FLIK Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Hillbilly Jim, full details here: http://www.cagesideseats.com/2012/2/28/283...e-legends-house Fuck it, sold. Can't watch that clip and not smile, Hacksaw was gettin down. Had to watch 3 times before I noticed Patterson in the back not doing shit and Okerlund trying to chat up some chick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 It's reality television. By definition it's going to be awful. In generally, most of it is awful. But most of all of TV is awful, like most of all wrestling programs are awful. But I watches the first two episodes of the final four of this season's Top Chef last night, and it was pretty damn solid. From the teasers of the Final (which airs tonight), it looks really good. That is... if one goes in for cooking competitions, of which Top Chef is the best produced. There no doubt are other good reality shows, especially within their own genres. But lots of it is crap, and doesn't get my viewing interest. The thing is... there's lots of reality that is so bad that it's DOA. The WWE's notions on reality tv sound like DOA stuff. Since it's the WWE, they'll commit to it and have a whole season in the hopper, so it will have to air. But looking at some of the concepts as long term (i.e. multiple seasons), I don't see the WWE getting any winners here. Other than Tough Enough. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm not a reality tv fan/viewer by any stretch, but I liked the early seasons of Ultimate Fighter, and Hogan Knows Best, so I'm actually pretty stoked for this show. I wish Dusty Rhodes was on it, but I guess they had to hold back for a potential season 2. If done right this show could have legs, and there's a ton of different ways to keep it interesting. Divas house, Attitude era house, a season with Vince McMahon! The possibilities are endless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Vince McMahon’s plan to expand his Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment empire through a dedicated cable channel is on the ropes. Although WWE’s TV shows draw big ratings, it has yet to strike a single deal with a cable or satellite-TV provider to carry its own cable channel, sources said. WWE had timed the April 1 launch of the network in 40 million homes to coincide with its pay-per-view extravaganza, Wrestlemania. The company even had a clock counting down to the April launch date on its site, which has since disappeared. The Stamford, Conn., company is also lagging when it comes to hiring experienced cable executives. It was expected to hire some 200 employees, including a general manager to run the channel. WWE’s Vince McMahon hasn’t been able to pin down a single pay-TV distributor to carry his proposed WWE channel, which has been a tough sell to advertisers. “WWE has the programming and marketing muscle, but they just have no one with cable experience who can execute for them,†said one cable executive. WWE swung to a loss in the fourth quarter on costs to launch the TV network and revamp its film division. The company lost $8.6 million, while revenue fell 7.8 percent to $122.5 million. WWE spent $4 million in the quarter to get the network off the ground. WWE has a long-term agreement with NBCUniversal’s USA Network to air “Monday Night Raw.†The 10 p.m. show drew 4.6 million viewers on Monday, making it one of the most-watched shows on cable. WWE’s often raunchy programming targets mostly 18-to-34 year-old men, although the company has made efforts to become more family friendly and broaden its appeal for advertisers. “Given the content issues, I think a whole channel would be a stretch,†said Gerri Donini, senior vice president broadcast at media-buying shop R.J. Palmer. “It is very limited in who it reaches.†Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/wwe_...I#ixzz1nyoNiUCS Even the delayed launch seems not to be helping them. Over/under the idea being dropped for the near term before October? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 That final quote is key. It ties back to what some of us were saying when the network was first discussed: Wrestling isn't hot right now (it's even less so than when it was mentioned) and will attract even less viewership. It's possible the idea may be dropped, but Vince is stubborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 It seems that the issue is that instead of taking a carriage deal that may not make them tons of money but gets their foot in the door, WWE is expecting cable/satellite companies to pay top dollar right out if the box and getting the door slammed in their faces. Even the NBA/NHL/MLB had to start small with their networks but eventually were able to grow theirs into a decent operation (the NFL played hardball from the jump, but they are pretty much the only ones who had the juice to do that). Now to be fair, any other programming that gets ratings WWE does would probably at least be able to have a conversation about carriage, but Vince/WWE seems to not understand that despite all the years of PG they still are seen by non-fans as if the Attitude Era still is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 This is all just chickens coming home to roost. They have a good idea. They have made too many mistakes in their past to get the outside help they need to capitalize on it. They're paying for their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted March 3, 2012 Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 Vince must be going crazy because after so many decades of trying his promotion still isn't seen as a mainstream entertainment company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted March 3, 2012 Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 Will this mean that the Classics On Demand service will not be disappearing in a few months, as has been previoulsy speculated/reported? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted March 3, 2012 Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 Will this mean that the Classics On Demand service will not be disappearing in a few months, as has been previoulsy speculated/reported?Last word is they're taping new stuff so it won't be disappearing at the end of the month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 What would be awesome (and in all likelihood, never happen) is that they make a bigger deal with Netflix for streaming new and old original programming. Or better yet, start up a new web venture not unlike Netflix or HBO Go. Put the idea of a television network out of their heads, and go online. But part of me kinda hopes this doesn't happen, as it would mean they would vigorously take everything they own off of Youtube. And there is some cool content there, that people have put up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 So how bad is this Legends House going to be? There's that level of "so bad it's good"... but this is the WWE, so I'm not sold they're going to hit that level and instead sink to: "Damn this is really stupid." *click* John It's reality television. By definition it's going to be awful. Humiliating people with overinflated sense of self worth is bread and butter of reality TV. Taking people with an overinflated sense of self, putting them in humiliating situations and seeing how they cope. The WWE runs lots of angles built on humiliating talent so the guys backstage can laugh. Have they ever run one that entertains the audience as well? The Diva competition got consistently low ratings. If you can't humiliate chicks with implants in a way that entertains an audience you have failed reality television 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 The Diva competition got consistently low ratings. If you can't humiliate chicks with implants in a way that entertains an audience you have failed reality television 101. Didn't it get good ratings the first year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Stephanie floating the idea of a pay subscription model for the WWE Network. http://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/266258436898029568 Why not offer something like this in an online only format? I'm guessing probably because it would a) piss off the cable TV industry if they are bypassed, or not get in front of enough eyes if they didn't use the cable TV industry to help market the channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Here's something I've been thinking about with all of the Linda campaign spending/network/XFL talk: JDW has accurately pointed out in the past that the network would've been a much better idea than the XFL as a big spending project. It would have been a much easier sell in the few years immediately following the IPO than it is now, as digital cable was first emerging then and there were plenty of spots for new cable networks. But is it realistic to say they should've known it should be one of their big moves instead of the XFL/restaurant/hotel (at least they made a profit on that even if it never opened)/etc? Until Jamie Kellner cancelled WCW (during the XFL season), there wasn't really any indication that there would be a need for a WWF Network as a backup. They were still within the window of taking advantage of the cable companies moving to digital and had just diversified their tape library, but had already gone through a bunch of failed non-wrestling projects even if this was a much better idea than those were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 It took years for the NFL Network, MLB Network and NBA TV to get off the ground, they were niche at first, and they still aren't completely saturated in the cable market That timeframe would have been a better time for WWE to launch a network, sure, but it never would have been viable to the extent that they seem to think it can be. At best it would have been a good cash grab initially, then the cable companies would revolt and scale back on them to the point that they'd barely make money off of it Wasn't new media Shane's thing? I kind of think that if he were still involved this wouldn't be playing out the way it has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 It easily would have been viable. Look at the number of channels that popped up between 2002 - 2008. Many of them had far smaller niche's than the WWE. The problem the WWE faces now is that there is a mass of content out there forcing new channels onto providers, while providers are fighting back to draw lines on monthly fees. NFL and NBA are obvious ones, but they're far from the only. Out here in SoCal, we've had Time Warner Cable Sports Net (a/k/a the Lakers Channel) launch. Time Warner plunked down $150M to $200M a *year* to get the rights to Lakers games. The Lakers are a massive draw in this city, with a rabid fan base. There is a push to get the channel onto other carriers. Those other carriers see the Lakers Channel as one of many like this that are coming. Dodgers deal is up soon. Other local sports teams, especially ones that can combine their packages. Hell, there already are plenty of these around, like NESN. We also had the PAC 12 Network launch. BeIn Sports dropped a lot of silly money on marginal product, then had to buy their way into carriage deals. NBC Sports just dropped $80M a year on the EPL as they try to upgrade that channel (not to debate the wisdom of that purchase). The SEC Network will be coming, likely after the SEC and ESPN see how the PAC 12 network goes, and then determine whether to follow the Big 10 Network model or the PAC 12 model or a bit of both. Fox wants to brand a Fox Sports Network, and has a fair amount of content to populate it with. Etc, etc, etc. The time now is bad. 2005 would have been much easier, if not *easy* relatively speaking. The WWE had several things going for it: * existing massive capital Well... the McMahons have drained a lot of it away via those dividends. But relative to a normal start up, they had strong capital in terms of easy cash from operating profits and also an easy ability to borrow, and likely fairly cheap, if needed to support such a project. * relationships with potential partners The WWE had TV deals with major media corporations who might have been willing to go in on a joint venture. The Big 10 Networks is a joint venture between the Big 10 and Fox. There are a number of other channels like that were ownership is split. * loads of cheap content The WWE had loads of content, and also ran essentially their own production company. This isn't like TNT having to pay for new productions (Leverage), "new" re-runs (The Mentalist), all those old re-runs (Angel) or sports (NBA). Those are major costs. The WWE's production costs are relatively cheap and don't need to mix in profit for the entity they're buying it from: the WWE is the producer. * solid eyeballs The WWE had viewers: a base of people who watched the shows. Those are all things that many of the channels that launched between 2005-2008 struggled to get, where any *one* of them was a key to simply getting on. This was a major lack of vision by Vince and the people under him. Rather than movies, it's probably something that Shane should have stepped up and run with. Channel + Home Video + Web combined as New Media Properties. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 On the dividends, someone needs to remind me to sift through all their 10-K's to see how much they've pissed away through that over the years. $213.7M in 2009-11. There is value to a company, especially in terms of stock price, in doing dividends. But it's impact on the WWE's appears to be minimal, and the true value to the company of their stock price is... really marginal. It's not like they need to keep it up to issue new shares. The McMahons also don't appear to be unloading a lot of it. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 2005 was too late. Sure, there wasn't the complete lack of room (in terms of allocating funds) for new cable networks that weren't built on major sports franchises that we have in 2012, but: - They had just launched WWE 24/7 as a subscription VOD service BECAUSE they knew getting a typical cable clearance would be incredibly difficult. - The failed hardball negotiation with Viacom embarrassed them when only USA would take Raw, and for a much less favorable deal than they got from Spike. On top of the WCW cancellation this led to the goal of the network as a back-up, though. They had already conceded that the network was unlikely AND they accidentally devalued WWE programming. They needed the right combination of a hot product and relative ease of getting clearances. That would've been 2001 at the latest, maybe 2003 if you relax the "hot product" requirement since that's when digital cable lineups started to stabilize. That's not even getting into how they didn't necessarily have the library to program a more interesting, diverse channel until the WCW purchase at the earliest, as that (along with the DVD boom) got them into buying other libraries and monetizing archival footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 2005 was too late. Sure, there wasn't the complete lack of room (in terms of allocating funds) for new cable networks that weren't built on major sports franchises that we have in 2012, but: - They had just launched WWE 24/7 as a subscription VOD service BECAUSE they knew getting a typical cable clearance would be incredibly difficult. We disagree on this. I don't think the WWE was committed to doing a real network, nor willing to go a joint venture route to get it done, and also was still wedded to their PPV model where they thought that getting 24/7 out everywhere and getting people to sub to it (i.e. pay directly for it rather than having it buried on the cable bill like Discovery Channel is) was a viable concept. How do I know they weren't committed to it in 2005? Because in 2010 they still had their head up their asses about it, with marginal commitment. Even now it's debatable how committed they are to it. They've finally gotten to the point where they "want" to do it, but they really haven't gone balls to the walls to get it done. - The failed hardball negotiation with Viacom embarrassed them when only USA would take Raw, and for a much less favorable deal than they got from Spike. On top of the WCW cancellation this led to the goal of the network as a back-up, though. I don't see this as a reason to toss off doing a Network, and instead an incentive to create one: if there was a future problem with finding a bidder for either Raw or, more importantly, SmackDown, the Network was a fall back. Put the effort into getting it launched, up and running, in as many homes as possible even if it's at an ultra cheap carriage fee, and then you have it ready when the next negotiations occur. We can go around in circles on the Raw / Viacom deal, though I tend to think that the WWE went into that with the wrong priorities for that cycle of negotiations. For me, the key should have been shopping around for a partner who would support the launching of the Network, be it Viacom, NBC Universal or whomever. For Vince, they key was a 40%+ increase in rights fees... though that number is arguable off since the WWE was in the process of cutting down on their share of advertising money on Raw and SD. It's likely that the increase was largely to off set letting Viacom keep all the advertising, which is where SD had just transitioned to if I recall correctly. Anyway, I wouldn't have obsessed on the rights fees at the moment: the network should have been the long term goal. They had already conceded that the network was unlikely AND they accidentally devalued WWE programming. You say that as if they were correct in making the network unlikely. I don't agree with their decisions on it, going back to the XFL days all the way to 2008 when the market tanked. They needed the right combination of a hot product and relative ease of getting clearances. That would've been 2001 at the latest, maybe 2003 if you relax the "hot product" requirement since that's when digital cable lineups started to stabilize. Hell, tennis wasn't a hot product when they launched a channel. Any number of channels launch without hot product. What the WWE had was more eyeballs than most that launch. That's not even getting into how they didn't necessarily have the library to program a more interesting, diverse channel until the WCW purchase at the earliest, as that (along with the DVD boom) got them into buying other libraries and monetizing archival footage. They bought the WCW library in 2001. They frankly could have launched it with just the WWF material, but between WCW and WWF they had plenty of material. Setting aside they should have settled with the Fund ages ago, which I suspect both of us would have done before it became a headache and actually worked with them to maintain and amend the original agreement rather than flip them the bird. To me the WWE has plenty of relatively easy opportunities to get it done, if Vince was committed to it and willing to give someone a piece of it to get it launched. He wasn't committed to it, and they have an aversion to the second part. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 On the dividends, someone needs to remind me to sift through all their 10-K's to see how much they've pissed away through that over the years. $213.7M in 2009-11. There is value to a company, especially in terms of stock price, in doing dividends. But it's impact on the WWE's appears to be minimal, and the true value to the company of their stock price is... really marginal. It's not like they need to keep it up to issue new shares. The McMahons also don't appear to be unloading a lot of it. WWE Dividends $10.95M - FY End 4/30/2004 $20.61M - FY End 4/30/2005 $50.06M - FY End 4/30/2006 $51.02M - 2006 Transition Period (5/06 - 12/06) $68.66M - FY2007 $81.40M - FY2008 $82.27M - FY2009 $83.64M - FY2010 $47.81M - FY2011 $26.85M - FY2012 $523.27M Most of which goes into the McMahon's pockets, though they worked a good three year con of taking a "reduced" per share amount than the public class. In addition, they had $258M in cash and short term equivs on 04/30/2005 when they entered into the agreement with NBC Universal, along with a net income of $39M (of which they were blowing half out as dividends that year as seen above). Nearly $300M in cash & short team, $39M of profit, and just $7M in long term debt. Then mix in all the favorable tax incentives that were likely sitting out there for starting up an network and the "losses" associated with it. Financially, it was a good time to do it in 2005. They simply had no vision. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted February 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 So what's the latest on this? EDIT: I'll be damned, this is the latest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Was Legends' House canned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 I don't see how they can make money on this if they offer every PPV but WrestleMania as part of a package. Unless it's just like WWE 24/7 used to work where they show the PPVs on like a 2-3 month delay. They would either have to do that, or price it at like $50 a month and then they would only get the people who were already buying every PPV anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 PPVs will remain available to non-network subscribers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts