Fantastic

I typically don't watch Raw unless it's "must see". I pick and choose the PPV's I watch as well. Usually Mania and the Rumble are required viewing, although I skipped last year's Wrestlemania as I had work commitments (gutted, because witnessing the Streak end on live PPV would have been awesome). Honestly, just going on the WWE site and watching the match highlight videos is usually enough. I do watch NXT however.

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from. The Katie Vick thing was just poor taste and someone's shitty idea of an angle that would get over, it didn't offend me. The Benoit tragedy however, turned me off (I rated, and guess I still do - crimes aside - Benoit as one of the top ten US workers of all time), I guess I grew disenchanted with wrestling, bought into the media hysteria that it was all steroids and risks of the game and that it could have been anybody. It made me feel like being a fan supported the kind of madness that Benoit fell into and that I shouldn't be supporting this kind of entertainment. These thoughts didn't last long though, Benoit was an exceptional case, and everybody in wrestling knows the risks, they make the choice to do what they do, and being a fan isn't supporting the bad stuff, it's supporting the positive entertainment they bring to the table... Anyway: I'm not really all that disenchanted with the Bryan glass ceiling situation and the forceful Reigns mega push. It's not going to stop me watching WWE, really, I'm interested mainly in how it's going to work out for Reigns, whether he'll adapt and even survive the enormous fuckery from the booking department. There isn't really anything WWE could realistically do that would stop me watching or being a fan of their product.

I have a question to pose to everybody still watching WWE.... What's the one thing they could do, be it a PR debacle or booking decision, that would stop you watching, or warrant an extended break from viewing WWE?

Well, to try and get the crowd more on Roman's side whilst giving Bryan something meaningful to do: I'd have Roman control the match. The story being told should be that Bryan may have taken a huge knock, confidence-wise following his injury, the elimination at the Rumble. Have Bryan make some big mistakes during his comebacks, such as underestimating Reigns' because Bryan has beaten bigger guys before (Kane, Ryback, etc) and have him eventually pay for it by walking into the second spear (Bryan shouldn't go down to one finisher, we're still trying to preserve his superstar aura) of the match and losing by pinfall. Afterwards, Bryan shakes hands with Reigns, but in tears (a'la Hogan at WMVII) and raises Reigns hand before walking to the back with his head hung in shame. The next night on Raw, Reigns praises Bryan and vows to win the title at Wrestlemania and then give Bryan a shot that he more than deserves, given he never actually lost the title. Bryan comes out and thank Reigns, but declines, stating that he doesn't think he has what it takes any more. Backstage, Bryan encounters Lesnar and Heyman who mock him. The following week, Reigns stands triumphant in the main event, but Lesnar runs out and attacks him. Bryan runs out to make the save but gets destroyed by Lesnar (this plants the seeds for a later Lesnar/Bryan match). At some point, have Ziggler defeat somebody big like Rollins and start making a case to face the winner of Reigns/Lesnar for the title. The Authority, reasoning that it isn't going to matter because Reigns will lose, and even if he doesn't, they have a plan B in Rollins, makes Bryan vs. Ziggler official for Mania, with the winner being named the number one contender. Bryan, his confidence still knocked heavily, starts to build himself back up, meanwhile a Ziggler heel turn is hinted at with some favorable encounters with the Authority (since they despise Bryan more than any other babyface on the roster) who say that Ziggler has the potential to be an A+ player, etc.

Damn... I'm already subscribed. Is the free month free for existing subscribers too? Regardless, I don't mind missing out, given the enormous value for the quality I'm in receipt of!

That's pretty much the same story for most of Hulk Hogan's 1980's matches. Everybody who was everybody inevitably wound up staring at the ceiling for Hogan. They may slander how he was booked and how he didn't want to put them over, but none of them flat out refused to do the job, they all agreed to it, simply because of how much money they'd make doing it. It would be foolish for anybody to turn down a big arena job to Hogan in his peak, given the potential earnings. Diversion of topic, but still technically on topic, can anybody recall examples of wrestlers who have flat out refused to sign big money deals or do jobs that would net them money that they were idiots to pass up on, simply out of principle or ego? We all know Hogan refused going to a rubber match with Michaels in 2005, a program that would have netted him considerable money (possibly even more than the Summerslam match, had the rubber taken place at the following Mania?).

The announcement? Probably that Reigns has to defend his Wrestlemania title shot in a handicap match against Big Show and Kane due to The Rock's interference.

I hope you are just trolling...

