Skip to main content

New low for WWE stock

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Sean OLeary" <stholeary@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-04-19 11:53 AM
Subject: New low for WWE stock
To: "Scott Keith" <skeith@gmail.com>

Thought this was interesting: http://www.prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/article10024666.shtml It will be interesting to see why investors are fleeing despite the rumored good WM buyrate when the Q1 numbers are out. The real question is when does the WWE take note & change what they're doing.
 
Note - the stock is down another 2% today as I'm writing this, so on its way to setting another record low.

Comments

  1. Hasn't their stock always traded at low numbers?  I don't see what they could do to significantly raise it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In other news, the WWE recently announced the end to it's wellness policy.


    WWE spokesman Dr. John Anonymous had this to say:

    "We here at WWE feel that the policy has run it's course and reached all it's intended goals."

    Dr. George Zahorian, returning head of WWE's internal medical supervisory committee also had this to say:  "Could you move over?  We've got to get these vitamins in here asap."

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's mostly the movie division draining a millions out of the bank every year.

    Well, and spending $5 million on a guy that will, at best, draw one big buyrate (co-headlining with another guy they're spending millions on to draw one buyrate).

    But seriously, Rock = $$$. Clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh great, you're back.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a salient fucking point you make!

    Oh right...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Seriously how does this guy have over 400 posts yet this is the first time I've seen him actually, ya know, POST SOMETHING here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Live threads. Mystery solved.

    Have any thoughts on the stock or are we all going to sit around and slobber on my tip?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Isn't the stock market itself on a down cycle? Even Apple and Google stocks are suffering right now (compared to what they're usually at and the companies' worth).

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are alot of factors at play, obviously......but what it comes down to is investor confidence.  Basically, investors (stockholders / potential stockholders) don't see anything in the foreseeable future that makes them think WWE is headed for a major upswing.  Simply put, there's not a huge "demand" for WWE stock. 

    Possible reasons:

    1.  WWE possibly decreasing in popularity due to the surge of UFC the last 4 or 5 years.

    2.  A crappy economy in general  (this problem plagued them in 2002 as well, from what I remember).

    3.  Lack of megastars (or at least none that investors are willing to trust yet).

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think #1 and #3 are def possibilities.  #2?  Not so much, basketball/football/baseball have never been healthier and the film industry is doing just fine despite all of the piracy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here's a question: has going public really helped the company at all? Sure there may have been more cash-flow but in a lot of ways, it has handcuffed WWE in regards to creativity and trailblazing. They listen less to the fans than ever because there's investors to answer to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think if Brock and Rock announced today that they're back 100% and working full-time schedules and the such, it would help.  They're not here full-time, so it doesn't move the stock one way or the other, however, you can't extrapolate from there that they are not draws.

    Didn't we beat that point to death already?

    ReplyDelete
  13. No. They made a heap of money in the IPO but flushed that away on the XFL. I'm not aware of any other benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  14.  Low numbers, yes. 

    However, look at this, since 04/11/11, when it traded at $11.32 a share; the stock has droped 30%.

    30%!

    That John Cena on top has done wonders.  He sells a lot of t-shirts, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pretty sure the film industry is actually shitting a brick, collectively, regarding declining revenue (piracy is a very small part of that, but gets played up the most). But you're right on baseball/football and probably basketball. Other forms of athletic entertainment are doing good or better.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Rock paid for himself already. And I'm pretty sure Brock will pay for himself too.

    But Flair is right, these are one-time windfalls that investors will look past. WWE needs to prove they can build a new Rock, or at least a new Brock.

    In the meanwhile, Rock and Brock are still net benefits to the WWE.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Increase expectations of future profits.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I didn't say they weren't draws. Clearly Rocky can pull people to a PPV, after all every single person that bought Wrestlemania bought it for him, as we established.

    I agree, if any of these guys were getting paid what they are to be considered even remotely full time performers it would definitely help.

    It's the spending on them with the knowledge that they'll be gone and have no long-term affect on anything that makes stockholders antsy.

    Well, that and the millions they dump into the film division that has never been very profitable.

    ReplyDelete
  19.  Yep, you're right about film.  Should've looked that up before posting.

    http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Huh? Apple's stock is up 100% in the past year.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's hard to pinpoint exactly when....but I think Vince either (a) lost  or (b) never capture many fans from Generation Y  (Those born from like 1981 to 1984, depending on which book you read).  Alot of Generation Y males became UFC fans pretty quick, at the expense of WWE.  "Why watch a fake sport when I can watch the real thing, bro???"...while squeezing into a tight Affliction shirt..

    ReplyDelete
  22. But they can't. That's why we had to go back to the same old shit from 2001 in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the problem is the WWE Network, or lack thereof.

    This is a good article from last week that talks about how WrestleMania was great but the WWE needs more than that. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/11/wwe-needs-to-diversify/

    Most interesting factoid in that article is that non-North America revenues were flat last year. I think everyone assumes their international business is booming but it appears stuck there too.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The spending on them is based on what kind of returns they can get on their time there.  I'm pretty sure Rock justified whatever he got.  Brock, we'll see.  I'm not ready to say he's a success or a bust without data, you are though :-)

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/apple-stock-nasdaq-declines_n_1429530.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sure. I agree they can't build anyone up. I love seeing Rock back, but I would prefer to see Rock AND a new star I could stomach (though I guess Punk has done this, but Punk is just another example of a guy getting himself over and WWE booking coming late to the party and even then half-assing it).

    The writing is horrible. The stock price and crowds and buy rates will continue to decline until the WWE proves they can grow their core competency. Investors are not buying this "we are a global entertainment company with film, sports entertainment, event planning, and etc." bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Linda McMahon's absurd senate runs has handcuffed them way more than going public.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm not, actually. It remains to be seen if somehow Brock will pull the UFC fans that hated him over to a fake sport that they despise on principle.

    The stockholders seem to not be very excited for him though. Just as they never appeared to very excited for Rocky. Stock is all about future potential, going back to the same old shit from a decade before doesn't look very forward-thinking.

    Imagine Apple announcing tomorrow that in an effort to drum up business, they're going to re-release the original iPod. (That's obviously an extreme example but it's the same idea, the company is CLEARLY going back to what worked 10 years ago because they have nothing else to offer, that's never a good sign)

    ReplyDelete
  29. In 2010, it was at $18. Last year it was at $12. Now it's at $7.

    What could they do to raise it? Um, make more money. That's how stocks work.

    ReplyDelete
  30. For sure. The problem really is that the only hope for the company is based purely on luck. Austin, while booked very well most of the time, was totally lightning in a bottle where somehow a 33 year old guy tapped into what a HUGE portion of the 18-24 demo were feeling.

    You can't just magically book that kind of stuff, unfortunately. I can't figure out what that demo likes these days (and neither can Vince obviously), it appears to be killing each other for sport and auto-tune.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If you bought 5 shares (5!) of Apple a year ago and still had them today, you would've made $1,000. Before the recent decline, you would've made close to $2,000. Don't think investors are complaining.

    ReplyDelete
  32. They can but they won't. They play it safe and build every potential top babyface to be Cena-Lite and every potential top heel to be Orton-Lite. 

    ReplyDelete
  33. $18 in 2010?  LOL!  I didn't even bother going that far back...wow, some people (Vince and family) lost millions, crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I wasn't really trying to imply Apple was going to bust or anything. More that it just seems like a bad stock week overall.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The ipod analogy doesn't work, I mean, I get what you're going for; but it's not a good example in acting/entertainment.  Brock is not outdated technology.

    This is more akin of remaking movies.  Some of the remakes make a shit ton of money, some don't.  Marketing (in this case booking) will play a big factor into the equation and really, $5 mil a year for a company this size is not THAT much.

    And in wrestling, it's ok to go back and do what worked 7, 10, 20 years ago.  What's worked before has been proven time and again to work again.  Will it work this time?  I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bingo. The stock was at like $24 or something insane in 2000 when things were rolling, pre-XFL.

    It made sense to go public when they did because they were so hot but once the Attitude era died with the failed Invasion (or HHHH in 2002 or Hogan in 2002 or whatever event you'd like to insert), they lost their momentum.

    Let's not forget that one of the biggest results of going public has been the PG/family friendly stuff that they're now stuck with. They've basically tried to recreate the company as a wrestling-version of Disney and it's not working.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think Vince got old, so yeah, points (a) and (b) are both valid.  I mean, you have a guy in his 60s being the lead creatively for a company that mainly appeals to men/boys 7-30.  Shit, most of us on this blog are not even in that demo.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sure, that's why I said it was a totally extreme example.

    I stick by my original statement, I think an overwhelming reason the stock is shitting it up has to do with that abysmal film division. With the Rock/Brock spending and stagnant international markets being a very distant second and third.

    Have ANY of their movies ever turned a profit? Maybe like...the first Marine?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yep, just that one.  I agree there, that studio has been an anchor and a lot falls on Vince and his micro-managing. 

    ReplyDelete
  40. Brock is an extreme example.....and dare I say even an exception to the rule.   The guy was on WWE TV for what,  2 years? (Meaning he didn't hang around long enough for fans to get sick of him)    Plus he's still relatively young in the grand scheme of things

    ReplyDelete
  41. The worst part about the film division is that, because of it, we have to see Cena do the WORST fucking salute anyone has ever ever ever done ever every single week.

    You'd think they could have gotten him a guy to teach him how to at least do a real salute, that shit he does looks like the salute from SpaceBalls.

    ReplyDelete
  42.  ChinWins

    Ha!  A Spaceballs reference will always get a like from me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Christopher HirschApril 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM

    This is interesting and something I was just thinking about the other day. What can they really do that will make wrestling "cool" and bring in that type of business again? I agree with you that the Austin phenomenon was lightining in a bottle. I remember being in high school and hearing people talk about wrestling and thinking I was living in an alternate universe.

    ReplyDelete
  44. And it's even better because it's totally appropriate! It's awful!

    (I had to go to imdb because I was getting ready to say "It looks like when Jeffrey Tambor salutes Rick Moranis" but it turns out that character is played by a guy named George Wyner. Weird...wait...what the fuck was I talking about?)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Totally with you on the alternate universe thing. It was like "Wait? So my dirty secret wrestling fandom is COOL now? lolwut?!"

    The anti-authority thing seemed to work particularly well for the late 90's. It managed to sort of capture alot of what the culture was at the time, we were just figuring out how to steal music, we were realizing that college degrees weren't necessarily the best career path, our President was totally lol'ing at impeachment proceedings, etc. etc.

    I don't have any idea what the prevailing feeling is out there amongst that demo now (I'm not sure I even did when I WAS part of that demo, honestly) but you're right, there has to be something out there that they can capitalize on.

    The Hunger Games seems to have managed to tap into it.

    It makes me wonder if, say, a full-on retro act with a spin could work, like an LMFAO type of wrestler that has that sort of bizarre style and appeal.

    I have no fucking idea. The more I try to think about it the older I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I bought into the stock during Linda's first run at the Senate...figured America likes a good freakshow (we do, but not enough to move stock prices I guess) and sold after she lost. Took a $600 loss on that sale, but I'm glad I got out. I don't
    know if it's been talked about in awhile, but the WWE stock was paying a really good dividend, enough that financial types were calling it "unsustainable."  I'd think that freaked people out enough to sell and keep selling

    ReplyDelete
  47. Even some Disney movies come across as more hardcore than John Cena.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The InVasion debacle hurt pro wrestling far more than people realize.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So a good question is.....who's ready to invest in WWE stock and take a chance on an upswing?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ha! GREAT burn on Cena!

    I think this should be the time when WWE gets really aggressive in terms of shaking things up. UFC is a bit stagnant right now with Brock and GSP, their two biggest draws, gone and injured. They've only got like one big marquee fight this summer after Jones-Rashad this month, which is Sonnen-Silva II.

    Yes, WWE may claim that their audience is children now but kids don't buy the PPVs. Older wrestling fans do and they're fans of UFC as well. And if these fans purchase one PPV a month, WWE has to give them a reason to choose wrestling over MMA.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think they just have to book and develop talent better.

    If the product were such that we were like, "This is 1997 WWF/1989 NWA-level great!" but ratings were still tanking, then we should start pondering the zeitgeist. But until the WWE gets the _basics_ down, it's not worth trying to hit an out of the park home run with one idea.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The animated Disney movies have some of the most gruesome deaths for their villains.  

    ReplyDelete
  53.  NWA was doing pretty bad business in 1989.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Your last sentence is exactly what I've been telling people for years. "But look at the merch!!!" OK, but look at the ratings and PPV buys since Cena took over as top dog.

    ReplyDelete
  55. So in other words, a guy on top that only appeals to children and no one else isn't doing wonders for the company, and has only been driving the stock further and further into the toilet?

    But he sells colorful T-Shirts!! 

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'm talking creatively.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I'm in like Flynn!  Just as soon as the Fed unleashes another several trillion dollars of liquidity to temporarily fix the economy yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sounds investment advice from Kevin Nash.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/890895-wrestling-with-the-recession-kevin-nash-and-ricky-morton-wage-class-warfare

    ReplyDelete
  59. Right now WWE is actually likely undervalued by the market.  They took a hit when they cut their dividend by 66% last year.  But even now with a $12/qtr dividend that is a nice chunk for funds that are buying in volume.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/dividendchannel/2012/02/27/top-ranked-dividend-stock-wwe-is-oversold/ 

    ReplyDelete
  60. I assume you're talking about Rocky, since this being Cena's fault makes no sense. The first time the guy laid down in six months the stock proceeded to drop to it's lowest point ever.

    Maybe if Cena went over Rocky, I could see it. As it is now, we're in this hilarious circle where everything good is to Rocky's credit, but everything bad is Cena's fault.


    Personally I think it has to do with them blowing $20 million on terrible movies that no one cares about. And $20 million is way conservative, that's just the budget for The Condemned so the real number is probably something absolutely horrifying.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Gotta keep talking about me because you have nothing to add.

    No DUI's to type up today buddy? lol

    ReplyDelete
  62. Just out of curiosity, who do you think should take over? Who has more mainstream appeal?

    Me personally, I'm a huge mark for Punk but I can see why they don't want him to be "The Guy", he's just too loose on Twitter and things like that, there's too much potential for him to cause unwanted controversy.

    I'm just wondering, because everyone apparently hates Cena on top but no one ever suggests who would be a more viable draw in that spot.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'm not saying Cena doesn't belong around the top, but there needs to be more rotation at the top and his character absolutely needs a tweak.  But yeah, it's slim pickings and if I knew the answer to that question, i'd go buy some stock right now, lol.

    I hate to say that Cena should turn corporate heel, but that is the only card left to play aside from creating more stars.

    I hope i'm not conveying a "wwe is dying" message, because I'm not trying to and they're not, however, this type of drop in stock is not flowers and rainbows either.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Nah I don't think anyone really buys the idea that it's dying. At worst the McMahon's would take it private again, and they'll basically always have a home at USA so I don't think there's any fear of them actually going out of business.

    I just think it's weird. They're (and really all of us) are so totally unclear on what the next step is. People assume turning Cena heel would somehow spark interest but really that only worked once with Hogan (Austin turning is widely cited as marking the end of the boom, not another beginning) so who knows what would happen with Cena.

    Alot of the problem really is that we're now at the end of the average career for someone that came from the War Era. There are literally no more stars to go elsewhere and "find" they ALL have to be created now.

    Help us Shane O'Mac, you're our only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  65. How insecure must that guy be to reply to literally everything you say? Even when you didn't even reply to him or mention his name lol.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Did Nash and Ricky Morton ever have that match ?  What was the outcome ?

    ReplyDelete
  67. And who stars in almost all of those movies?
    Of course everything bad is his fault, he's the guy they built the company around. Just like when Eddie Guerrero was champion and he took responsibility for Smackdown's declining ratings after Lesnar left.

    Do you see John Cena taking any responsibility? Nope. He just smiles and goes on with his delusional "I can't be a bad guy on television because I'm not one in real life!"

    ReplyDelete
  68. When WWE continue to have a 'movie division' that fails continually... why would anyone want stock in WWE? Apart from Wrestlemania, they are losing buy-rates rapidly, they are losing TV ratings year by year.. I wouldn't want anything to do with them. As long as Vince remains delusional and is in charge it's like throwing your money into a raging fire. 

    ReplyDelete
  69. Man, I'm so not trying to step into the middle of the most lame battle you two have.  I respond to each of you on topics and we seem to have normal interesting conversations; but now you're just antagonizing ChinWins.  As far as replying to everything, isn't that what you did for the better part of 2 threads?  Lets try to be civil, I mean, it is the internetz.

    ReplyDelete
  70. All I got out of that article is that Kevin Nash is playing a stripper in an upcoming Soderbergh film.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I guess if 4/13 counts as almost all, then yes, he's in almost all of them. I don't think Cena's really at fault for their horrible film division, what's the guy supposed to do? Say "Fuck no, I don't want to make all that money?" That's crazy.

    Jesus...I had forgotten about alot of their crap until I went to the wiki page to see how many Cena had been in. Remember when they tried to put Kennedy in a Behind Enemy Lines sequel? LOL

    I just think it's funny, everyone is in such a rush to blame the guy for every single thing. He hasn't been booked as the champion for almost a year yet somehow he's to blame for a stock that was doing *relatively* ok until Rocky and Brock showed up. But heaven forbid they have anything to do with it! We're marking for them! So clearly the stockholders must be too!

    It's just funny, that's all. No matter how hard any of us try ALL of us use some form of mark-logic, the only difference is in the degree, haha.

    ReplyDelete
  72. You're right, he hasn't been champion, but he has been the primary focus of the product. 

    ReplyDelete
  73. Weak argument.  Things like ratings and buyrates are very complicated to pinpoint and interpret, but merchandise sales is a pretty straightforward indicator of whether people are willing to pay money for a Superstar.  So, yeah, when there's evidence that people ARE willing to spend their money on him, I'd say he's probably not at fault.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ehh, he'll get over it.  I was actually replying to Greg Phillips though.  And in the event that ChinWins came back and started flying off the handle (which he's certainly capable of), I wasn't even gonna bother replying back....just like I let him have the last word in another thread (which he predictably took me up on, even when I flat out said he couldn't resist).

    ReplyDelete
  75. Regarding the failing movie department - this is absolutely reflected by the poor stock price.  This is a good thing, and can definitely incite change.

    ReplyDelete
  76. He's not at fault? He's the focal point of the company!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Nash pretty much squashed Morton.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I remember back in '98 when the RnR Express came to WWF as part of that NWA storyline.....keep in mind, I probably hadn't seen either guy in probably 7 or 8 years at that point......and the thing that stood out was how small they looked compared to the regular WWF tag teams ( Headbangers, New Midnight Express, etc).

    So I can only imagine what he looked like standing next to Nash.

    ReplyDelete
  79.  That'd basically be CHIKARA.

    You're right though, I don't have any idea what would appeal to that demographic that wrestling could pull off. It almost seems like anything that is considered "macho" is fading away with these young kids, and most of their interest falls into entertainment that's focused on girls. Maybe build the Divas up and make twinks like Justin Gabriel the focus? I dunno.

    ReplyDelete
  80.  I think you might be right on with that. Most of what most wrestling fans view as an increase in quality will seem like a dangerous, risky proposition to investors concerned about the bottom line. I think, as a rule, almost all companies see their investors lose faith during times of transition, and while Brock & Rock seem like no-brainers to draw people in, there's every chance in the world that it could fail, and that kinda sketches the investors out, I'd bet.

    Or there's always a chance that there's some inside baseball going on and someone is banking on WWE making more money soon and finagled a way to pick up lots of shares cheap. That kind of thing does go on on Wall Street.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Starring Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey. It's clearly a propaganda film in the War Against Shirts.

    ReplyDelete
  82. While it can't really be argued that Cena - and the over-reliance on him - is a part of the problem, he's not the ONLY problem. That's far too simple of an answer. It seems like you're suggesting that if he quit tomorrow, all of a sudden things would be better.

    The BOOKING is the real problem, both in terms of the actual content of the shows, and their failure to make any stars BESIDES Cena. Cena can be ONE of the guys on top, but to make him the one and only star that is head-and-shoulders above everyone else? That doesn't work when you're part of an ensemble cast - even Steve Austin had to share the stage with other popular acts like Vince, Rock, "DX", Foley, and Taker.

    I mean, your argument that a guy that appeals to kids can't be successful doesn't hold much water when you look at Hulk Hogan - The guy was an absolute cartoon character with his bug-eyed facial expressions, ridiculous over-acting during his "Hulk Up" routine, and screaming-at-the-home-audience promos.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Shane: "We need more Steve Blackman and Test! I don't care if he's dead!"

    ReplyDelete
  84. Maybe Vince is tanking the price so he can buy back the stock easier...maybe...

    ReplyDelete
  85. You hit the nail on the head. Best case scenario is they're going to lose money on the network in startup costs until they can make it back in subscriber fees and ad revenue. Worst case is the network flops and they don't recover their initial investment... and no one is keen on McMahon projects that don't involve wrestling (even though this one does to a certain extent, new startup networks haven't exactly flourished recently). Wrestling fans like us would salivate over the network, but in a landscape where the NFL Network can't get cleared on all the US's major cable systems, the WWE Network could be swimming upstream extremely quickly, if it isn't already.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Actually the InVasion PPV was wildly successful... it was the five months after it that killed the company :)

    ReplyDelete
  87. To be fair, Kane hasn't been in a good feud since...uh...1998?

    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm a little closer to the pulse of the youth of the nation than all you old bastards, (not by much, I'm ridiculously nerdy, not plays CoD nerdy, like LARPS nerdy)  and I have a couple ideas.

    I honestly think that if WWE tried an earnest attempt to cater to the female audience you'd a) get an entire new demographic and b) not lose an old demographic, yeah some guys may talk about how gay it is, but if there girlfriend is watching, they'll watch too.

    Treating their female wrestlers like strippers who don't even strip doesn't bring in new customers and actively drives away female customers put off by their blatant sexism.

    I also think pushing faces of different ethnicity's would work as well.  People have mentioned that the Rock was way more over with blacks and hispanics than Stone Cold was.  I know they've pushed black and hispanic faces before, but what about an asian one?  A Japanese babyface that isn't horribly stereotypical?  It'd draw, because people tend to relate to people of their same ethnic background more.

    In an added note, I'd like to say that with Hipster-chic in full swing, the popularity of Daniel Bryan is not in fact surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The dude sells more merch than anyone and just headlined the most successful PPV event in the company's history... It doesn't make sense to blame Cena for the stock price being low. You have to give him credit for it not being any lower. Without Cena, who knows how much the shares would be worth.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Let's say you own a bar.  And outside of your bar is a huge Miller Lite sign and in the windows are Miller Lite neon signs.  But business is down.  Yet when people do come to your bar, they buy A LOT of Miller Lite.  I probably wouldn't blame my problems on the Miller Lite.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Artist_Formerly_Known_as_KtuluApril 21, 2012 at 4:05 AM

    *Sees that ChinWins has commented.*
    *Sees that realdeal responded to one of his comments*

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSLlZh9yelk 

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment