jdw Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Who would have thought Dave Meltzer would be the one to put Ichiban in his place? Not I. Who is Ichiban? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Also, if he has millions of dollars in retirement accounts and has been making so much easy money the last several months with appearances, why does he still owe Vince the last $100,000 of his loan? Yeah... very little of it adds up given what we know about Flair's looseness with $$$, his repeated financial fuck ups over the years, and even what Dave has written in the past about him and his finances. Then suddenly out of the blue, Ric is as loaded as Baba. Doesn't really pass the laugh test. Does anyone honestly think that Ric and his financial advisers (the ones who have helped him get fucked up with Uncle Sam on taxes a lot over the years) are smarter than Mrs. Flair's Lawyers: Ric's folks can hide it better than Bonnie's folks can find it? Credible at all? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 The Austin-Hogan drawing discussion/debate isn't fully thought out. It hasn't been for the years that Dave has been making it. Frankly I think Dave wastes more time trying to figure out "who is bigger" than looking at what each did: Austin turned around an ailing National Wrestling Promotion and anchored it through it biggest money period Hogan was the tool used to great that National Wrestling Promotion They are very different things. They are very valuable things. Which is "bigger" or "more signficant"? Who knows. But when looking at Hogan, it's really meaningless to compare him with someone who came along to anchor the promotion after he laid the foundation. It's not terribly relevant to putting a value on his impact. What's relavant it to take a look at the where the WWF went from 12/83 to 04/92. Did they promote in Los Angeles before Hogan, and how often did they promote in LA before Hogan? Were they successful in LA before Hogan? Answer those two questions for what happened during Hogan's 01/84 - 04/92 run. Ask the same questions for Chicago. Detriot. Denver. Cleveland. Twin Cities. St. Louis. Indy. Miami, St. Pete and the rest of FL. Arizona. Cincy. San Fran, SD, SacTo, Portland, Seattle, Fresno... Etc. The WWF actually was doing okay business in Chicago before Austin got on top. It had been up and down over the years, but it hardly was at the bottom when Austin went on top. The WWF wasn't in Chicago when Hogan led the Expansion. Worse - it was one of another promotion's top cities. Hogan led the charge to enter the city, start pounding down the home team, and eventually claim the city as a WWF stronghold. It's a waste to say that Hogan was drawing $150K gates in Chicago while Austin was drawing $1M gates (or whatever the hell they were). The more important thing to see is that there was no WWF in Chicago before Hogan. There was during Hogan, and they destroyed one of the strongest promotions in the country in taking the city. Austin happened to light the town back on fire for the WWF. It's Hogan... Evil Hulk to Our Hero Ric so we often miss the significance of what was going on, or now look back 25 years later projecting current viewpoint onto it in Orwellian fashion: "Chicago has always been a WWF City" It really misses the boat. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Who would have thought Dave Meltzer would be the one to put Ichiban in his place? Not I. Who is Ichiban? John He's an idiot poster at the F4W board. I said it would only make sense to people familiar to people with that board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Schneider Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Who on that board isn't an idiot? F4W may be the worst wrestling board on the internet. Think about what that covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 ;)Also, if he has millions of dollars in retirement accounts and has been making so much easy money the last several months with appearances, why does he still owe Vince the last $100,000 of his loan? I see where you are coming from but there is a difference in regards to liquidity to a retirement accounts/policys and cash. Who on that board isn't an idiot? F4W may be the worst wrestling board on the internet. Think about what that covers. Butt hurt over the reaction to your ridiculist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 ;)Also, if he has millions of dollars in retirement accounts and has been making so much easy money the last several months with appearances, why does he still owe Vince the last $100,000 of his loan? I see where you are coming from but there is a difference in regards to liquidity to a retirement accounts/policys and cash. And I get what you're saying, but given that he got $100,000 from the Highspots deal alone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 --Do you want to work with Vince McMahon and Jerry McDevitt on a regular basis? Well, we've got a job for you. WWE is looking for a new legal superstar to be the company's primary attorney, responsible for negotiating and drafting agreements and documents, providing