Jump to content

Vince McMahon forms and funds Alpha Entertainment: Possible XFL Revival


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This one won't allow protesting against racism.

It's The Rock. Vince would let him sleep with Linda.

Exactly, the USFL during the 80s was moderately successful when it ran as a Spring league.  It was only when it tried to be a direct competitor that it got stomped.  (Great ESPN 30 for 30 on it and I

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, PunkStep said:

Vince has made it clear though this is his money, nothing to do with WWE in terms of financing, he had to make that abundantly clear because of the inevitable concerns from the other shareholders.

That's Louch's point though, this is Vince's independent venture but the XFL trademarks, etc were owned by WWE so he would have had to have paid to buy them or at least licence the name. It'll have to be declared at some point (I assume, during quarterly reports or similar) how much he paid WWE for the trademarks and if it wasn't a fair price WWE stakeholders may take issue with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

so So far in his “not connected to wwe in any way list we have 

1- mass ( assumed free) promoting on wwe social media platforms 

2 - use of the wwe studios for the announcement 

3 - trademark recently registered by wwe (xfl) being used

think I’ll keep adding to this as it goes along 

Edited by Louch
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bicurious Dad said:

That's Louch's point though, this is Vince's independent venture but the XFL trademarks, etc were owned by WWE so he would have had to have paid to buy them or at least licence the name. It'll have to be declared at some point (I assume, during quarterly reports or similar) how much he paid WWE for the trademarks and if it wasn't a fair price WWE stakeholders may take issue with it.

What the fuck would be considered a less than fair price for the XFL trademarks? Even if the transaction was $0, they'd have to be taking the piss a bit to stand up and say it's worth more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

I'm completely amazed that the stock didn't take a hit on this. It's bound to hurt Vince's focus towards WWE. Having said that, the stock has been high partly due to investors believing that WWE could get close to 400m in rights fees for the new TV contract when it comes due, and also that all the people that sign up for the network for 3 months and pay $1.99 will still count towards the overall "paid" subscriber number. So I guess it's fair to say that, surprisingly, investors aren't scratching too far below the surface on things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
38 minutes ago, King Pitcos said:

What the fuck would be considered a less than fair price for the XFL trademarks? Even if the transaction was $0, they'd have to be taking the piss a bit to stand up and say it's worth more than that.

If he is taking that name and investing $100 million into it, it aint worthless 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
33 minutes ago, Louch said:

If he is taking that name and investing $100 million into it, it aint worthless 

Only to him so far, though - the league doesn't even exist yet, so as of now, the brand and trademark isn't worth anything. Pitcos is talking in terms of how the market and the rest of the world would value it. In current terms, based on a combination of historic precedent and the fact it's only just been announced, XFL as a brand is worth very little indeed. If it's successful, then it might be worth something. Investing $100m into it doesn't mean anything in itself; as far as anyone not named McMahon is concerned, it's probably $100m spunked up the wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Louch said:

If he is taking that name and investing $100 million into it, it aint worthless 

Of course it’s worthless, it’s his biggest failure. He’s investing that money into it to change that perception and repair his ego. It’s of no value to anyone else. If Vince got it for a tenner on a Thursday, waiting until Friday wasn’t going to see an offer of five mil for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
4 hours ago, Bicurious Dad said:

That's Louch's point though, this is Vince's independent venture but the XFL trademarks, etc were owned by WWE so he would have had to have paid to buy them or at least licence the name. It'll have to be declared at some point (I assume, during quarterly reports or similar) how much he paid WWE for the trademarks and if it wasn't a fair price WWE stakeholders may take issue with it.

I see, gotcha

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
8 minutes ago, Louch said:

If you say xfl people still remember it, even for the worst reasons. In business you can’t just transfer an asset like that to your own company on the side and expect no blowback on it 

That's the point, though. Something is only worth the market perception, and the XFL, based on the fact that it bombed worse than the Enola Gay, is now associated with failure - it is considered at best a worthless asset, and at worst a money-loser. Being remembered isn't worth anything by itself, it's how it's remembered is what gives it value.

Put it this way: if I decided to start up a department store chain called British Home Stores, just how much do you think I'd be able to get from outside investors? It wouldn't be much, because I'd be using a brand forever remembered as a failure that collapsed spectacularly and amid much controversy.

Edited by Carbomb
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

The trademark was renewed by wwe so yes. 

@Carbomb , if you opened a new British Home stores, the creditors of the old one would be after you as it still there trademarked name, and want money for it before you could use it. Wwe is owned by shareholders, Vince is the majority but he isn’t the only. In the unlikely event it does become a money maker, that he has siphoned off a wwe asset( or arguable value agreed) is still not how business is down  without blowback 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...