Dylan Waco Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Going public is a massive, massive part of it. The competition narrative is true, but lack of competition didn't add layers of complexity to the organization of the company, nor did it change the business model, nor did it make short term profits more important than long term development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Is going public a significant factor in how WWE books the product? Vince has shown plenty of times that making as much money as possible isn't really his main goal. He wants to run his company the way he wants to run it and that's that. Vince IS the shareholder. He's in unassailable control. The scenario of shareholders forcing him not to push another guy because they want the profits Cena generates right now would suppose a group of shareholders would take him to court for it. No one can overrule his decisions or oust him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 If there were a group of stock holders looking at WWE's booking and management and exerting pressure on them how would Vince replacing proven successful booker with lots of relevant experience Chris Kreski with HIS DAUGHTER have gone over? Vince does what he wants and that's what he wants his company to be: a place where he does what he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra Commander Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 how does Reigns face promos compare to when Vince tried turning Diesel into a squeaky-clean face in 1995? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 I remember Diesel quoting movies a lot but I'm pretty damn positive that was a Nash thing. He turned up the cheesy but not as bad as the shit that makes air now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 The problem is that sometimes it takes lots and lots of pushing for the numbers to catch up. Steve Austin wasn't really a difference maker until 1998, even though it was clear long before that he was the guy. This is always the example I cite. Tho was WCW's biggest money year while they were starting to tank? That'd be a nice example of the inverse. I wonder if this was a factor in CM Punk's long reign ? Wasn't really following at the time, but I'd be curious. It was widely judged as not succesful was it not? I guess I'll need to catch up on the time line here. Heh. I'm reading things like this, Seems like CM got just enough signal thru, like old border radio at night, to low level ping the public antenna. By the time they start to show up to look in, there's DB kind of taking more stride than CM, and he interests people even more. Plus the crowd reactions only help. But the stop start nature of his push makes it difficult for folks to latch on. Is that about right? And to an earlier point about DB. (Sorry, not fluent in quoting.) DB may seem a hippie, but like him or not, he's never presented that in the ring. As an upper card act, when he enters the ring, you can't miss his drive or desire. His look and demeanor out of the ring, only strengthes and highlights it. I think people relate to that right now. Some of the kindest hardest working folks I know would fit DB's profile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Is going public a significant factor in how WWE books the product? Vince has shown plenty of times that making as much money as possible isn't really his main goal. He wants to run his company the way he wants to run it and that's that. Vince IS the shareholder. He's in unassailable control. The scenario of shareholders forcing him not to push another guy because they want the profits Cena generates right now would suppose a group of shareholders would take him to court for it. No one can overrule his decisions or oust him. It's been about fifteen years since the IPO. Fifteen years of corporate structure and thinking. Everything you said about Vince is true. But what about the other folks he works with? When the brand executive (formerly of Nabisco says the bio) meets with Vince, or, somebody.. How they interpret and share their views isn't quite the same as before. WWF's office was always strong, and their edge against the competition. But bringing in Exec VP's and corporate professionals and fitting into Wall Street's culture, is it more likely this hasn't had an effect? Is going public a significant factor in how WWE books the product? Sounds like a good question. Not sure if it's significant, or sure of the answer. But 15 years into it, I think it's worth asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Ok, here's what to do. I got this idea from reading Gary Hart's book and his explanation for why he created the TV title and had it defended in 2/3 matches. He needed to cut two matches out of the TV taping since he was giving too much away that night. WWE Can't fill their 3 hours easily. They need to make the freaking Americas title for Bryan and have him defend it every week over 2-3 segments on Raw. He'll basically be the Million Dollar Champ or the TV champ or whatever and he can hold that belt forever against different guys and they can blow segments off, make him come off as dominant, appease the fan base on some level, and keep him out of the main event. And if his matches tank in the ratings, then that's all the ammo they need to depush him anyway. If they do well, then they have every reason to keep doing what they're doing. That's even better than giving him a year long tag title reign with Dolph. It's no lose for what Vince wants. I do miss those days of a TV belt being defended all the time on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 The fact that Bryan was consistently booked weak and portrayed as not being on the level of other main eventers even when asked to main event may have something to do with it. It also may not. The correlation or lack thereof between crowd reactions and drawing power has always been a funny thing and in modern WWE seems harder to understand than ever. Dave Meltzer was writing about this all the way back in 1996. The WWF was losing to Nitro at the time in TV ratings but were doing much better house show business than WCW. Shawn Michaels was losing TV viewers to Nitro when he was onscreen but he was a better house show draw than what WCW had. Dave didn't have a good understanding of the difference between the audience that watches only on TV and the audience that buys tickets to live events at the time, and I'm not sure anyone has a better understanding of it now. But it clearly exists and there is still evidence of it like Batista's return to Raw last year popping a big rating while the live audiences were rejecting him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonFB Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Bryan/Orton at Night of Champions, the first PPV after Bryan was christened as a star, did a better number than the heavily promoted title unification bout at TLC. To me, when you consider how much of a one match show that card was, that Cena was missing a PPV for the first time in years and the fact that a major Mayweather fight was on the night before, that's more than enough evidence that Bryan can draw at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack2k Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Is going public a significant factor in how WWE books the product? Vince has shown plenty of times that making as much money as possible isn't really his main goal. He wants to run his company the way he wants to run it and that's that. Vince IS the shareholder. He's in unassailable control. The scenario of shareholders forcing him not to push another guy because they want the profits Cena generates right now would suppose a group of shareholders would take him to court for it. No one can overrule his decisions or oust him. Vince is THE Shareholder, the is true, but thinking he just does as he wants and is unassailable in control I dont think is true at all...What he doesnt own cost him over 300 millions dollars in one day a few months ago.....so I am sure he listens to the major investors / the board especially and what they want and then does things "his way" to try and get them there...no matter how much of an ego or control he wants to have, 300 million gone in a day stops you from just saying "fuck it, I am doing what I want ,no matter what" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Dylan, I really think the lack of long term development rests at Vince's feet. The company was at one point sitting on about $250-300 million in cash reserves with no debt, and pissed off their stockholders to no end that they weren't investing that money in growing their business. That Vince decided to jack up the dividends to feather his own nest and get them to shut up at that point, rather than earmarking more money on talent development, for example, is on his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Talent development isn't the problem - at least not in the way you suggest. They are pumping more money into that than ever before, presumably with the idea of having all new talent trained in house. There is plenty of resources in that area - they are just training them wrong and drilling them wrong and basically ending up with a homogeneous group of awkward, unnatural actors. There have been steps to change that in recent years, and you can visibly see the new introductions having varied attire, varied character, varied looks, varied presentation. The art department did a fine job with The Shield and The Wyatt Family, giving them identity and a quickly identifiable image and style. Unfortunately that doesn't get around the awful writing - nonsensical, aimless, repetitive storylines and promos so embarrassing you would think a thirteen year old had written them. They are drilled incessantly to repeat both mannerisms and phrases, and are force fed dreadful scripts that come across as unrealistic, cheesy and choreographed. Nothing seems natural or relaxed, every reaction or facial expression has to be made blatantly obvious, every line has to read like a godawful soundbite they can play over a promo. Roman Reigns has/had been perfectly put together in terms of look, attire, entrance, music, overall presentation, even his moveset is just right. His booking was also superb until The Shield broke up, they hardly put a foot wrong. Unfortunately, he has been hamstrung by all the things I mention above - bad booking, awful scripts, an image getting progressively more corny and forced. They should have just let him be himself, or what he appears to be natural as - laid back, quiet, cool, relaxed but ultimately destructive in the ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My point was that WWE could have afforded to set up the WWE performance centre in the mid 2000s and they wouldn't be in the position of having only one Roman Reigns to choose from. They've somewhat rectified that problem recently thanks to Triple H, and not one single stockholder has complained about that spending on long term talent development because it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My point was that WWE could have afforded to set up the WWE performance centre in the mid 2000s and they wouldn't be in the position of having only one Roman Reigns to choose from. They've somewhat rectified that problem recently thanks to Triple H, and not one single stockholder has complained about that spending on long term talent development because it makes sense. The thing is they have more options than Reigns. Not to make a huge list, as there are options, but Dean Ambrose is right there. Over the summer who was more over and they shit it away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Week 1: The Fink: And introducing first, weighing 210lbs ... Reverend Daniel Bryan! Bryan: And, I say, Oh Lordy! Praise the Lord! When I was out injured I took a look at my life and realised there's nothing left. Because I've blasting and laughing so long that even my mama thinks that my mind is gone! So everyone now, think about THE LORD. Think about the error of my ways and the error of your ways. And say Amen. Do you love God? YES! YES! YES! And one thing more ... let me introduce to you my NEW manager ... REVEREND Slick! Slick: Well yo yo yo yo yo my man! Yo PRIASSSEEE THE LORD! YES! Bryan: YES! Slick: YES! The Fink: And his opponent. Weighing 317lbs ... It's DIESELLLLL!! *Match starts. Jack knife. Diesel pins Bryan 1, 2, 3. Bitch slaps Slick* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiva Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My point was that WWE could have afforded to set up the WWE performance centre in the mid 2000s and they wouldn't be in the position of having only one Roman Reigns to choose from. They've somewhat rectified that problem recently thanks to Triple H, and not one single stockholder has complained about that spending on long term talent development because it makes sense. The thing is they have more options than Reigns. Not to make a huge list, as there are options, but Dean Ambrose is right there. Over the summer who was more over and they shit it away. Why the Wyatt Family was split up and not elevated together over time is a mystery too. They didn't even milk an angle where Harper broke free and Wyatt brought somebody in to replace him. That stable could have run and run. Say what you will about Wyatt himself, there was a time where he was one of the more interesting guys on the roster, people were really into him and those Wyatt/Shield matches were the most anticipated matches on the shows they were on. It's been a long-running trend where WWE will break up teams/stables well before they need to and with no future plan but the Wyatts one is the most ridiculous. Not having any long-term plan for Ambrose after The Shield broke up is up there with it though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellmania Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My point was that WWE could have afforded to set up the WWE performance centre in the mid 2000s and they wouldn't be in the position of having only one Roman Reigns to choose from. They've somewhat rectified that problem recently thanks to Triple H, and not one single stockholder has complained about that spending on long term talent development because it makes sense. The thing is they have more options than Reigns. Not to make a huge list, as there are options, but Dean Ambrose is right there. Over the summer who was more over and they shit it away. Why the Wyatt Family was split up and not elevated together over time is a mystery too. They didn't even milk an angle where Harper broke free and Wyatt brought somebody in to replace him. That stable could have run and run. Say what you will about Wyatt himself, there was a time where he was one of the more interesting guys on the roster, people were really into him and those Wyatt/Shield matches were the most anticipated matches on the shows they were on. It's been a long-running trend where WWE will break up teams/stables well before they need to and with no future plan but the Wyatts one is the most ridiculous. Not having any long-term plan for Ambrose after The Shield broke up is up there with it though... YES. Been thinking this for a while. I thought breaking up the Shield was a good move, but the Wyatts should have stayed together. In fact, the shield split would have helped the Wyatts continue to get over by proxy since they could have put over how now that the Shield has broken up there is nobody to stop the Wyatts path of destruction or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Agree that there was zero reason to break them up. Harper & Rowan should have had a decent run as tag team champions. It makes sense from every perspective, solid television matches, ready made feuds, elevates the division and they can still be the hired hands for Wyatt who loses so much when he is by himself. What is the point in a cult that nobody follows? I hated the gimmick and thought the promos were embarrassingly bad, but they were still better together than apart. There wasn't even a whole lot of reason to split The Shield up either, pretty much anyone could have played the slimy corporate heel role of Rollins in recent months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efrim Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My point was that WWE could have afforded to set up the WWE performance centre in the mid 2000s and they wouldn't be in the position of having only one Roman Reigns to choose from. They've somewhat rectified that problem recently thanks to Triple H, and not one single stockholder has complained about that spending on long term talent development because it makes sense. The thing is they have more options than Reigns. Not to make a huge list, as there are options, but Dean Ambrose is right there. Over the summer who was more over and they shit it away. Why the Wyatt Family was split up and not elevated together over time is a mystery too. They didn't even milk an angle where Harper broke free and Wyatt brought somebody in to replace him. That stable could have run and run. Say what you will about Wyatt himself, there was a time where he was one of the more interesting guys on the roster, people were really into him and those Wyatt/Shield matches were the most anticipated matches on the shows they were on. It's been a long-running trend where WWE will break up teams/stables well before they need to and with no future plan but the Wyatts one is the most ridiculous. Not having any long-term plan for Ambrose after The Shield broke up is up there with it though... YES. Been thinking this for a while. I thought breaking up the Shield was a good move, but the Wyatts should have stayed together. In fact, the shield split would have helped the Wyatts continue to get over by proxy since they could have put over how now that the Shield has broken up there is nobody to stop the Wyatts path of destruction or whatever. Of all the baffling shit they've done recently, nothing confuses me more than breaking up the Wyatt family. Really no reason given and nothing came of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 There were in ring moments that came from the break up of the Wyatts. They just didn't generate any heat. Like the angle and build were cut out, and as wrestling fans we'd just draw the connections and stories out in our heads. The company as a whole, management and talent, has shown no great capacity for building an angle that draws and retains it's heat. They actually squash heat sometimes. Still a HHH world I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Well, it looks like Bryan/Ziggler is gonna be official. Probably end up right in the middle of the card, if not the opener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Double post. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted January 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I have no idea if this is the direction. If they book Bryan and Rollins at Fastlane , and book Orton's return to save DB from a beatdown by Rollins/Mercury and Noble I might #cancel WWE Network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMJ Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Slightly off-topic, but regarding the Wyatts split, what shocks me more than anything is that, at the Rumble, they teased the reunion and the crowd was going crazy and, had they reunited, I think the WWE would have gotten (and would have deserved) to get away with it even if there would be little storyline reason why Rowan would turn back heel. They had a chance to reunite them in a way that would've gotten a "pass" just because it would've been a moment and they didn't. Why the hell not? If Wyatt/Taker is going to happen, lord knows it is a MUCH better decision to put Wyatt back with his "family" for that build because then you really have Taker going up against not one monster, but three. Wyatt was hotter with his minions, so, you boost him by putting him back in charge of a stable, and, while I see great things for Harper and possibly even for Rowan in terms of being the "monsters of the future," let's be honest - they have nothing in place for them at Mania save for the Andre battle royal. They get a better rub as Wyatt's back-up in a match with Taker than they do as entrants in a 20-man battle royal. This is one Rumble complaint I haven't seen spoken about to death, but it was a fairly big one for me - especially considering that it happened early on in the Rumble. It was, to me, as I was watching, my first clue that the WWE had totally miscalculated the booking of the match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.