Hanna-Barbaro Cavernario

AEW is definitely not profitable if Tony is paying them guaranteed money.

so 3 PM EST @DoubleCrossKing @OGTslay1974 and myself discuss the candidates for the WON Hall of Fame. youtube.com/live/WkinGwrurQo…

It’s an echo chamber… Sting just got in only because his AEW accomplishments. It’s built for people curated to your opinions of wrestling.

Your opinions changed so you could survive with your business model. You have to cater to the AEW crowd as they are the ones willing to pay to hear what you say. Jim gets paid because people want to hear what he says, so his opinion never had to change.

While waiting for my @lyft at the airport, I figured I’d entertain a few AEW sickos. And sure enough, they did exactly what I expected. Straight to the insults and personal attacks instead of addressing the actual point. Anyway, I’ve got work to get back to, so let me make something clear. I shared what a former @WBD executive told me about @AEW’s future under @Skydance. That’s it. You’re free to disagree with their assessment, but attacking me won’t change what I was told. There are journalists whose job it is to investigate these things and dig deeper. I’m simply sharing what I hear from people in the industry. What you do with that information is entirely up to you. Just don’t confuse your loyalty to a wrestling company with an objective argument.

They are on different nights, network vs cable, all that means is NXT had a large crossover of World Series viewers, nothing more.

Or if AEW's biggest cheerleader and apologist is raising concerns, which are basic facts that even an idiot can't deny, it can really stand out and be noticed.

When Tony's bff is questioning AEW's future under Skydance, you know it's not great.

Anything to make AEW look good. Dave Meltzer is always locked in for TK 💀

I think people are overreacting. If we understand the risks as fans WWE certainly does too. A billion-dollar company wouldn’t risk thousands of lives for one event. If the show goes ahead trust that every necessary safety measure has been considered. The Saudi Arabia fearmongering is getting ridiculous.

Analyzing Sean Ross Sapp and Jon Alba show 'The Hump' (10/28/26) - it's still really bad, and further undermines Sapp's credibility as a legitimate, credible reporter. Sapp unintentionally buries himself. In the show, Sapp claims some of his work is opinion and some is reporting, but that distinction isn't easy to make, and in one case, he claims his updates are "a rib." The show takes way too long to cover the promised topics, doesn't stay on those topics for long, and repeatedly interrupts its wrestling coverage to discuss itself. The title promises discussion of Riyadh (Crown Jewel) and Bruce Pritchard allegedly heading to retirement. It takes about 7.5 minutes to discuss Crown Jewel and about 47 minutes to talk about Bruce Pritchard *three-quarters of the way through the show!* They announce the stories immediately (good), but make viewers wait for the actual coverage (bad). They talk about Bruce for under four minutes after an unrelated baseball discussion, earlier in the episode, that lasted more than four minutes. At about the 2-3 minute mark, Sapp claims that he states opinions, not reports, unless he says they are reports. He said, for the future, "Anything that I say is purely opinion or analysis unless noted otherwise." But what is opinion and reporting? Sapp made comments like 'the offer is already on the table,' 'conversations continued this past weekend,' and 'a source told me he visited headquarters.' Is this reporting, or opinion? The three can't possibly be 'just opinions' because they are statements about facts, but Sapp, from what I remember, didn't say this is reporting. Around 38 minutes, Sapp says he is not *reporting* that the Street Profits’ absence is punishment for a security guard incident, but emphasizes the timing. The label helps distinguish speculation, but the insinuation still invites viewers to connect the events. For another topic, there's also a mix between reporting, opinion, and what is fact or not. Was Sapp reporting about MVP? In part, yes: he recounts purported conversations, evidence, and the origin of a story. Those are claims about things that happened. Saying “this is opinion” elsewhere does not change their nature. Sapp says, in effect: MVP suspected someone had leaked something. Sapp says he had not reported that particular story. Sapp contacted the person who had reported it. That person allegedly identified MVP as the source. The listener does not get enough detail to independently assess that account: which story, which supposed leak, what evidence, and what precisely MVP disputed? Around 5:30, Sapp points to angles ending early, additions to title matches, someone not taking a pin, and MVP’s words. That is a recognizable form of wrestling analysis: observing booking and inferring what might happen. Its weakness is that the same booking choices can support several explanations. A reporter can offer that analysis, but the useful distinction is: Observation: This wrestler has not appeared recently. Inference: Perhaps the company is moving away from this act. Reporting: Someone with direct knowledge says the company has decided to move away from this act. The first does not establish the second, and neither establishes the third. A segment about Kairi Sane around the 22-minute mark is especially confusing about what Sapp's work reports versus what it offers as opinion. He claims his posts about Kairi Sane are "a rib" ...so they're not reporting? He said, "When I post about Kairi Watch every week, it's a rib on the fact that everybody asks me about Kairi every week," then talks about "conversations have continued." However, on October 25th, someone lamented Sapp posting about Kairi Sane, saying "JUST TELL US WHEN SHE SIGNS SOMEWHERE. STOP COPY AND PASTING ROUGHLY THE EXACT SAME UPDATE EVERY FEW DAYS," and Sapp replied, "Nah I'm good, I'll do what my actual paying subscribers request. Go b*tch at someone else." So, is it a rib, then, or is he doing what his subscribers request? Around the 14-minute mark, when they talk about safety concerns for Crown Jewel in Saudi Arabia, the hosts wonder whether this will make mainstream headlines. They didn't even do a simple Google search to find that Sports Illustrated, AOL, Fox, etc. talked about this. Around the 50-minute mark, Sapp interrupts the show to insult a critic who claims only two people are live-viewing on Sapp's personal Facebook page. Sapp curses, calls him a goof and a dummy, and says he is streaming to 10 platforms. Why even do this? I looked at the YouTube metrics alone: with Sapp's 332k subscribers, only 4,500 (live and after) watched the show at the time I watched it. Arguably, less than 1.4% of the YouTube subscribers even saw the show live or after, then there are non-subscribers who could have tuned in. Bad turnout, it seems! The stronger criticism is his conduct: he interrupts the show to insult a commenter, then returns near the end for another insult. Around the 52-minute mark, Sapp describes asking multiple individuals at WWE, including people connected to Nick Khan and WWE HQ, about Vince Russo possibly returning to WWE. However, Sapp didn't say he contacted Russo about this. Russo, on the Coach and Bro Show, said Sapp didn't contact him. Why seek reactions throughout WWE and not contact the central subject, Russo, or one of Russo's close allies, like co-host Jeff Lane? Further, Fightful’s published account says Russo either visited headquarters or was under consideration for a visit. On the show, Sapp describes a source claiming the visit happened. Those formulations have different certainty levels and deserve clarification. We didn't get that. They were off-topic again, but this time only for about 12% of the episode, with discussion of the NBA, baseball, voice acting, and food. Last week was far worse, especially the several-minute intro about tissues, allergies, food, and more. The baseball tangent lasts about as long as the entire Bruce Prichard segment: 3:45 versus 3:40. The opening disclaimer/dispute lasts two minutes longer than the Bruce discussion: 5:40 versus 3:40. The two viewer-count responses together last slightly longer than the Kairi segment: 1:25 versus 1:10. The initial discussions of the two headline topics total approximately 12:15, or 19.3% of the episode. Riyadh receives additional discussion later. To improve the show, Sapp and Alba should stay on topic, spend more time on the promised topics, and address them earlier in the show. I can't see myself listening to this as a fan.

This dude continues to be unsafe

🙄

What’s the difference in net worth?

Just so you know, Dave, you are responsible for how badly AEW wrestlers hurt themselves; because they are chasing your fake star ratings, they try stuff that should never be tried. Also, just remember you are the one who has been wrong for seven straight years, not Cornette.

For example, the pile driver spot from the apron between Josh Alexander and Darby Allin, what did that accomplish? Why risk re-injuring your knees? For Dave and his bullshit star ratings?

You choose this dork over Vince Mcmahon?

The difference between AEW and WWE is this spot would result in a guy being taken out on a stretcher in WWE, meanwhile in AEW, he walks it off and continues to wrestle for another 25 minutes.