advice in the talent relations department (you can tell them they need to get better athletes), creative writing (you can tell them it's not a crime to start an angle, write it out from start to finish and then not change it every week so it makes no sense), television production, music, licensing and live events. Here's what you need: 1) 8 years of entertainment or transactional experience and familiarity with intellectual property law and talent negotiations 2) Excellent academic background - No claiming to have a degree in a field you don't. That's for the CEO 3) Experience practicing with a reputable law firm - That means nobody who has ever sued WWE in the past 4) Experience as an in-house attorney 5) Outstanding negotiating and drafting skills 6) A true appreciation, ideally a passion, for the company's product, yet at the same time it's a plus to be completely ignorant of the business. 7) Business-savvy (that means always agreeing with the chairman), impeccable legal and business judgment (defined as always agreeing with the chairman, if he says, "Let's compete with the NFL" you say, "That's a brilliant idea, and one Ted Turner never would have come up with") and excellent interpersonal and communication skills (that means you laugh at bad jokes by John Cena) 8) Ability to perform duties with minimal supervision and excel in a fast-pace environment 9) Ability to manage others and take a leadership role 10) Is a team player (that means willing to work 20 hours a day on two hours sleep, without complaining, and if your wife complains, you'll make a big salary and you can hire a nanny) 11) Is a down-to-earth individual ideal for the company's culture (I won't even touch that one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 In-form sarcastic Meltzer is tremendous. I can totally see that ending up going around the WWE locker room behind the boss' back drawing laughs, only for Vince to find out then have one of his I HATE THE INTERNETZ NOBODY TALK TO THEM ON THREAT OF DEATH aneurysms that he goes on from time to time. Someone should send it to Jim Ross. The Vile, Hateful Jim Ross thread will probably gain another page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Considering most of it is ragging on Vince's craziness and the WWE corporate culture, I think JR would find it pretty humorous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 It's amazing to see Vince have his random meltdowns over the internet, it really shows how he can't stand that there's a thing that exists that talks about wrestling and he can't directly control it. Also amazing how each time Vince issues one of his "TALK TO THE SHEETS AND YOU'RE FIRED" promos, there's detailed descriptions of his meltdown in the next Observer. It's like Meltz is the Princess Leia to Darth Vince, the tighter his grip the more star systems slip through his fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted April 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 From the F4W boards, in a thread about the Dana White video blog fallout: Let's just say, hypothetically, that I'm running a company where underage boys were being molested for years and it's known, accepted and laughed about because, hey, it's a world you don't understand with different rules. Then one day it becomes front page news. Was the owner ignorant for letting it continue unabated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 I didn't understand where he was coming from with that. Is he talking about the early 90s WWF accusations? Or the Catholic church scandal? And what on earth does that have to do with Dana White dropping the gay f-bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I didn't understand where he was coming from with that. Is he talking about the early 90s WWF accusations? Or the Catholic church scandal? And what on earth does that have to do with Dana White dropping the gay f-bomb? He's talking about Rob Feinstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Really? Meltzer seems too friendly with Feinstein to make him the butt of his jokes and I don't think he would classify what Feinstein was caught doing as molesting underage boys. Doesn't Vince ignoring Mel Phillips and Terry Garvin's improprieties with young ring boys fit his cryptic comment much better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Really? Meltzer seems too friendly with Feinstein to make him the butt of his jokes and I don't think he would classify what Feinstein was caught doing as molesting underage boys. Doesn't Vince ignoring Mel Phillips and Terry Garvin's improprieties with young ring boys fit his cryptic comment much better? That was my first thought, that it was related to Garvin and the foot licker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 The RF doesn't fit. Was RF molesting underaged folks *at* ROH? "I'm running a company where underage boys were being molested for years and it's known," That "where" seems to place it within the promotion, rather than outside the promotion. I read it like the others - that he's talking about the WWF/WWE. I'm also not sure why Dana would bother taking shots at the WWE. He knows folks in his industry aren't saints. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Dana didn't take a shot at WWE. He made a Youtube video where he called out MMA journalist Loretta Hunt on writing an unfavorable story and called one of her anonymous sources a "faggot." GLAAD complained and he apologized and is going to be lowering his public profile for a while. The thread on the board was someone asking why this was news at all. I went back and read the whole thread and I still don't know what Dave meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 It does bear the question I've always wondered, he makes comments like that about (apparently) the WWF scandals, but he still accepts advertising from RF which is something that always bothered me. Dave's always the first guy to get on a soapbox about how rasslin's a scummy business and always will be, yet he gladly lines his pockets with ad cash from a pedo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 It does bear the question I've always wondered, he makes comments like that about (apparently) the WWF scandals, but he still accepts advertising from RF which is something that always bothered me. Dave's always the first guy to get on a soapbox about how rasslin's a scummy business and always will be, yet he gladly lines his pockets with ad cash from a pedo. This not a defence of either Feinstein or Meltzer but no charges were filled against Rob. In the eyes of the law he is innocent. But yeah I agree with your sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Were any criminal charges ever filed against Mel Phillips and Terry Garvin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Is he saying that UFC has had major problems internally with homophobia for years, and that it's known, accepted, and laughed about because it's a world with different rules? Then Dana White says something stupid publicly and it makes headlines? I understand the point he was making about the WWF. I don't see what that has to do with Dana White using the word "faggot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 The thread on the board was someone asking why this was news at all. I kind of agree with that, myself. I mean it's an offensive term but it's from a source where it's hardly unexpected. MMA is a "jock sport". MMA having a generalized "problem" with homosexuals is hardly surprising or really worthy of comment. There's never been a gay man in the NFL or the NHL, either. That's the surface story and most of the club is sticking to it. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Dana didn't take a shot at WWE. He made a Youtube video where he called out MMA journalist Loretta Hunt on writing an unfavorable story and called one of her anonymous sources a "faggot." GLAAD complained and he apologized and is going to be lowering his public profile for a while. The thread on the board was someone asking why this was news at all. I went back and read the whole thread and I still don't know what Dave meant. Sorry... I thought that was a quote from Dana, not Dave. Okay... got it. Dave's taking a shot at the WWF/WWE. It's a warranted one, though I think the WWF has taken heat about stuff like that over the years. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 It does bear the question I've always wondered, he makes comments like that about (apparently) the WWF scandals, but he still accepts advertising from RF which is something that always bothered me. Dave's always the first guy to get on a soapbox about how rasslin's a scummy business and always will be, yet he gladly lines his pockets with ad cash from a pedo. Was he taking money and/or ads from RF *after* the incident? Before that, RF was simply widely known to be gay. I'm not sure if Dave ever heard anything about RF trolling jailbait. Don't see why Dave (or the people running his sight) shouldn't have taken ad money from RF, other than the fact that RF was a giant asshole. After the incident... probably not the best to take ads. I don't sub to the WON regularly over the past 3+ year, instead getting it in stretches. He really hasn't taken ads in the WON regularly since the early 90s. But 1995 they were pretty much a thing of the past. He might mention stuff, but less than one shill would. He mentioned people's books far more than their DVD's and tapes, and then mentioned Mainstream DVDs (like the Von Erich one and the WWE ones) more than shoot ones. I don't think he ever was taking cash from traders to place ads. Freebies? Some, but he also sent out a lot of freebie tapes to people over the years as well. Hard to point to anything in the WON. On the website, I'm willing to bet that Dave had very little control over the ad content. That would the people that originally did his website, then those LAW folks, and now Bryan. That doesn't mean that if he saw an RF ad after the incident that he shouldn't have contacted his admin and tell them that it didn't look good for it to be up. But one can see that stuff going over his head as well. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts