In this regard, I think you could look at it both ways. Because like you said, you're looking at one of the most recognizable faces in the world as far as television, movies, media in general. So there is something to be added there. I guess at the same time, you do have to look at your audience and say, 'Hey, look, we're moving in this direction. The audience wants this [Reigns vs. Rhodes]. And now to do this [Reigns vs. The Rock], is really going to be - it's going to look self-serving. It's gonna probably peeve a lot of people.' So there's a lot of different ways to look at it.
My personal opinion, without going too deep into it, is that there is some merit to having him there. And at the same time, as you said, we were doing very well selling out and all that stuff even without him. So he can only add to it - or I guess some people could say he could only take away from it, you never know. But as far as business is concerned, business is good. It was good with him. It's good without him. It's been good either way. I hear him say wrestling is cool again and he's right, but I just want to make sure that everybody knows that it started getting cool again, I’m gonna say about six, seven months before he got there.
I’m not saying that he can’t add to that cool factor - and I'm not saying that he won’t. I’m just saying, wrestling is cool again, and wrestling was cool again before he even came back. So I just don’t want it to seem like all of a sudden it happened because of him. Nah nah.
