Wrestleknownothing

I am not 100%, but I think he knew before he got there that Brooks was going 197.

No one knows what this means, which is, I think, the point of the transaction. Musk paid $44 billion for the equity of Twitter. He did it by borrowing $12 billion and paying $32 billion of his, and his investors, money. So right before he bought it it had $44 billion of equity. Right after, $32 billion, but the same enterprise value, only more leverage. He just did a funding round about a month ago to raise $1 billion at, what was reported by him with no supporting detail, a $32 billion equity / $44 billion enterprise value. Now he is saying the sale of the company happened at $33 billion / $45 billion. But what does it mean that he sold the company? There are outside investors. Did they get cashed out at the same price? Or did he simply sell his controlling interest at that price? If it is just his controlling interest, he replaced it with xAI shares that he already owns. So, sure pick any number. It is just moving from the right pocket to the left pocket. But if he cashed out others then he is giving up something of value (xAI shares). But at what value? He says the xAI share price chosen valued that company at $80 billion. The last independent funding round where they revealed a price valued xAI at $51 billion. The two funding rounds after that, they did not reveal a valuation, which always causes the market to assume it was a down round, but who knows. Musk has also been in talks to raise $10 billion at a $75 million valuation. If that is a post cash number then it implies a $65 billion valuation without that investment. So, saying xAI was worth $80 billion when doing this transaction implies that if outside investors were cashed out, the terms may not have been that favorable. If xAI is worth $65 (or $51) billion when they say it is worth $80 billion then the investors did not really get a $33/$45 billion dollar valuation on X. Working backward if the xAI shares were overvalued by 18.75% (65/80), then the real implied price for X is $26 billion, rather than $33. But they still get some upside exposure to xAI. And maybe that is enough in their minds. But the real point of the transaction is this gets the market to stop talking about the X valuation because it is now just a subsidiary of xAI.

30% is the new 60%

My left pocket just bought my right pocket for $34 billion

2024 was an Oly RS. And with only 2 dates and 5 matches this year, it seems likely he could get a medical shirt if he was injured.

Two seasons at 149. Granted they were two poor seasons for him, but the reason he went 149 was there was no room at the inn at 141. If Barr went 197 because Starocci was 184, it would not surprise me if Barr went back to 184 in spite of his success at 197. But it also wouldn't surprise me if he decided to live more comfortably and stay at 197.

Bartlett

We already know where the bottom of that barrel was

Only 6 transfers?

My promise to you is I will never ever bookmark something and bring it up later. That is no fun.

But how do you know he could if he didn't?

But he couldn't have started at his preferred weight. That should be enough to satisfy your original criteria. Saying he could beat the guy who couldn't beat Nick Lee and had to wrestle a weight he was too small for, is way less interesting.

Playing a little fast and loose by putting him at a weight he never wrestled.

I just looked it up. All the court has done so far is deny the NCAAs motion to dismiss the case. Here is a good summary from a law firm https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/01/johnson-v-ncaa-student-athlete-employment#:~:text=As we've previously written,institutions pursuant to the FLSA. From the article: On July 11, 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed, in part, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying the NCAA's motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit agreed with the district court that the former student athletes could potentially be classified as employees under the FLSA, but remanded the case and directed the district court to apply the multi-factor economic realities test to determine if the former student athletes were properly classified as employees. So, not employees yet, but could potentially be in the future.

I read the post, but haven't read the ruling yet.

Sebastian Rivera couldn't beat Nick Lee, but he won an Olympic bronze.

He turned invisible, and that is illegal in wrestling. He shoulda been DQ'd there. That's gold, Jerry, gold.

First, the NCAA has faught tooth and nail to say they are not employees. And so far they have succeeded at that. They do not want to offer health insurance or allow the athletes to unionize. Second, the athletes are not property or investments. Therefore, the schools are not owed compensation if they leave. But even if they become employees it will be employmemt at will, meaning the schools are free to fire them any time and the athletes are free to quit at any time. If they sign contracts that say otherwise, then those terms will govern. But you cannot expect compensation for losing something you never owned.

Fun fact. Until this year Cael was the only Cael to have AAed.

The Democrat "strategy" absolutely is not working. And to call it a strategy is generous. There appears to be no strategy other than some individuals trying to "Boost Their Brand".

She's got one Cool Hand.

But five years ago the rules were stupid. We all said so then, so why romanticize it now?

"Rocco's coming lord, Cael-bya"

Who says wrestling popularity is slipping? 31,209 votes cast with a day still to go. Last year total votes was 26,928. +16%. Growth sport.

So good.