How close is the WWE close to tanking?

[SuperJerk 0]

They'll make the cost of the movies back easily with overseas distribution and DVD sales.

[CBright7831 0]

It depends.  This movie project could end up tanking the entire company if they bomb bad enough.

 

Yeah, I wonder how much money Vince is blowing on his movie division. The guy just cannot accept that outside of wrestling, he is the biggest business moron of them all.

 

Wrestling- Marketing genius

Other- you are better off buying stock in Billy Beer

 

The good thing is he has 250 million, the bad news is his projects are getting bigger in terms of spent money.

 

Bodybuilding- Cheap

football- little more costly

movies- very costly

 

What's next? WWE Airlines?

What about the restaurant? And WWE Power Pasta?

[what 0]

If something freaky happens that sees Raw or Smackdown taken off TV, that could theoretically shut them down, because they'd have no major vehicle to push anything. Of course, they'd probably be able to get on another station, but that could depend on the freaky occurance that saw them lose Raw or Smackdown in the first place.

There's no way they'd lose Raw and Smackdown. The ratings are just too good. Even if they drop below 3.0, a company will still want them because that's still a top 10 cable rating.

People said there was no way WCW would lose Nitro either. It can happen, if Vince or Kevin Dunn goes that little bit too far with some crazy angle. And regardless of what ratings Raw or SD get, if something insane happens that sees WWE image drop, it won't matter what ratings they get.

WCW was apart of huge Time Warner and bleeding all kinds of money.

 

If the WCW was an entity like the WWE is today, they could have easily gotten on to another network. Barring something unbelievably ridiculous happening, the WWE isn't losing television.

 

If they keep pouring money into shit like movies, football and resturants while neglecting development with the writing continuing to suck and guys like Benoit, Jericho, Christian, Batista, Edge, etc. retiring, that's when they'll fold.

 

They have 5-10 years, easy, before they start losing money.

[razazteca 0]

What happened to Stacker2?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Don't think that Vince hasn't thought of the chance, however small it is, of WWE maybe losing TV down the line. If he can get 24/7 off the ground with enough coverage, he'll have a fallback position if something freaky does happen that seems him lose TV.

[Guest sek69]

No matter what shape Vince is in, I don't see him missing WM. Even if they have to get him there in one of those cars like the Popemobile, I'm assuming he'll be there.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It's possible enough that it's being talked about as something that could happen. Vince's pride about being seen as weak got him into this mess, and it'll be the same thing that determines if he'll go to WM.

[Jericholic82 0]

in a word, not very close.

 

 

and I wish the WCW bashing would stop, cuz not only was a not a joke back in 96, it was the hottest wrestling show on tv (and better than Raw and ECW tv) . in 99, while a lot of political crap went on, there were still far more entertaining matches than what wwf was putting on RAW and later SD

 

however, the reason WWE is not losing money like WCW is because they are better about their economics. they dont go around throwing out guaranteed contracts to every former big name star out there. they dont keep guys under contract for years and forget about them. they streamline the rosters at they see fit. they still draw near top ratings on cable and respectable numbers for SD on network tv. ppv buys are down, but dvd sales are helping to add extra revenue and their overseas tours are drawing lots of money.

 

 

none of us can predict another "boom" happening. besides histroy does not always repeat itself.

 

 

TNA will probably enever be able to fullly compete with WWE so things will stay the same for awhile untill maybe a bunch of new fans jump on the bandwagon like in 1998/1999

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

They have 5-10 years, easy, before they start losing money.

 

You know they've already lost money once during the past 5 years, right? You know that once they incur the costs of the film projects they will more-than-likely post a loss as well, right?

[Placebo Effect 0]

They'll make the cost of the movies back easily with overseas distribution and DVD sales.

Very true.

 

People don't understand the video market at all. Van Damme and Seagal direct-to-video flicks have budgets that often hit a maximum of $24 million, and these things aren't even released theatrically.

 

WWE will not be distributing these films to theaters themselves, as they'll most likely get Lions Gate to pick them up, so LG will be fronting the marketing costs for the project. The movies will no doubt make at least $5 million theatrically, if not more, with WWE getting a chunk of that.

 

Internationally, they'll bring in a minimum of a few million.

 

And they'll do very well on video as well. DVD sales, both individually and to rental stores, account for a large percentage of revenue that a title generates.

[what 0]

They have 5-10 years, easy, before they start losing money.

 

You know they've already lost money once during the past 5 years, right? You know that once they incur the costs of the film projects they will more-than-likely post a loss as well, right?

Because of the XFL and Resturant.

 

And WWE Films should make them money.

[Promoter 0]

WWE is nowhere near tanking. Anyone who took the time to listen to the conference call yesterday can tell you that it's a tightly run business, and it still sees a profit virtually every quarter. It would take years of large money losses to tank the company, and there's too good of a business infrastructure in place for the company to just aimlessly lose money or go bankrupt. If it happens, it won't be in Vince or Linda's lifetime, if ever. You can't equate bad storylines and smaller attendance figures to a company tanking . . . they survived the mid '90's running small venues with terrible storylines, and are nowhere near that point now. Hell, the storylines sucked just as bad back in '98-'02 (the Corporate Ministry? Mae Young and Mark Henry?), there were just more mega-stars to cling to then.

 

WCW is NOT a good example of what happens when a wrestling company goes under . . . . it wasn't profitable for a good 10-15 years, and was never more than just a little piece of the huge Turner/Time Warner puzzle. If WCW had ever been important to either Turner or Time Warner, it would've been taken care of and managed to a better capacity. WCW was never more than a joke, honestly - it was just a lucky joke for about three years in the late '90's. Even in their prime, beating WWE in ratings and PPV buys, WCW still seemed like the minor-league promotion to me.

The WWE OF TODAY is not what some are talking about. Of course, they can't tank right away because of things they just established over the last 5-7 years due to the boom. I can't see how it can't be possible for the company not to go out of business. That is not to say the industry itself would disappear. Who would have thought that the NWA would have gone the way it did when they controlled the damn industry at one point with the AWA and WWWF(and it was during the 70's) under its wings? Things are possible. Everything takes time just as it took time for the wwf to return to being the undisputed kingpins of "sports entertainment". Please remember how things were in 1996 and ask yourself who would have thunk things would be the way they are now where Vince runs two "brands". People would be laughing and calling the "soothsayer" crazy for a prediction like that in 1996 when RAW got a 1.8 rating(1.8 RATING in December around Starrcade).

The wwf was on the ropes in 1996 and 1997. Why do you think he went through all that trouble to get out of the contract with Bret Hart? Those were the days of bad storylines and small attendance. WCW caused the wwf to book more shows here in Canada because of low attendance in the US.

 

There are nowhere near that point now, but again who would have thought the company that basically ran the 80's wrestling industry would fall so far in that little time. That was less than 10 years after the world reknown WM 3 event in 1987. The continuation of crap does turn fans off bit by bit. It happened in the 80's when Hogan's act got stale and they kept on repeating it through Warrior, Luger, Diesel, etc. It took time for them to basically bottom out and who knows if Vince did not luck into the Montreal screwjob and the Mike Tyson signing where things would have gone. Looking at the conference call with Linda is superfluous because compare the numbers from 2002 until now and there is clearly a drop in business. She says stuff like the brand extension is a success because of things like 28% of fans watch both shows only showing that the fans are buying them as separate. I still would like to know how the wwe came up with this figure and what they judge it on. I'm always one to question "wwe numbers" because they manipulate it. How does that number show the brand extension is working(I think it is somewhat in terms of separation, but she does not really explain how and why). I also did think wcw was still #2 at times(creatively) when they were beating raw in 1997, but it was clear who was hotter and why. Another to thing to point out about wcw giving big money contracts is that the wwe is in a better position to low-ball the wrestlers and avoid signing big names like Hogan, Savage, Sting etc. to damage the finances. They are lucky guys like Rock are willing to come back and not really demand what is worth in the market. If it were 1997 who do you think would win the bidding war for The Rock at his current stock? The wwe is probably trying to avoid all this with the addition of wwe films and so on being a clone as Turner's conglomerate in the 90's. The reverse here is that Turner's people excelled at those business ventures and were weak with the wrestling dealings. Vince in this situation can't afford to be weak(already has with the big flop of the XFL in the media and other things mentioned) in all areas because as someone stated it brings the stock down of the core product that is the main revenue unlike Ted Turner's operation.

[res37618 0]

and I wish the WCW bashing would stop, cuz not only was a not a joke back in 96, it was the hottest wrestling show on tv (and better than Raw and ECW tv) .  in 99, while a lot of political crap went on, there were still far more entertaining matches than what wwf was putting on RAW and later SD

WCW bashing is so much fun though, there was so much to bash! Political crap went on from the day that Hogan stepped foot in the promotion until it's dying day. There was just a short period of a couple of years that the politicking actually resulted in a couple of good storylines. The wrestlers that were worth a damn were never treated as anything other than curtain jerkers.

 

Remember, a NON-TITLE MATCH between two over-the-hill wrestlers who were lucky to pull a DUD match out of their asses (Hogan and Piper) was the main event of WCW's biggest show of the year - Starrcade '96. It was the only way that Hogan would agree to lose to Piper, I'm sure . . .

 

Tell me WCW wasn't a joke . . . .

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Using Starrcade '96 as an example of how bad WCW was might not be the wisest idea, seeing as how it almost doubled the buy rate of Survivor Series the month before.

[res37618 0]

Using Starrcade '96 as an example of how bad WCW was might not be the wisest idea, seeing as how it almost doubled the buy rate of Survivor Series the month before.

I'm not talking about buyrates, I'm talking about stupid booking habits that ended up being a factor in the death of the company. I know that WCW was more popular for a period of time, but that doesn't take away from the fact that many of their decisions were just atrocious. If WWE booked a NON-TITLE match for the main event of WrestleMania, when one of the men in the match was World or WWE Champion (not talking about main events where neither man was champ), fans would shit all over it in droves, and you know it. But somehow, WCW rode that wave of mediocrity and shittiness for a couple of years before fans realized it sucked.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Using Starrcade '96 as an example of how bad WCW was might not be the wisest idea, seeing as how it almost doubled the buy rate of Survivor Series the month before.

I'm not talking about buyrates, I'm talking about stupid booking habits that ended up being a factor in the death of the company. I know that WCW was more popular for a period of time, but that doesn't take away from the fact that many of their decisions were just atrocious. If WWE booked a NON-TITLE match for the main event of WrestleMania, when one of the men in the match was World or WWE Champion (not talking about main events where neither man was champ), fans would shit all over it in droves, and you know it. But somehow, WCW rode that wave of mediocrity and shittiness for a couple of years before fans realized it sucked.

If the booking of WCW leading up to Starrcade '96 was so bad, it would not have drawn the numbers it did. Regardless of whether you liked the direction of WCW of that time, it cannot be denied that it was what the majority of fans wanted, because they paid for the PPV, and WCW got almost twice as many fans to pay for Starrcade '96 than the WWF got to pay for Survivor Series the month before.

 

If WWE booked a NON-TITLE match for the main event of WrestleMania, when one of the men in the match was World or WWE Champion (not talking about main events where neither man was champ), fans would shit all over it in droves, and you know it.

 

And yet it was WCW who drew a huge number for the PPV it was held on. It doesn't matter if you thought the booking sucked or not. The fact is the PPV drew a huge number for WCW, and more people paid for that PPV than did WM XIII a few months later.

[Promoter 0]

Well, you have a point about having a non-title match as the main event of the biggest event of the year for wcw. However, please don't forget how the match happened in the first place. WCW actually did book the match and the storyline properly.

 

Hogan gets surprised by Roddy Piper(and so did a lot of people) at Halloween Havoc. Piper goes down the laundry list that included WrestleMania 1 and why fans cheered Hogan in the first place. Then they had the whole Bischoff set up where he turned heel on wcw. The match was based off WRESTLEMANIA 1 which did not have Hogan defending the world title. They did do the storyline properly because Piper only showed up to give Hogan a lesson and not become champion because he was in "retirement". They booked the match for the face to go over and to keep Hogan with the strap to build for the Sting program a YEAR later. As I said, wcw in 1996 and 1997 did things very well in terms of heat for the main event storylines until that debacle at Starrcade '97 which was what many claim was the beginning of the end(which still had a bigger feel than WM that year with additions like Bret Hart from the wwf).

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

They have 5-10 years, easy, before they start losing money.

 

You know they've already lost money once during the past 5 years, right? You know that once they incur the costs of the film projects they will more-than-likely post a loss as well, right?

Because of the XFL and Resturant.

 

And WWE Films should make them money.

But they won't make money in the same quarter as they report the costs for their film division.

 

And a loss is still a loss. The XFL and the restaurant failed miserably, and they were not independent of the WWE, they were not outside forces, they were the result of the WWE overestimating their popularity and their fans willingness to buy whatever they put their name on, as-well-as putting out a shitty product. And somehow, I don't see their films getting critical acclaim...

[res37618 0]

Using Starrcade '96 as an example of how bad WCW was might not be the wisest idea, seeing as how it almost doubled the buy rate of Survivor Series the month before.

I'm not talking about buyrates, I'm talking about stupid booking habits that ended up being a factor in the death of the company. I know that WCW was more popular for a period of time, but that doesn't take away from the fact that many of their decisions were just atrocious. If WWE booked a NON-TITLE match for the main event of WrestleMania, when one of the men in the match was World or WWE Champion (not talking about main events where neither man was champ), fans would shit all over it in droves, and you know it. But somehow, WCW rode that wave of mediocrity and shittiness for a couple of years before fans realized it sucked.

If the booking of WCW leading up to Starrcade '96 was so bad, it would not have drawn the numbers it did. Regardless of whether you liked the direction of WCW of that time, it cannot be denied that it was what the majority of fans wanted, because they paid for the PPV, and WCW got almost twice as many fans to pay for Starrcade '96 than the WWF got to pay for Survivor Series the month before.

 

If WWE booked a NON-TITLE match for the main event of WrestleMania, when one of the men in the match was World or WWE Champion (not talking about main events where neither man was champ), fans would shit all over it in droves, and you know it.

 

And yet it was WCW who drew a huge number for the PPV it was held on. It doesn't matter if you thought the booking sucked or not. The fact is the PPV drew a huge number for WCW, and more people paid for that PPV than did WM XIII a few months later.

OK, you win

 

[2GOLD 0]

They have 5-10 years, easy, before they start losing money.

 

You know they've already lost money once during the past 5 years, right? You know that once they incur the costs of the film projects they will more-than-likely post a loss as well, right?

Because of the XFL and Resturant.

 

And WWE Films should make them money.

But they won't make money in the same quarter as they report the costs for their film division.

 

And a loss is still a loss. The XFL and the restaurant failed miserably, and they were not independent of the WWE, they were not outside forces, they were the result of the WWE overestimating their popularity and their fans willingness to buy whatever they put their name on, as-well-as putting out a shitty product. And somehow, I don't see their films getting critical acclaim...

 

I think Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman will have more acclaim than the WWE films. Which all sound like the exact same plot with barely any changes to them, cept for the Kane one which makes "Alone in the Dark" sound rich and exciting.

 

It won't kill them, but it looks as though Vince is headed for another serious mistake.

[Guest Loss]

And a loss is still a loss.

Yes, I am.

 

 

I hate speculating about this sort of thing, because the possibilities are endless.

[Guest Trivia247]

It seems everytime they make a serious venture outside of wrestling they tank money. WBF XFL, in my thinking if they concentrate on the fact they are a WRESTLING Company they may ride the wave down but it will go back up at some point. if they keep wasting time energy and money on other ventures then they will hurt.

 

(Though btw the XFL is immortalized, for the beginning of the 6th day was in fact a XFL Game)

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I think a good thread would be coming up with logical extensions of the WWE brand. Movies are close, but I don't know.

[Guest Brian]

The wwe use to depend on the house show circuit to make its money, but now it's really all tv as they have taken the importance of house shows off the minds of fans in the last few years.

I think you're kidding yoursef here. Live gates are still the most profitable form of business the WWE pulls off. TV may get them exposure, and build to pay per view buys which are another big factor, but you're overestimating the monetary value of TV.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

WWE makes most of its money off PPV's.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

and it's dvd sales and International shows as well.

[Promoter 0]

The wwe use to depend on the house show circuit to make its money, but now it's really all tv as they have taken the importance of house shows off the minds of fans in the last few years.

I think you're kidding yoursef here. Live gates are still the most profitable form of business the WWE pulls off. TV may get them exposure, and build to pay per view buys which are another big factor, but you're overestimating the monetary value of TV.

The company is more ppv driven than house show driven compared to the model they had in the 80's.

[Sass 0]

The WWE is nowhere close to tanking and closing down it's doors. But these things could hurt:

 

1. Vince dies.

 

2. They lose all TV deals

 

3. HHH dies.

 

4. Linda loses company in hostile takeover.

 

5. Linda dies.

 

Yet, funny enough, the WWE would still have a shot at survival if all these things did happen.

 

This one would kill them off for sure though:

 

The McMahon kids take over.

 

Assuming Vince, Linda and HHH croaks, which is very possible, Shane and Stephanie taking on and sharing ownership duties would pretty much be the death kneel for the WWE. The things above would severly hinder the WWE but not kill it off immediately. It would be a slow process, probably around the 5 year range, but the company could survive if handled well. Live events and PPV would still net them a good sized chunk of change along with all the other merch they put out. But if they had no TV outlet then they would be in a *real* bind.

 

Vince was surrounded by guys who believed in him. That's not the case with Skippy or Stephy Bear.

 

No one would help them.

 

The kids would either dig the company into a black hole or else they'd be ousted themselves and dropped into a pit. None of the old-timers respect the kids and none of the wrestlers like them, sans HHH and maybe a couple others. Steph's booking reign of terror over the past 4 years has probably done more harm within the company because of how it is one of the *worst* examples of nepotism in wrestling since Verne and Greg Gagne's days in the AWA. The results of her booking tenure have been disappointing to say the least.

 

Paying dues...it's not just an excuse for ME guys to derail hot undercard guys with BS politics.

[CanadianChick 0]

Is there any chance of Shane taking over? He doesn't seem to have a big role backstage at all.

 

Now, Stephanie...there's something to worry about. She seems to have no concept of what her audience is and what they want. Hint: it's not girls who want romance.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The plan looks to be having Steph run the producte/wrestling end and Shane run the marketing and business end.

 

In other words, wrestling is doomed.