Guest gwf0704 Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 I'm sorry. I just get tired off all the doomsday perdictors who continue to pimp the fact that the WWE doing a downturn in business, despite still turning a profit, means they are going to die, despite being the only national wrestling company. Only point I'm making is that no business is ever infallible... They are making money and turning a profit but to think it can never happen to me, well thats foolish. (graveyard) WCW/NWA/AWA/ECW/WCCW/USWA and so on and so on.....
Guest Ripper Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Yeah, but name the Wrestling companies that made over 400 million dollars that went bankrupt.....
Guest Downhome Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Yeah, but name the Wrestling companies that made over 400 million dollars that went bankrupt..... Seriously, you can't even compare WWE with NWA, AWA, etc... It is totally, 100%, different times.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Yeah, but name the Wrestling companies that made over 400 million dollars that went bankrupt..... Name a wrestling company that ran 23% more events compared to the same period last year while LOSING attendance... That's right, the WeeWee.
Guest Ripper Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Ok, you are still missing the point...400+ MILLION DOLLARS in revenue. They are a LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG way from thinking they might be in trouble one day.
Guest jester Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Only point I'm making is that no business is ever infallible... They are making money and turning a profit but to think it can never happen to me, well thats foolish. Just ask Enron and Worldcom. jester
Guest Ripper Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Well, then yes, if there is massive financial wrong doing within the WWE, then they can go bankrupt...but I think that the point being made is that just because business is slipping, they aren't going out of business next month.
Guest Trivia247 Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Umm...SHORT...TERM...IMPACT? Linda, you been smoking with X-Pac again? THAT IS SO BULLSHIT! AUSTIN SAVED YOUR FUCKING COMPANY IN 1997! THAT IS A BLATANT LIE TO COVER UP THE ENTIRE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE! This just adds to the fact that Austin got the Bret screwjob, behind the scenes...and that ain't spam. That's the truth. Um It is Short term in terms of 30 years Geez Get so Dramatic over Poor wittle Austin. Austin made the product good for 97-2001 but he ain't the end all and be all in 30 years of WWF/WWE If he was they hell by your point of view they should just Close shop because Since Austin isn't around there is no point in wrestling.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 To play devil's advocate. Maybe Linda McMahon meant in the future Steve Austin wasn't going to have a large impact.
Guest cabbageboy Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 I will tell you that Austin was in fact a short term draw. Take a look at his peak and the WWF's peak and you will see that his major drawing power was from Wrestlemania 14 to Summerslam 99. Before that he wasn't the champion and not quite the top guy. After that he was out for a long time with the neck injury. Even during his 2001 period when he was wrestling well again, he had an ill fated heel turn that didn't draw money.
Guest Anglesault Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Anyone else notice who Linda DIDn'T mention as someone to fill Austin and Rock's void? Yep, Kurt Angle. Is thet proof enough that they don't want him to go anywhere?
Guest Madmartigan21 Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Anbody else notice that the first post is NOT an exact quote by Linda. I know that line is actually in quotes, but so was the line about it being "half step backwards." That's only three words of the sentence. Who the the hell puts only three words of a quoted sentence, actualy in qutoes. Maybe Linda's remarks are a victim of the old telephone game. She said Austin was a short term impact and not a long term impact in the middle of running down reasons for falling TV ratings and attendance. I think that she might of meant him LEAVING was a short term impact and not a long term impact. It could also be the reason that Kurt Angle was omitted from the list of names. Plus 1Wrestling isn't exactly the most reliable news source in the world.
Guest §uperÛnknown Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 She said "Stone Cold had a short term impact, not a long term impact Suuuuure. Keep telling yourself that, Linda. Ever since your husband and head of talent relations laid it in thick on Austin ON THE AIR, the ratings sunk faster than they had been in the past weeks.
Guest Dangerous A Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 Linda saying Austin only had a "short term impact" is just ignoramus to the fifth power. I think she just said that to lessen the impact amongst the casuals who don't follow as much as we do. As far as Austin goes, it is a lose-lose situation. While Austin definitely had a right to be pissed, he shouldn't have walked out. While there was a problem and Austin acknowledged it, he didn't come up with any solutions either. If he was that concerned, he should have come up with some alternative suggestions regarding his character. If you just let the writers come up with what your character does, you are at their mercy. Austin was high enough up in the company that he could have made some creative suggestions and see where the writers and Vince would have taken him.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now