E.Ganzerli ha scritto:
Ecco qua:
Originally Posted by Dave Meltzer
Let me know when some of the reporters using that figure use their brain and realize how completely full of shit it is.
No one person is responsible for 22% of company revenue. The very idea of it is preposterous. If Cena is moving $106 million in anything, he should be earning $40-50 million a year instead of a small fraction of that.
That's like in 1991 when some similar full of shit report talked about how WWF was a $1.7 billion dollar a year company and it got repeated everywhere when the company actually only grossed $125 million the previous year.
I know it was on our site as well.
Look at WWE revenues by category and see what Cena meant.
He means a little bit on house shows, a little bit on PPV, a little on DVDs (the majority of which he's only a part of or not even a part of at all), he means virtually nothing when it comes to the TV money which is under contract whether he's with the company or not and doesn't go up when he's there and down when he's not there.
This isn't a guy who is the difference between 250,000 buys and 800,000 buys. And while his merch moves. Total merch for last year was $45 million so even if he means 20% of that, you're still talking $8 million.
The best you're getting is Cena means maybe 5% of total revenue of $478 million or $24 million, and that's giving him the benefit of a lot of numbers that may not be warranted and giving him 20% of merch which is a shot in the dark number likely way higher than the real number.
I know it was on this site as well. I saw that figure and I just thought, common sense says it's a full of shit number and moved on. Then when everyone started going with it, I satdown and tried to figure if it was possible, and it's not.
Grazie mille, è proprio l'articolo di cui parlavo.
