gone. This follows multiple >> a different call.

[00:26:31]>> He got a call and was like hey I'm ready. I'm ready for the promotion.

[00:26:37]thing about that, Sammy. Um, so yeah, he he basically described it as that he thought he was going to get the creative uh position and they informed him that they were ceasing ties with him as well.

[00:26:46]So, he's gone. Um, we had this digital producer uh post today, Luke Peron, announcing he is done. I would imagine that there are several behind-the-scenes names that maybe people are not as familiar with that were part of these cuts that we will see if those are made public. But uh generally it's like it's a big shakeup and it does bring up the larger questions like here they are uh you know 6 months into their deal on AMC. I think a lot of the the buzz that TNA had acquired for itself a lot with this NXT relationship the leadup to going to AMC some of the shows where they did draw very well last year. A lot of that has subsided and they're making these changes. But it does bring about, you know, the the everlasting question that as many years as we can go back has always been asked about what is going on with TNA?

[00:27:39]>> What does this mean for TNA?

[00:27:41]>> What does this mean for AW? In fact, well, what does this mean? So, they use the word profitability here. Um I I >> designed to streamline operations and sharpen strategic focus and profitability. Does that mean they also want to sharpen profitability? I don't know how to read that.

[00:27:58]>> So do you think >> I do not think TNA is profitable? That would be my my guess.

[00:28:02]>> AMC deal that they just started in January. Does that mean a big infusion of cash? They're laying people off here.

[00:28:09]It suggests not. I I've sort of figured since this AMC deal started it it is a big positive for TNA. they've roughly doubled their h the number of households that they're in the United States uh going from Access TV to AMC. Now, if I'm AMC, that's the value that I'm providing you with. May maybe in a renewal, maybe there'll be a lot lot of cash involved and maybe there right now, I mean, maybe there's, you know, something marginal that might cover help cover production, but I can't see this being being a big money deal for TNA, especially given what we're seeing here. They're they're cutting people and not just I know there's been criticism of of the creative, but it seems to go this is beyond just a change in the in the coaching staff here.

[00:28:54]>> I mean, as as I was talking with with Weey last night, I think it would be refreshing if we did start to see some like some new names into these creative roles. I mean, I want some like crazy ideas in there and >> n >> it it sounds like >> Vince Russo. Who who's who's taking over? We got Vince Russo. Um who's out there in the podcast field who can uh book book wrestling shows? Uh there's Vince Russo, Jim Cornet, um Tommy Dreamer, Delirious, uh who uh Road Dog Brian James, he can book some TV. He's looking for work. It sometimes feels like when these jobs come up, it's like they instead of like going to these wrestlers or asking advice about like, you know, young young voices out there, it's like, let's go to the iTunes chart.

[00:29:44]Let's find out who's got a podcast and they're not landing on Todd wrestling.

[00:29:50]>> If I know nothing about wrestling, I know.

[00:29:53]>> Then how do I figure out who might be good at booking wrestling, might be good at producing a wrestling show? I just look at who's done it in the past.

[00:30:04]>> And that's a cycle that we have gone through forever and I think we're still going to go through forever. It's like there are it's like there's six people that can be in instructed with these creative roles and they're just going because no one they have the ultimate secret. How do you format a television show? only these six have the answers to this and I would just like like WWE to do a major creative overhaul like it's just there's it's impossible to turn that ship a TNA they're at a point like they can take more dramatic risk you could go out on a limb and I think that's that is a an advantage for TNA I don't think anyone wants a company that is just playing it safe uh because playing it safe like this is your role in the wrestling ecosystem and it's one that I I just don't think is ultimately one that is going to that you're going to be a differencemaker in this industry and like what ultimately when you talk about these stories it is also the the investment that Anthem has in TNA it's been a decade now that they have been running this company are they you know died in the wool willing to attach themselves to to TNA. Do they look at this as something that, hey, we've put all this money into this thing over a decade. What is the end goal here? We know that there is an agreement with WWE that they would have a right of first refusal, but I I don't know how attractive this company would be to a WWE. Like, I don't think they they're having trouble enough trying to get a TV deal for AAA, for an Evolve. Like, I I just I wouldn't even see WWE having interest in TNA, even even with a tape library. like they're they're not in the business of acquiring libraries anymore.

[00:31:53]>> At least in the case of AAA and Evolve, those seem to serve very specific purposes, right? Like Evolve is this sort of double A to the to the AAA trip and AAA lucha librea is yeah it giving them I think they look at it as this is a chance for us to sell uh Spanish language rights uh and further dominate the global market and further dominate the US market for that matter. um in a in a you know meanwhile the Spanish speaking population is growing in the United States. I don't know what purpose or role or function you know TNA would have for for WWE if they bought it. They would get a tape library and tape libraries are not worth what they were worth 10 years ago. Um >> where do you even put that? Like it's like YouTube like they don't even have like Netflix doesn't want >> they can start they can start a TNA vault YouTube channel >> which already exist like TNA's uh TNA's YouTube channel has something like 34 million subscribers. It's like it's it's one of the biggest assets that TNA has.

[00:32:58]>> Yeah. So um >> yeah we will see um if Road Dog comes in will this get you um back into focusing on TNA?

[00:33:09]No, I don't think so.

[00:33:10]>> No. Okay. Well, we will uh we'll keep you posted on uh the latest uh goings on. You know, if uh if this had been 10 years ago, I'm sure someone that would have been interested in a TNA tape library would have been George Barios, the then co-president of WWE and just releasing his brand new book, Sometimes Wrong, Never in Doubt. And this past week, I got a chance to chat with Mr. George Barios. And Brandon, you got to hear some of this interview. We have a couple of the clips here that uh we're going to play. We're going to get some of Brandon's reaction to these comments and I also want to get uh Brandon's thoughts on uh the the the interview as well. So, first off, we're going to talk about well, let's let's first start off with uh Saudi Arabia. People might remember the WWE went to Saudi Arabia in 2018.

[00:34:01]They hosted the greatest Royal Rumble there. And then a few months later, small little incident occurred in October of 2018 where a dissident journalist was murdered. And a month later, the WWE landed back in Saudi Arabia to present Crown Jewel. And this was a very um contentious decision that the WWE made. And Barios does talk about it in his book that this uh was a decision that Vince McMahon was in in his accounting of it. Vince was very um he wavered very much on this decision and what this could mean and it seemed like it was George and Michelle that were ultimately pushing to move forward and host the event which they did and they received a ton of scrutiny for. So here is um George Barios uh telling me about the decision to go run that event in 2018 uh with the Crown Jewel event.

[00:34:54]There is no doubt that as a as someone running a business that you're incentivized to do deals that are accreative to the business. You know that is that's true. So is there an incentive to do the deal? Yes. Does that mean you're going to do whatever and back to the question that you're putting your morals aside? No, it does not. But you're you know it goes into the it goes into the decision-m and part of it also goes in John. You know, it was a that was a unique moment and like you said, it was all happening right then and there. My recollection now, I could be wrong, was that there was a lot of speculation about what had happened.

[00:35:31]People were saying it and you know, nobody was 100% sure. And I'm not using that as an excuse or or to kind of deflect kind of the the essence of your question, but what I would tell you is what went into the decision was yeah, of course, the economics went in. Then also went in, is this the right thing? also went in are we going to are we damaging the reputation of the company by doing this over the long term also that went in is how do we think about generally not just in this situation doing business in countries where we may not 100% agree that was the debate right those were all the things and it's not an easy one there's no simple answer there's nowhere that you can point and see oh yeah this was the right answer because look at this it's judgment um but that was the that was the process but It's a fair point to say, but hey, George, you were incented to do that.

[00:36:21]That was one of the incentives, but I'm also incented to make sure the company is around long term. And so, you don't want to do something that you think, hey, this if I'm going to cut a check, but then I'm going to damage the business or do something that I say, hey, look, I also at the end of the day, this isn't paying me that much. I also have to look at my family, my wife, my three daughters, and do what I think is the right thing for me. So, all of it went in and and you know, we made the decision that we made. And in hindsight, I think we went about it the right way and it ended up being the right decision. But I to me it's always more important to say, did you think about it the right way? Did you talk about everything you should have been talking about? Did you weigh things? Did you talk about it? Like I always say, the world is probabilistic. There's no certainty. So what you really got to think through is what do I think the probabilities of different things are?

[00:37:07]Not that you're going to be perfect.

[00:37:08]That's how you make decisions. I thought we did that. So I was happy with the process we took.

[00:37:14]So, it is worth noting that at the Q3 earnings call in 2018, right before the show in Saudi Arabia, Vince McMahon's statement uh includes the fact that the company has decided to uphold its contractual obligations to the General Sports Authority and stage the event.

[00:37:30]Fully year 2018 guidance is predicated on the staging of the Riott event as scheduled. So it's it's they're really not masking that like the financial side of this was a huge contributing factor to this decision. Now I think all of us would probably you know come to that conclusion rather easily but like that was generally their justification too.

[00:37:53]Now, George is going to parse that that a lot of their um like there was thinking about like the long-term reputational hit that the company could take and maybe you can refresh us Brandon as well like the the stock took a really big hit here. So, if you're arguing that this was just a good financial decision for the company, it did come with the stock taking quite a tumble in that month of October 2019. if and I would assign like this decision being a key factor in that decline.

[00:38:25]>> Yes. Um I'm going to try to pull the history. I don't know if I'll be able to. Um I guess to be transparent with people, I I was listening into this interview that you did live and I was I one might say I might might have been text screaming to you uh certain follow-up questions as this was going on. I mean what what does So he's saying that well it Yes. Yes. moral considerations are a real are a real consideration that weigh into it. Um the financial, you know, considerations weighed in as well. How much of a financial consideration?

[00:39:00]>> You could say on one hand $50 million per event. You could also >> say that, hey, if they don't do this event, are you jeopardizing the entire 10-year deal as well, where then that becomes a much bigger loss. I guess the question I'd throw back to you, >> was this the difference? Was this the difference between W being profitable and not?

[00:39:18]>> No. No. That it was not. It could have walked away from this deal and it would have been a hit, but it would not have bankrupted them. Certainly, >> this is not a matter of fiduciary duty.

[00:39:30]This is a this is this is a business choice. He wouldn't have been I think he even sort of volunteers it to you in in part of the conversation that's not in the clip that we just listened to >> where he sort of clarifies that it's it's not a matter of a fiduciary consideration. It's not part of his fiduciary duty to uh make WB even more profitable that than it than it might be otherwise just because it's his fiduciary duty, I think, to make sure that that investors get a fair deal and to be honest with them. Um he also frames it as as if there's personal jeopardy in terms of his his ability to to you know, he's got to think about his family. He says there I mean George is going to make millions I think either way. Um, I guess the question I would have is, okay, if this was a this is a $50 million per event deal, if this was a $25 million per event deal, would you still do it? If this was a $10 million per event deal, this is a $1 million like h how low do you have to go to where the balance gets tips gets tipped?

[00:40:29]And why is why is it worth it in some cases and not like what's the I guess is there a monetary value on those moral considerations and why?

[00:40:41]>> So what I was trying to get at in my question was if you were to make a decision that you believed was the morally correct one in what way are you necessarily rewarded for that? And I don't know if there's like an easy answer to that. And the cynical side would say, did the WWE come out of this thing?

[00:41:04]Like, where is Saudi Arabia position now? All these years later, WWE has enjoyed all of this revenue from Saudi Arabia. They went through this period where I think this was the lowest point and they've certainly received scrutiny, but that is almost non-existent. I think I think we are one of the only shows that ever bring up this topic anymore.

[00:41:25]like they have they weathered that storm and and what has it done? Like it has it essentially brought um the government of Saudi Arabia right into TKO that now has its influence in boxing, in UFC, in WWE.

[00:41:41]And they have they went through this and they got all their money. The stock eventually did go up. there was this giant merger and that's where I'm saying like had they walked away from this deal would that have been the right business decision even if it was the right moral decision are do business decisions and moral decisions deserve equal weight in a perfect world they would but they don't there's no nobody is buying your stock because man that's that's that's a really great honest broker that is uh handling this company. You could argue that you know you want to have you don't want reputational harm to your company.

[00:42:25]Um like did they sustain real reputational harm for this? Like in the moment it certainly didn't feel like it.

[00:42:31]>> Yeah.

[00:42:33]Some somewhat they did but but it's not been I mean clearly W is doing great financially >> like it didn't harm them with any broadcasters when their rights came due.

[00:42:43]it didn't uh affect you know performers that had any hesitancy to work with this company. They have not they didn't lose any sponsors at that time as a result of this. Like it's why I honestly really applaud Ani Emanuel at that time who did do something about it and I think he came to the same conclusion years later.

[00:43:06]He's like I don't know why I did that and I I don't think he's he's ever making that decision again today. But in 2018, he certainly had a crisis of conscience. And that was enough that for those unfamiliar, he turned away a $400 million investment from Saudi Arabia after the Chamal Hashigible murder. And you know, it was outlined like he he was concerned for his personal safety afterward. Like that guy put his money where his mouth was there. And years later, I mean, he he doesn't even want to address it. He I I don't know if he views it as a mistake. I would think maybe he does view it as a mistake at the time.

[00:43:42]>> I think the incentive is just that if you're if you're an executive who's willing to put moral considerations with enough with enough weight in a situation like this where you pick the moral consideration over the financial situation, there's someone lining up behind you who will make the financial situation make the financial consideration instead of the moral one.

[00:44:02]And so it just it's sort of natural selection that you get people who are willing to, you know, put $50 million over killing a journalist over the notion that we're going to broadcast totalitarian propaganda into the Western world and and across the world on uh the W network and Peacock. Um so if you don't, somebody else will. And that's I guess sort of the the incentive structure that we live in.

[00:44:31]>> Yeah. I mean, it's it's an unfortunate one, but it's like as well when he describes that, well, we didn't really know what was going on. It was we didn't know what to believe in the media. Well, like you're also incentivized to be as skeptical as anybody because to I mean, generally there was not a big debate here. It was like who ultimately made this call? Was this a direct order from NBS? Yeah, that was somewhat ambiguous in October of 2018, but we have had uh reports that have come out from from the CIA, from the UN. I mean, it is like there have been sanctions that have been levied. There is certainly um I I don't know how many questions remain about um that particular instance and what happened in that consulate. I mean there is literally audio of what happened inside the the consulate with Jamal Hashoki.

[00:45:26]>> Be charitable to to George. I guess we we don't have the report from the Washington Post that reports that the CIA determined that NBS was responsible until >> not at that time in October.

[00:45:36]>> That's a couple weeks after Crown Jewel.

[00:45:38]Um you know, but here we are uh eight eight years later still doing doing the show. We we know very well what happened to um to Jamal Kosigible in in Istanbul.

[00:45:49]Another uh this is the second final clip we'll play and this was regarding the so George Barios is fired along with Michelle Wilson in January of 2020 when they are the co-presidents of the company. In the book he details how him and Michelle were ready to leave on their own in the summer of 2019. They have what is described as a pretty emotional meeting with Vince McMahon and he ends up convincing them to stay. But as George describes in the interview, the relationship changes quite dramatically after that meeting and then the decision is made in January 2020 that the two are going to be let go and the stock takes a big hit. it falls like 20%. Because it's not so much that these two are fired, but it felt like this was done with no contingency plan. you had Frank Riddick that was installed as a interim CFO at the at that time and it just felt as though like the the shareholders just lost faith that this was a really um this is a real arbitrary decision that was made uh without any kind of uh landing spot for the key players in their company in these positions that who is going to be filling these like George Barios and Michelle Wilson they had a lot of confidence among these shareholders like they were, you know, the number two, number three people at in the company at the time and then they're both gone. And then you fast forward and it's interesting he does detail that in the summer of 2020 during the pandemic, the three of them, Vince, Michelle, and George, all have a dinner together in the middle of the pandemic and and Vince, according to George, that Vince says, "Yeah, I really screwed that one up when he uh fired them in in that way." And then we go, of course, Vince leaves the temporarily leaves the company in 2022. And a key part of his plan to return to the board involves him installing both George and Michelle onto the board of directors. And George comes back on board um in preparation for what would be the merger in March. Did I get all those details correct?

[00:48:07]>> Yes.

[00:48:08]>> Okay. So after the merger, we fast forward January 2024. Um, so I had asked George about any hesitancies that he had had about coming back to work with Vince because this is now the end of 2022.

[00:48:22]These allegations are out there and then following that up with um, you know, he was he was assured by a message he wouldn't share with me that he had with Vince and he was he was willing to to work with Vince. But then the lawsuit comes out from Janelle Grant and I asked him about reading the lawsuit and how his feelings were toward Vince after reading that particular lawsuit.

[00:48:45]>> I I read a a a lot of stuff. Um I'm not a lawyer. I did talk to one. Part of me said some of this stuff doesn't seem to make sense. Explain it to me. Even the chronology and and and so on. So ultimately uh did I read? Yes. Did I get comfortable with it? Yeah. I don't want to comment, you know, on anybody's particular perspective, but I got comfortable. I talked to attorneys and not attorneys around like cover my ass.

[00:49:12]Not that perspective, but like am I reading this right? Cuz some of this stuff doesn't seem to to make sense to me anyway. And you know, at least their opinion was, "Yeah, I think you're reading it right." But all of that, John, kind of Yeah. went into the decision-m.

[00:49:25]>> It's been described. Would you agree with the if someone were to label you a loyalist to Vince McMahon, would that be an accurate label?

[00:49:34]>> No. Uh yeah, I I I'm not a loyalist to anybody. I I try to, you know, that in fact, I'm a partic I'm a somewhat disagreeable person. Uh so I do what I think is right and if somebody doesn't like it, you know, I'm I'm very comfortable that somebody doesn't like uh the decisions I make. So for better or worse, I that's the way I'm built.

[00:49:55]Um, it's probably, you know, why V, you know, I always say Vince and I had a more, we had an amazing business relationship. It was like a high performing teammates, right? We weren't buddies. We weren't chitchatting. And part of it is, you know, I think there was a a mod of respect is that I wasn't in there trying to kiss his ass. And he had been surrounded by that for a long time. That's not me for better or worse.

[00:50:17]So, yeah, a loyalist. No, I'm not. I'm loyal, right? I am loyal, but I am not a loyalist. I don't do [ __ ] because somebody said, "Hey, you know, I need you to do this. Come in." That That's not me. I do it because I think it's the right thing to do.

[00:50:33]So, there you go. Those were uh some of his thoughts. Um generally when it came to like the the allegations and in relation to Janelle Grant, how did you feel he he covered those those topics and his return to the company?

[00:50:50]I mean, does he there's there's there's other questions I would have for like does he think that those allegations are credible? It sounds like not. He's saying that the chronology doesn't make sense to him. What about the chronology doesn't make sense to him? We I I don't know that we found I mean, one can disbelieve or believe General Grant's allegations or not. I I'm not aware of anything in the chronology that doesn't make sense.

[00:51:20]I think if you if he has sat down and read that lawsuit, um if you're if you're coming away from it and you're okay working with Vince McMahon, just from the the text alone, I don't know if there's much that is changing that opinion. That would be my assumption to things is like if you're reading that lawsuit and even if you want to um like you're not going to put any faith in what alleged of anything that is alleged like the text alone like it paints such a picture and like if if you were to find out that every single one of these allegations was true is that still altering your your opinion? I I don't know if that would be like what would be the red line? That would be too much. like everyone's going to have a different um answer to that, but you know, he I guess I I would ask you about so the Wall Street Journal reporting begins in June 20122 and we have >> the grant lawsuit itself with with these detailed allegations, those don't come out until January 2024, by which time TKO has finalized and he's no longer involved with this. Yeah.

[00:52:35]>> Yes. he's not working with them any point a after that point. Um he he states the fact that of the number of NDAs that he believes would have predated him and Michelle which would have been 2008 when he joined the the company. Um, now is it now is it is it feasible that he would be learning about these NDAs for for the first time reading the Wall Street Journal, the existence of all these separate NDAs?

[00:53:05]>> You're asking me?

[00:53:07]>> Well, what it's it's feasible. I mean, >> look, I mean, the now George is on >> the whole thing was that these NDAs were were hidden. Um, >> yeah, I I think quite likely. Yeah, I think Jerry and Vince knew and the counterparty knew. That's it.

[00:53:25]>> So, it's like >> in the one case, Laurenitis would have known.

[00:53:28]>> Mhm. He mentions in the book about first his first initial meetings with Vince when he's being hired are, do you have any uh he he alleges like the any public issues that I have had? And it's like it sounds like George did his research on Vince and he was comfortable like working with with the guy and there there was certainly ammunition there like if you're coming in in 2008 that you know that there's plenty of history involving Vince McMahon at that point.

[00:53:57]Um in 2008 there's the Rita Chatterton allegation from that she made in 1992.

[00:54:05]>> There's the Boca Raton the >> that's true that >> the tanning salon in 2006. those >> that would yeah >> that would be maybe the most public um >> right >> because that one did get like coverage in 2006 when it occurred um but beyond that I mean it's it's all kind of within the confines of the company and how much was was known about um that that was that was going on um there would have been overlap because Janelle Grant starts there in early 2019 and he's there until January 2020 20, but she is working on the XFL side at Right.

[00:54:43]>> No, she starts on the WWE side, then she's transferred to the XFL. Correct.

[00:54:49]>> That sounds right.

[00:54:50]>> Yes, cuz the XFL launches early 2020, >> but certainly not like Barios, certainly not like any interaction with Berios is mentioned in in her complaint or her later affidavit.

[00:55:03]>> Um, what would you have wanted to hear more of in in the interview that wasn't asked?

[00:55:09]um his thoughts. So why did he I would want to dig into like what what really led him to to leave. He's kind of framing it as oh I did all I could do here and I kind of want to move on to the next step and and clearly they wanted to become they being George Michelle wanted to become like co-CEOs and maybe and maybe push Vince back into sort of a chairman only role rather than CEO role. Um, I I really wonder if they had any perception or evaluation of Vince's performance as head of creative because I I I tend to believe into the the 2010s this the separation of duties here here becomes pretty clear in that Vince is very involved in creative and he's letting others run the business largely and I think that's go true going back to the time when Linda was in that role but but anyway um did they have any perception of what Vince's performance as head of creative and did they think that that was having any effect on on the product especially given as soon as he was out TV ratings and attendance go up whereas in those last few years before they were the last few years before the pandemic they were declining in consecutive years. um what did he think of AW? Like did he did that play any role? The fact that well some other competitors started to emerge here. Was there any sort of frustration about the the potential that that we could possibly realize that it wasn't able to realize? I I don't know.

[00:56:31]Um I tend to think maybe he didn't have thoughts on that, but I'd be curious to know.

[00:56:36]>> Yeah. I mean certainly he was, you know, extremely tied to the like the WWE Network. like he was kind of front and center of of that of that whole launch and initiative. And uh if you remember at one of the uh the business partner summits, they introduced WWE Network 2.0, which they immediately said will not be what we call this. I actually found my old article about this WWE Network 2.0, which might have been the same business uh summit where they introduced the term global localization.

[00:57:09]I think >> it might be.

[00:57:11]>> Yeah. I mean, clearly there was a there was a there was there were thoughts on tiering the network in terms of pricing tiers and expanding it. They did they decided against that and then decided to license it out to to Peacock United States and other other platforms elsewhere. Um, I'd be curious maybe to to know more about what the to the degree he's willing to be honest like was the network really considered a success internally because they went through so many executives who were sort of in charge of the network until finally they decided put put George Michelle in charge of it. Um, you know, I think they were a little bit honest in in terms of I think they realized early on in in the network that it was actually wrestling content that was driving it and not so much Legends House and things like that. Um, this the survey data, do you remember the survey data like the um the WB global affinity homes that were like in the hundreds of millions? Do you remember this? this like this the idea that you have so many people around the world who have an affinity for we and these are people who also live in broadband homes and that's going to sort of funnel down into we're going to hit this 3 million subscriber goal which they never reached they reached about 2 million >> yeah it's it's very similar to this UFC viewership number that as we just went over like this is a really good number and you had Marco Rubio and Dana White throwing out uh Dana White stating this was going to do Super Bowl level numbers and Marco Rubio saying it might do a billion people. So, it's like this is a good number, >> but when you're saying that the potential is so gigantic and we're coming up with these I don't care what your survey says when it comes back that there are 150 million people worldwide with an affinity for the WWE.

[00:59:01]I'm sorry, but I I would love to know what the definition of affinity means.

[00:59:05]Have you heard of WWE? Um, and I would even think like 150 million might be tough to imagine have heard of WWE. But regardless of whatever your criteria is, you were never going to come anywhere in the vicinity of 150 million people tuning into the WWE Network. So, this survey is only setting your expectations at such a level that this thing topped out at like 2.2 million subscribers.

[00:59:34]like that was the peak at Wrestlemania in 2018.

[00:59:38]>> Yeah, I I'm I'm racing to find some slides from from from back in the day, but we'll uh we'll save that.

[00:59:44]>> Um so anyway, there were um you you can listen to the uh the rest of the interview. It is up on the the Post Wrestling YouTube channel. I did try to get to as many topics as I could in our uh in our our our time frame uh that that we had with him. But uh the book is Sometimes Wrong But Never In Doubt. Um, you do have a copy of this. Do you think you'll be completing it?

[01:00:06]>> One can only hope.

[01:00:08]>> Well, maybe maybe if you find yourself on a beach this summer, it's uh some some light reading. All right, let's talk about a few more topics before we uh we we wrap things up. What are uh you wrote a story about this on Wednesday, but what is the the key points from Janelle Grant's latest uh Instagram post? this in regards to the first Wall Street Journal report and she also had some excerpts from the deposition of Jeffrey Speed who was a board member at the time.

[01:00:36]>> So she she posted on Instagram two posts that go through her reactions to the first article that broke the all this news on June 15th, 2022 over four years ago now. Can you believe it? Um >> this week. Yeah, >> this week. and and she goes goes through it with with some some of her comments.

[01:00:56]Um she's expressing, you know, criticism and frustration not not apparently at the Wall Street Journal reporters, but at their sources who have sort of characterize her as a as a parallegal, which she says is not accurate. uh sort of getting her story half right according to her uh in terms of her salary, in terms of her history before coming to WWE uh in terms of her her law school background, whether she took the bar exam. She did graduate from law school. We did even remember what you a couple years ago. I think we confirmed we def definitely did confirm that um at Pace University. She graduated with a a law degree. um the the notion that this was a consensual relationship which is something that's in the first Wall Street Journal article. It's attributed to a WWE spokesperson. So we have someone would you call that background or on the record? We have somebody to attribute this to. Uh instead of people or people familiar uh she of course has alleged that this is not as far from a consensual relationship that was a relationship that she was coerced into and that she was uh sexually abused in allegedly. Uh so there's that one. She's also referencing uh the the Jeffrey Speed deposition. These are depositions that are part of the the W shareholder lawsuit. And Jeff Speed, who is the independent member of the board of director directors who's in charge of the special committee investigation into misconduct.

[01:02:29]He says and and others in their depositions say similar that there was what at least Nick Khan calls a read or you know others allude to it as something that was described to them. So it sounds like and we don't know what it is. We don't know what this image or images were some sort of image was obtained by the the board's special committee or perhaps what it seems like it was actually obtained by their outside council which was Simpson Thatcher this law firm that they brought in to conduct the investigation.

[01:03:04]some sort of image was obtained and the image itself was not shared with board members but it but a a description of that message was shared with board members and it appears to involve something involving Vince and Brock Lesnar. What it sounds like is there's some sort of communication happening between Vince and Brock Lesnar that includes images of Janelle Grant that are explicit images. Uh we don't know what those are. Um and it sounds like Janelle Grant doesn't know what those are either. Um, so it's not as if it may have been the case that Vince's phone was was handed over by him to the board and they obtained these images, but it's not as if they checked with her before they started including this in the investigation. She has said in the past as well that she was not included in this investigation. Jeffrey Speed has said uh has said opposite of that that they there was significant outreach to her.

[01:04:05]Um and then the the second message or the second post that that she made this was all posted yesterday on Instagram where she goes through the second the followup Wall Street Journal article from July 8th, 2022. This is the one that so the first article only reports that there is one NDA. The second article reports that there are four NDAs totaling $12 million. Um, and this is she describes this as the article that she says just in didn't just change my life, it sent me into hiding. And she des it describes where she and Vince met at the condo complex that they both lived in. Uh, there was also someone on Twitter who posted what her name was. So now >> essentially her name was in public. Her the place where she lived was in public.

[01:04:57]This is also the place where she recently obtained a new job which was her postwe job. Uh and this according to her sent her into hiding.

[01:05:08]>> Yeah. the details that she that she goes over to. Sorry. In in the in the article, uh, including about her pay, um, including continuing to clarify that she was not a parallegal, but that she had a she was a coordinator, I believe, was was her job. She says she was she felt doxed.

[01:05:28]Um, so you can read that on the post wrestling site. I mean there it's you know it's it's coming from Janelle Grant's perspective and I mean it's at least giving you the focus that you know for us we're consuming these articles at at the time she's conveying sort of what her frame of mind was as these articles were being reported and and there's certainly questions about th this investigation and what does significant outreach mean? Was there direct outreach to Janelle Grant? Was there outreach to representatives of her? Were those was there was that outreach extended back? Were was their contact made? I mean, Janelle has certainly suggested that she was more than willing to participate in this investigation, but that is a big question about this um this investigation that WWE conducted and what what if any participation Janelle Grant was offered. In addition to that, what also something that she which is from the is publicly filed in the merger shareholder lawsuit is a subpoena that was sent from the Southern District of New York, which is a which is a portion of the the US uh the US Department of Justice. Um so we have that here too.

[01:06:44]I've I've included the entire subpoena in the article itself and it's it's sent from Southern District of New York to WWE and they're asking for records as well as for somebody to show up and and uh testify to the grand jury. But it also lists all of these statutes um all these federal laws which I went through and uh looked up each statute and and briefly define what that statute is. So, this is remember when Vince was um Vince made his settlement with the SEC. He had this statement. You he had just been uh ordered to pay a $400,000 penalty and to repay WWE $1.3 million for the stock that he sold during the relevant time frame. And he made makes the statement that there's been a great deal of speculation about what exactly the government was investigating what the outcome would be. and he said in the end there was never anything more to this than minor accounting errors with regard to some personal payments I made several years ago while I was CEO. Uh there's there's a there's a charitable way to to read that and for him to say look there was this big investigation but in the end the only consequence the only tangible consequence for me was that I was fined some money over the SEC issues. The the Department of Justice was looking into more than just SEC or accounting or financial issues. They were they were looking into that and there's a lot of SEC related laws that they were investigating statutes that were potentially violated um as well as uh things like fraud uh conspiracy to commit an offense aiding and abetting uh attempt or conspiracy to commit fraud retaliating against a witness victim or an informant destruction alteration falsification of records. Uh sex trafficking is is definitely one uh >> which wouldn't be a an accounting error.

[01:08:37]>> I don't think so. Uh the general attempt conspiracy and asset forfeite provision tied to the trafficking chapter uh the the RICO act, the man act. So uh of course no one was ever charged with any crimes related to this criminal investigation.

[01:08:54]there there isn't any detail in this subpoena that says what what the allegations were that they were investigating or why they were considering these statutes why they were investigating whether there were violations whether there were charges they were going to bring but those are those are the the statutes that are listed that are referred to as I believe they're referred to as allegations of the following statutes or something to that effect.

[01:09:21]The Liv Morgan case has uh come to a well a relative conclusion. This is the the stalker case involving Shawn Chan who was originally from Hong Kong, moved to Canada when he was younger. He was in Quebec. Then he moved to Scar Bro, Ontario, and in May of last year, flew from Scar Bro down to Orlando, Florida, and showed up at Liv Morgan's home. She wasn't home at the time, and he spent about 2 hours around her her residence.

[01:09:50]He is seen on the surveillance footage uh picking up this air pellet gun of searching for a key to get inside and ultimately leaving like this two-page handwritten note for Liv Morgan and seems to be under the impression that he is friends with her online. So days later, he showed up at the WWE Performance Center and guess he was identified and then they arrested him at the PC and he had been held in custody and appeared in court earlier this week and was found not guilty by reason of insanity uh facing a charge of interstate domestic violence and was facing up to 5 years in prison um after being held for just over a year um by the time this uh court date occurred.

[01:10:37]So, it's expected that he's likely going to be either turned over to ICE or they are going to work together and send him back uh to Canada where he is a resident. Um but that largely ends um this case uh involving Shaun Chan and um yeah they he was he was evaluated by multiple um clinicians and you know they they came to their conclusions about his mental state and that obviously um was you know enough enough for the judge to accept accept this and give this this not guilty decision.

[01:11:19]He's somebody who's been diagnosed with delusional disorder who seems to to need a lot of, you know, mental health help. Um, I I don't know what's what would be next for him when he returns to Canada, presuming that he does. As you mentioned, he's being turned over to ICE, according to the court records. Uh, he had been he had been held in jail for over one year because this happened back in May of last year. So he he has been >> serving jail time because of this.

[01:11:49]>> Yeah.

[01:11:50]>> Um it's it's it's fortunate that something worse did not happen. As you mentioned, there's this moment that's seen in the security footage where he picks up this pellet gun, which is I think like an airsoft gun. So this is not like it's not it's not like this was something that could kill someone, but it's some something that could definitely injure somebody. Um, yeah, he'll I don't know what what happens to him once he gets to Canada, whether he'll be institutionalized or whether they'll be care for him there or what will happen.

[01:12:20]All right, the uh my AW service, not an easy segue, but um my AW continues to expand. They have added uh more libraries to their service. We have gotten uh C4 Wrestling out of uh out of Ottawa. Uh Limitless Wrestling, Orange Crushes uh Produce, which is going to have a pay-per-view distribution deal when they start their series of shows. And now added, they've uh they've added matches from Create a Pro, Warrior Wrestling, and they're also going to be offering for $9.99 the uh the CMLL New Japan Fantastic Mania Mexico card on Friday night from Arena Mexico. It seems very clear they saw um you know I'm sure this is not why they launched my AEW but it has it has coordinated with Triller uh falling apart and they're looking to pick up the pieces of of Triller and add independent services here and for some they will be able to offer pay-per-view content and it'll be an interesting test on uh Friday night if like CMLL generates any kind of like interest for people to spend $10. This is an alternative to those that are spending like the 35 bucks for CMLL's YouTube channel that gives you a month membership. Um, but it's an expensive package on YouTube versus just buying one show here for $10.

[01:13:44]>> So, this Fantastic Mania is one event.

[01:13:47]This is not like the Fantastic Mania tour that New Japan does with CM.

[01:13:51]>> Yeah, this is this is a one-off show.

[01:13:54]>> I guess I guess it makes sense, right?

[01:13:55]like AW is a stronger wrestling brand than Fight or Triller. I imagine the expense of taking these partners on is not high, right? Like what are they what are you spending to include Creator Pro and Warrior Wrestling? Maybe some maybe some IT hosting expense or something like that. And it's probably a revenue share that these companies are are agreeing to.

[01:14:19]Yeah, I I would think that there's like I see them less going for like libraries of these independent groups and more towards like live shows that I think will drive the occasional like whether it be free shows or in the case of some like uh pay-per-view audiences.

[01:14:38]I I'll be curious to see what their appetite is here. I I don't know what the audience will be for like libraries of some of these independent companies, but I think I think they're looking at all of this as just additive. Like we're we're trying to just create something that people want to get this service.

[01:14:53]It's not going to be specific because hey, I've got to see old warrior wrestling matches. Um I I I want to know if what are the chances Brandon Thson's going to end up on this service before the end of the year? Did did you sign off your rights in perpetuity to all these independent groups you worked with?

[01:15:11]>> I did not. I did not sign off my intellectual property rights to anybody at any time.

[01:15:16]>> Okay. So, be forewarned. Okay.

[01:15:21]I did, by the way, as we were discussing last week um in the uh the Ryan Neoth lawsuit and um Ryan Neoth there there's a dispute about what the proper arbitration forum is for that dispute between Ryan Neth and AW and AW has petitioned Ryan Neth in federal court to say no, we want to arbitrate in Florida where where I where his contract says we're supposed to arbit retreat and they're they're they want to file all three of uh Ryan Neth's wrestler contracts under seal. Um so I have continued to research this this issue. I have reached out to AW's council to try to reach a a mutual conclusion that will avoid the need to litigate this matter. Uh it remains to be seen what the resolution will be though.

[01:16:16]Okay. Well, this is uh they're going to get themselves into quite a jam when it comes to which arbitration location they will be settling this in. All right.

[01:16:27]Nothing like a little arbitration humor.

[01:16:29]Uh the US uh Justice Department is not going to stand in the way of the Paramount merger for all of you that were concerned. Um this uh the DOJ announced this was last Friday that it has reviewed this uh this merger for eight months and that the transaction involving Paramount and Warner Brothers Discovery is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers. And it look now they still have to clear uh various uh state attorneys general could still be bringing uh legal cases forward for this. this is not uh a green light that this thing goes through. Uh it's still under review in the UK and Europe, but I mean this is a pretty significant hurdle for them to to clear. Um not that I think anyone was uh thinking the the DOJ was going to be uh dropping the hammer down on on this merger. And uh and to celebrate, David Ellison was there at the White House on on on Sunday on Paramount Plus next to uh President Donald Trump. So um you know, they were all in a celebratory mood on Sunday. Okay. Did you watch the Knicks game?

[01:17:33]>> Did you watch the Knicks win win the NBA final? What channel was that? Was that on NBC? What channel was that on?

[01:17:38]>> Um, that was on that was on CTV2 in Canada. I don't know what it was on >> David Zazoff was there for some of those games in in the Garden, I think, actually. So, not not the not the game five that clinched it. Um, you know, you know, you know, we have the question is that we have to ask, right?

[01:17:59]I think that this definitely means that if this if this goes sour, we're going to get a a group on Ring of Honor, the DOJ. The question is not what does this mean for the state of big media in the United States. The question is not what does this mean for CNN. What does this mean for the state of freedom of of the press, freedom of speech? What does this mean for AW?

[01:18:27]>> I think you're forecasting what one of the main questions is going to be when California State Attorney General Rob Bont uh potentially opposes this and asks, "What about AEW? What happens to wrestling on Wednesday and Saturday nights? Is the UFC going to bump Collision?" These are the questions that the Americans need to know. And I don't know if the DOJ did their due diligence over these eight months when it came to the pressing question.

[01:18:53]That's right.

[01:18:54]>> Okay. Well, um it sounds like your country is moving towards uh like a two media property universe, which is kind of what Canada exists in. Uh >> there's got to be consolidation. C the cable bundle is collapsing. There had to be >> too many options out there. Too many voices, too many too many differences.

[01:19:13]>> There's Netflix still. There's YouTube.

[01:19:15]I guess those are number one. Number two, >> let's streamline democracy. Okay. Can be a very narrow path.

[01:19:23]>> Democracy more profitable.

[01:19:26]>> I always have felt that democracy it's it's not meeting it it its proper benchmarks when it comes to profitability. So I I really hope that this merger can get that sorted out.

[01:19:37]>> You got to consider you got to consider the financial incentives. Yes. Take moral considerations into account but at the end of the day it's a business decision.

[01:19:46]>> Yes. Um yeah. Well, we uh we we tried to inject some some some moral discussion into um corporate business. So, there you go. That was uh that was our contribution to the world. Tonight, we're going to wrap up, but we thank all of you for uh for joining us. You can, as always, uh find my work over at postwrestling.com. For those that are members of the post wrestling cafe, we waiting and I just talked for like 3 hours about Wrestlemania 33, the ultimate thrill ride from Orlando, Florida, which had a a very exaggerated attendance figure of 75,000 plus at the Citrus Bowl in Orlando. Um, this would have been uh this would have been right right in your wheelhouse. Uh, where does Florida rank among states when it comes to uh >> Have you heard my story about this this WrestleMania?

[01:20:36]>> No, >> I was in Orlando for this Wrestlemania.

[01:20:40]Were you?

[01:20:40]>> You were. So was I. Yeah, we didn't know each other.

[01:20:44]>> What year was this?

[01:20:45]>> 2017.

[01:20:46]>> 17.

[01:20:47]>> 17.

[01:20:48]>> I'm sure I've told this on the air at some point. So I decide at like the third to last I don't know. I decide like very close to WrestleMania date that all right, I'll I can get a quick flight from Buffalo to Orlando and somebody who knows somebody some somebody says that that they can get me a ticket to Wrestlemania. Now, I'm going to struggle to remember the details of what exactly happened, but anyway, somebody says they're going to get me a ticket through somebody that that they know who's in the wrestling business who can get me a ticket, and I'll pick it up at the box office. And I go to pick it up at the box office. And they they hand me the ticket. I go up to the gates, I scan the ticket, and it goes, "Somebody use this ticket." So, I flew to Orlando to attend Wrestlemania.

[01:21:42]did not attend Wrestlemania and watched WrestleMania from a hotel room on a laptop.

[01:21:50]>> Wow. um not all that different from my story where I did get to Wrestlemania and when I was sent to the media area, they did not provide me with a desk to work at and I ended up having to go to a corner behind all of the seats and put on my headphones and watch Wrestlemania on the network on my laptop so that I could take notes and had no purpose of uh actually being there. Do you want to do you want to turn this full circle?

[01:22:20]We're going to end off with this excerpt from uh George Barios and his Wrestlemania 33 story. Are you ready for this? There were some dark stories during this period. Maybe the worst of them happened in April 2017 when WWE was holding WrestleMania, our equivalent of the Super Bowl, in a stadium filled with about 60,000 fans, which is actually a pretty accurate description of this and not the 75,000 WWE touted. He talked about uh being there that weekend. My perpetual lack of sleep conspired with an extra glass of wine made me sluggish.

[01:22:54]I admit I wasn't my usual upbeat self.

[01:22:56]Apparently, this was noticed by some of our longtime staffers, a few of whom were always looking to curry favor with Vince. They brought this matter to his attention. I never understood why Vince got so offended, but he did. To the best of my recollection, we barely ran into each other during Wrestlemania 33. Still fueled by what people had told him, he called me aside not long after that.

[01:23:17]"Were you drinking?" he said. "Hm," I said. "Yeah, I had a glass of wine."

[01:23:22]"Well, I heard you were having too much." "From whom?" He didn't answer. He said, "Vince, this is crazy. What are you trying to say? I was up all night.

[01:23:31]Then I went to the event. I had wine.

[01:23:33]Sure, but then I think 2 hours later, I was up again to hop on the quarterly call and talk about our subscriber numbers." He refused to engage me further, but two weeks later, he pulled me aside before we went into our board meeting. George, when we go into the executive session, I'm going to ask the management team to leave. I want you to stay and apologize to the board for what happened. I remember feeling outraged, hurt, and more than a little betrayed. I also remember feeling stark terror. The thought of standing up before everyone, apologizing for something I hadn't done, that was awful. But Vince did everything just as he said he would. The management team got up and left and then it was just Vince and me and the board.

[01:24:10]Everyone, George has something he'd like to say. I stammered. I stuttered. I wanted to die. It was one of the most humiliating moments of my life. But I gritted my teeth and did it. I apologized to everyone because [ __ ] it.

[01:24:22]This wasn't the hill I was going to die on. Walking out of that meeting, I remember thinking, "That's it. I'm finished at WWE. Finished everywhere. My reputation is ruined."

[01:24:33]So stay in company for another year and six months or so.

[01:24:38]>> More than a year. This is 2017. He stays. I'm thinking 18. Okay. Oh yeah.

[01:24:43]>> Yeah. This was this this Wrestlemania.

[01:24:45]Yeah. So had to apologize to all all the uh >> the team for having wine and I guess being uh I don't know off-putting to some. Sounds like a great place.

[01:24:56]>> Without more spoilers because we you know we want to encourage people to check out the book. Is there are there more stories about what Vince put this man through in their in their 11 years in business together?

[01:25:10]>> That's probably the the the the height of Vince putting him through uh something at least what what is calculated in the book. I mean it it it is it is hardly a spoiler that he is very differential to Vince McMahon and thinks very highly of the man. Um but there you go. All right. Now we are really going to wrap it up. So thanks to everybody for listening. We're here every Thursday night, 8:30 p.m. Eastern time. And we will chat with you next week. Goodbye.