cabbageboy Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 Brian, to address some of what you said: --Yes obviously ECW went under because they couldn't pay the talent. I don't know how many times Vince helped Paul E. out but I don't think ECW lost anything in the neighborhood of 60 MILLION like WCW did. Compare WCW being in the 5.0-6.0 range in the ratings at their peak with what they ended up doing at the end. --By ECW house shows I refer to the sort of thing they did before, not charging insane amounts like they are for this "one time only" PPV. If they charged amounts similar to what they once did I'd think selling 3000 or so tickets wouldn't be impossible. Hell, I'd go. --Why on earth would Vince show TV execs the ratings ECW got? It was stuff from 5-6 years ago, and couldn't it be possible that ECW could draw respectable ratings with a better timeslot on another network? The DVD sales are a more telling sign of ECW's potential with decent promotion. --I didn't say I thought ECW could mount a serious threat to the WWF if they got on USA in 2001, but with a more popular champion like RVD (what, did you want Justin Credible holding it till doomsday?) they could have at least TRIED to draw money.
Placebo Effect Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 --By ECW house shows I refer to the sort of thing they did before, not charging insane amounts like they are for this "one time only" PPV. If they charged amounts similar to what they once did I'd think selling 3000 or so tickets wouldn't be impossible. Hell, I'd go. But you're forgetting how important live revenue is. If you're going to run ECW instead of Smackdown, they better be able to pick-up the same amount of money.
cabbageboy Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 No, no. I never said I'd just ditch Smackdown. I'm saying give ECW some sort of timeslot at some point, maybe something like Heat's right now. Hell, I think nostalgia from hardcore fans and intrigue from new fans would help sell tix at the beginning...from there it'd be up to the shows to sell themselves.
Guest Brian Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 --Yes obviously ECW went under because they couldn't pay the talent. I don't know how many times Vince helped Paul E. out but I don't think ECW lost anything in the neighborhood of 60 MILLION like WCW did. Compare WCW being in the 5.0-6.0 range in the ratings at their peak with what they ended up doing at the end. ECW wasn't dealing with nearly as much as WCW was in terms of talent, traveling schedule, and other things. You have to consider that WCW had far more value in its product than ECW was dealing with. Possessed far more assets and contracts than ECW, and much more costs that came along with their expanded operations. Relatively speaking, both their losses are probably alot closer. --By ECW house shows I refer to the sort of thing they did before, not charging insane amounts like they are for this "one time only" PPV. If they charged amounts similar to what they once did I'd think selling 3000 or so tickets wouldn't be impossible. Hell, I'd go. But that's what ECW is going to have to deal with if they are going to become an alternative to the current brands. Vince is going to expect that kind of money. --Why on earth would Vince show TV execs the ratings ECW got? It was stuff from 5-6 years ago, and couldn't it be possible that ECW could draw respectable ratings with a better timeslot on another network? The DVD sales are a more telling sign of ECW's potential with decent promotion. He's not. But it sets precedence. Besides, are stations going to be willing to dish out for another brand after the fall-out in ratings of the brand split? And how great are ECW DVD sales anyway? Are they enough to show that the TV ratings were a misnomer? And what does the product that they are going to put out have to do with the ECW that sold the DVDs, other than in name? --I didn't say I thought ECW could mount a serious threat to the WWF if they got on USA in 2001, but with a more popular champion like RVD (what, did you want Justin Credible holding it till doomsday?) they could have at least TRIED to draw money. If wishes were horses...
CBright7831 Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 (edited) Have one WWE Champion. One WWE Tag Team Champion. Stuff like that, because people don't even know who are the champions anymore (Does Mick Foley on Raw in 2001 in Boston ring a bell?) Not really. What happened? Edited May 31, 2005 by CBright7831
Slickster Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 I think that was the RAW where Mick came out and pointed out there were 11 champions and made the WCW Tag and US Title unification matches.
cabbageboy Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 Ah hell, at least I'm trying to come up with something. If they're going to have the ECW PPV and sell ECW DVDs then they might as well try to revive ECW. If Vince was willing to sink money in a boondoggle like the WBF, why not attempt to revive ECW? WCW isn't really a feasible scenario since it is widely viewed as a loser federation at this point. Years of incessant trashing have done that. It would also mean Vince handing over reign to Bischoff and I'm not sure he'd ever do that.
RavishingRickRudo Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 Ah hell, at least I'm trying to come up with something. If they're going to have the ECW PPV and sell ECW DVDs then they might as well try to revive ECW. If Vince was willing to sink money in a boondoggle like the WBF, why not attempt to revive ECW? He didn't create ECW.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now