Yeah, I've read that before. I'd say it's definitely possible pay for the entire season, touring, house shows, TV spots, etc. But definitely not as a stand alone payout for the match itself.

Dave said something about them planning two matches between Cena and Rusev. Presumably, the Fast Lane match could end up with a DQ or Countout finish or something stupid to necessitate a rematch at Wrestlemania. But, I agree with you that it's insanity to run it a month earlier, and potentially leading to overkill territory. What's more, WWE likes to do these things in three's... My wish for the rematch, would be a Submission match at Mania. Everybody would think that Cena's going to win that because Cena never gives up, only for Rusev to make him tap. But that probably won't happen, instead it'll be some gimmick match (possibly still the submission match) but with Cena overcoming the odds and Rusev's undefeated streak coming to an end (and being wasted). What's more, they'll probably all be non-title matches. Granted, Cena's above the US title, but defending it would bring quite a lot of importance back to it, although I'm still convinced they are going to quietly phase out the US title this year. But, Dave could be wrong. They could do Cena/Rusev at Fast Lane, Rusev could win and go on to face somebody else at Wrestlemania like Orton or Ambrose or whoever else comes next in the scarce babyface hierarchy. That just leaves us with Cena and what he's going to do. But back to Bryan, I'm pretty sure we're looking at Bryan vs. Ziggler at this point.

I've never heard that. I'm not entirely sure of any "good" information regarding Hogan's Mania payouts. I know Hogan has said (which has to be taken with a shovel of salt) stuff to the effect that he got $3 million for the Mania 3 match with Andre. That's ludicrous to consider, given that $3 million of 1987's money would be the equivalent $6.3 million in 1987. There is no way the WWF could have afforded to give any performer back then a check for one event to the tune of even $1 million, which probably rules out Hogan's WM IV check rumors. I suspect that Mania PPV bonuses back then for the top stars were between $75k and $150k, which is very respectable, given the ticket gates and PPV buys were nothing compared to what they are today. That's a typical mid card downside (in today's money) for one match in 1987. Potentially speaking, I think they are only five or six occasions where a performer (s) has made $1 million or more from Mania: Wrestlemania XIV: Mike Tyson Wrestlemania X-7: Steve Austin Wrestlemania XXIV: Floyd Mayweather Wrestlemania XXVII: The Rock Wrestlemania XXVIII: The Rock and John Cena

Hmm, so how do we take into account the hometown house shows, where the heels typically win a big time match or close the show speaking to the audience (eg, Regal in England, heel Hart's in Canada, Punk in Chicago)? Surely that's not catering for kids, who have turned up to see John Cena and don't want the snotty British guy to win?

This may be the most definitive explanation for the state of WWE ever written.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable and capable than me will chime in! I'll give a couple of points of what I know though from recent years: - AJPW was basically the company in Japan from as early as the late 1980's until the mid 1990's. Certainly following Baba's death and Misawa's exodus, the company was never again what it once was. - NJPW only really begun it's resurgence in the latter part of the 00's following the departure of Inoki and the end of the Yukes relationship. Basically, once Gedo and Jado took over the book and Bushiroad purchased the company, everything became as awesome as it currently is.

That's a great article, thanks for sharing! Oh, another talking point. Back in 1999, the WWF signed Paul Wight to a 10 year, near $1 million per annum downside deal. Big Show spent 7 years cashing in on this deal, despite long periods of mediocrity and a stint in developmental. It wasn't until HE asked for his release in 2006 (to take a sabbatical from wrestling) that the deal ended. You have to wonder what his deal was upon rejoining the company in 2008?

Oh no, his guarantee will be no where near 7 figures, probably around the $500k mark. I seem to recall Dave mentioning this on one of the recent WON radio shows. But, if you take into account his Mania pay off, the PPV bonuses and merchandise sales, he's definitely up there.

Orton's definitely coming back as a face, whether or not he receives some character refreshment is another thing. That's the issue with Orton, he becomes stale rather quickly in the face role, in spite of his popularity. I'd like to see them try something new with him, perhaps an outlaw style character, reminiscent of 97 Sting?

I saw this as well. Puroresu Spirit is saying: Take from that what you will. I wouldn't be surprised if it's true though.

He has none, it's merely based on the idea that Triple H might be dastardly and force Reigns into defending his shot against somebody because of Rock's assistance in the Rumble. Had Rock not interfered and stopped Big Show and Kane from beating Reigns down and presumably eliminating him, Rusev would have won. What a better way to attract heel heat (since Triple H gives the impression that he views himself as the prime heel on the roster) than force two babyfaces (and family members) to face one another for a huge opportunity belonging to the other? He already is, that was WWE's decision, presumably hoping a Rock endorsement would fix the rejection of Reigns. We don't, but these relics are more popular and bigger drawing than most of the current WWE roster, thanks to incompetent booking.

He's not the only former WWE guy to claim the pay isn't as great as people think it is either, is he? Nope. Remember that Tough Enough that Puder won which boasted the prize being a $1 million WWE contract? Apparently, the legal bindings were arranged so it was a four year contract with a $250k downside per annum, with only the first year being offered as guaranteed employment. So, they basically sent Puder home a few months into it, and then released him after the first year. So in essence, he only received what a lower mid-card baby-face might make in total gross earnings (downside, merch, etc, etc) in a year. Even then, it's a better deal, because he wasn't on the road and didn't face the expenses that the aforementioned mid-card baby-face would have. In my opinion, that's a great example of the reality of WWE's "big money" reputation. There's maybe as few as ten guys (performers) who make more than a million dollars per year when it's all said and done: Triple H Undertaker John Cena Randy Orton Daniel Bryan Brock Lesnar The Rock Big Show (undeserving) Kane (also underserving)

Why would you want to get the title off Brock? If anything his having the belt coupled with his limited exposure has made his matches feel special and rubbed off on the belt too IMHO. I wouldn't, if they weren't so damn insistent and relentless on having Reigns challenge and defeat him. Essentially, Brock is fucking awesome as champion, but him losing clean (presumably) to Reigns at Wrestlemania will undo everything they've built with Brock over the past year or so. It's a wasted endeavor, because beating Brock isn't going to enhance Reigns in any way whatsoever, given the backlash to his positioning. So why do I want the title of Brock? So he doesn't have to lose to anybody, because nobody they are willing to give that rub to is deserving of it or will get any kind of real "rub" from it. They can get the title of him in a variety of ways that don't involve a "true" defeat. Specifically, Rollins could cash in on Lesnar after Lesnar is attacked and beaten relentlessly down by somebody (maybe the entire Authority after Heyman turns on Brock and masterminds the opportunity for Rollins to steal the title away?). Or, he could be forced to defend the title in another multi person match with somebody getting the win on somebody else and losing the title that way. Beating Lesnar (the man who ended the streak, the special attraction, etc, etc) is a massively valuable rub that nobody on the roster is deserving of. But because he's the champion (and they want Reigns to be champion at Wrestlemaia), he has to lose it soon and once Brock loses, the invincible otherworldy beast aura is gone. But, if merely loses the title through nefarious means, he's not truly beaten. Best case scenario? Reigns fails to beat Lesnar at Mania.

Reading over a couple of old issues of Power Slam magazine today. In the article, discussing wrestlers earnings, they cited the fact that Kevin Nash was making $5000 per appearance in his TNA run! That's a pretty cool gig right, for doing sweet fuck all save for a few comedy skits as "Doctor Nash" and the occasional match. So purpose of this thread? Let's discuss wrestlers earnings, oddities, over the top fees, and whatever else comes to mind. Some of the most surprising figures I've seen over the years were that Diamond Dallas Page had a three year contract in WCW from 1999-2001 which paid him $1.5 million per annum. Surely, the largest downside in that company's history? I believe Meltzer stated a while back that John Cena's downside is only $1 million, but his estimated total earnings in the issue of Power Slam I was reading exceeded $6.5 million in the year of 2007 (it's staggering to think what he earns now, his divorce seemed like a mere drop in the ocean). Meltzer also stated around about the time that Brock signed with WWE in 2012, that he didn't have a downside, merely a salary which was worth $5 million per year for a set number of appearances. The same kind of contract was given to The Rock, although there don't seem to be any details floating around about it, except that it was said to be "the largest salary ever given to a non full-time wrestler in the history of WWE".

Seriously, fuck Big Show and Kane. I'm more angry about the fact that they took so much prominence in the Rumble than the result itself. Big Show hasn't been relevant or worthy of a main event position since 2011. Kane? Considerably earlier, his run in 2010 bombed, both are incredibly stale, haven't really evolved (Kane has had a great opportunity as "Corporate Kane", but he's still clinging onto his permanent gimmick as "the monster" which is harming any evolution) and have more meaningless turns between them than the entire WWE roster.