DISCUSSION - What was the total profit for the WWE in years 1999, 2000, and 2003?

[Heyman]

DISCUSSION - What was the total profit for the WWE in years 1999, 2000, and 2003?

I guess what I'm trying to ask, is if the WWE made more money last year, then they did during their "so-called" prime in 99/00.

In 1999 - Ratings for the WWE were quite high, but they didn't have "Smackdown" until September (therefore, they only had like ONE TV show per week). WCW and ECW were also still alive, which was better for the wrestling business in terms of competition.

In 2000 - The WWE had both Raw and Smackdown, and ratings were high. Has WWE New York. However - because the rosters were still unified at the time, they didn't do as many House Shows. WCW and ECW were also still alive, which was better for the wrestling business in terms of competition.

In 2003 - The WWE have Raw and Smackdown as independent shows. While ratings and fan interest is lower, the WWE does more House Shows. This allows them to travel different parts of the World at the same time for 'tours', etc.


The reason why I am ASKING this question, is because I really want to know if the WWE are actually benefitting (financially) from the roster split.......which allows them to have more House Shows and possibly more PPV events in the future.


<font color=white>My GUESS</font>

-2000 was the highest in terms of total profits. 1999 had higher profits than 2003, despite only having one LIVE TV show per week, and despite having less House Shows.


<font color=white>What Point am I trying to Make? </font>

-Are the WWE actually benefitting IN ANY WAY from the roster split......and separate rosters for House Shows?


It all sounds so DAMN simple (which is why I've talked about this to DEATH in the past), but why can't the WWE just make things like they were in year 2000?

-Two TV shows per week, but one roster.

-The same House Show schedule (the current House show schedule may be much easier on the wrestlers, but was it REALLY that unbearable back in 2000?)


In year 2000, there was no OBSESSION in creating new stars as we see today. The fans naturally decided to they wanted to cheer.....and those wrestlers were pushed as result.


<font color=white>End the Monopoly</font>

Why can't Vince just cut down the roster? (the same size it was in 2000). Get rid of guys who YOU WILL NEVER USE. Seriously - does the WWE have any actual use for guys like Rikishi, Billy Gunn, Test, etc.?

-Get rid of them, and let them go to another promotion.


<font color=white>Competiton is a good thing</font>

With all of the 'released' wrestlers from the WWE gone to a different promotion, maybe another wrestling promotion can actually get a TV deal....and provide competition. And that's not a bad thing! It's good for the wrestling business......which in effect, is GOOD for the WWE.



p.s. Sorry if this topic is EXTREMELY repetitive, but it just sounds WAY too simple and obvious IMO.

[Heyman]

TOPIC#2: Should Sean Morely "just be himself"?

Does anyone else think that Morely should just come out to the ring one day, and cut a promo about his career? He can talk about how he used to be a pornstar, T&A member, RTC member, and Chief Morely......and how he's sick of being a "gimmick" and just wants to be himself.


Morely has respectable wrestling skills and mic skills.

I'm thinking that Morely can play himself for the most part, but can do some "attention-seeking" things for heel heat (i.e. he can have a slight grudge towards all of the women in attendance for being partially responsible for wrecking his career.....since he tried to impress them). Morely can also bump up his 'intensity' level and be kind of like Ken Shamrock (i.e attack opponents after the match due to overwhelming intensity......almost a "Sid Vicious" type of thing).

The WWE can talk about how Morely is finally 'being himself' and the rest of the world just might regret it! :shifty:

[The CyNick]

Well the financial year has not been released yet for the WWE, but the estimates earlier in the year was that they would hit profits of $30+ million for the year. Only 98/99, 99/00, and 01/02 will be close in terms of profits. 00/01 would have been the biggest profit making year, but that year had the XFL losses for the company, and even with the losses they still made $16 million that year.

The brand extension has allowed them to run more international dates, and those usually do good business, so in that sense its helping.

In terms of losing guys to make another promotion, listen no TV people are going to pick up a new wrestling promotion because they have Billy Gunn or Rikishi. Thos guys are menaingless. The guys who have a chance of creating a stir for TV execs are the major stars, and that means Austin, Rock, Hogan and to a lesser extent Goldberg. If you had soem of those guys, you might get a promotion going, but even with them there are no guarantees because wrestling isn't doing that well anymore.

If you go back to one roster, a lot of guys will get released, they will run out of feuds faster and they wont create any new stars. The guys like HHH, Taker, HBk and co will still be on top, only now they will take up top spots on two shows, instead of being split over two shows. Young guys coming up will have a harder time getting through. At least now you have situations where guys like Benjamin, Cade, Jindrak and Dupree are being put in key spots out of necessity, if you have one roster there would be no panic to create new stars.

Fewer stars were created when there was one roster. Even a guy like Kurt Angle wasn't really given a chance to truley be a top guy until after the brand extension, ditto for Benoit and Eddie.

[Shaggy]

There is a book that I have that have the numbers in it. My grandparents got me some WWE stock when they first started it and every once in a while they send the stockholders a book telling you how much they made each year. What stuff happened that was good for the business and what the business is attempting in the future. If I can find the book I will try to post it.

[Heyman]

Well the financial year has not been released yet for the WWE, but the estimates earlier in the year was that they would hit profits of $30+ million for the year. Only 98/99, 99/00, and 01/02 will be close in terms of profits. 00/01 would have been the biggest profit making year, but that year had the XFL losses for the company, and even with the losses they still made $16 million that year.

So assuming that it does hit 30+ million for the year, it will be larger than 98/99, 99/00, and 01/02? (by a close margin).

The brand extension has allowed them to run more international dates, and those usually do good business, so in that sense its helping.

Hmmmmmmmm..............

Isn't this possible?

Have one roster, but have two different groups of House Show rosters.


In terms of losing guys to make another promotion, listen no TV people are going to pick up a new wrestling promotion because they have Billy Gunn or Rikishi. Thos guys are menaingless. The guys who have a chance of creating a stir for TV execs are the major stars, and that means Austin, Rock, Hogan and to a lesser extent Goldberg. If you had soem of those guys, you might get a promotion going, but even with them there are no guarantees because wrestling isn't doing that well anymore.

No - I know that guys like Billy Gunn and Rikishi are not names that draw, but they add depth to the roster. That way - when a promotion does land a "Stone Cold" or a "Hulk Hogan", the roster also looks like it has decent depth.....and therefore, can land a TV deal.

If you go back to one roster, a lot of guys will get released, they will run out of feuds faster and they wont create any new stars.

From end 1999 to 2002 (when there was one roster, Raw and Smackdown), it didn't seem like the WWE 'ran out of feuds'. There were plenty of good feuds going on. Austin fought with the likes of Taker, The Rock, Triple H, Kurt Angle, and Chris Benoit. Triple H had The Rock, Kurt Angle, Austin, and Jericho.

No new stars being created? How did Austin get created? How did The Rock emerge? How did Triple H become a main-eventer (other than boning the boss' daughter). In 2001 - Jericho, Benoit, and Angle were ALL ready to become main-eventers. It was the WWE's fault that they made Angle and Jericho's FIRST title reigns a JOKE.

Today - the GIMMICKS of Orton and Cena really stand out.......just as The Rock's and Austin's did before their peaks. I'm pretty sure that the WWE would've given Orton and Cena more TV time anyways..........so with that in mind, it's not like having ONE roster would've held them back.

Young guys coming up will have a harder time getting through

Couldn't one argue that having ONE roster prevents someone from being pushed TOO fast? (i.e. Lesnar). Success came too early for Brock and as result, he left.


The guys like HHH, Taker, HBk and co will still be on top, only now they will take up top spots on two shows, instead of being split over two shows.

Taker is only a 'special attraction' now, while HBK can only work part-time anyways. Think about it. The WWE has TWO bright stars in John Cena and Randy Orton. WOuldn't it be to the WWE's advantage to have them on TV on a bi-weekly basis? I don't think the fans would exactly cry if a guy like Randy Orton took away TV time from Sable.


At least now you have situations where guys like Benjamin, Cade, Jindrak and Dupree are being put in key spots out of necessity, if you have one roster there would be no panic to create new stars.

Why SHOULD there be a panic? Let it just happen naturally. Provided that the WWE gives wrestlers solid gimmicks, the fans will naturally allow someone to become a star anyways. This is why Stone Cold was put into a position to carry the torch from HBK. This is why The Rock/HHH took over from Stone Cold/Taker.......and why Jericho, Angle, and Benoit could've EASILY taken over The Rock/Triple H's spot (had the WWE not f</>ucked up on it). Brock Lesnar is another example (if they had kept the "one champ" on two shows thing after Summerslam 02', I guarantee that ratings would have continued upwards).

Fewer stars were created when there was one roster. Even a guy like Kurt Angle wasn't really given a chance to truley be a top guy until after the brand extension, ditto for Benoit and Eddie.

Kurt won the WWE title under a unified roster. It was the WWE's fault that they decided to make his title reign a joke.

If the WWE had booked things right a few years ago, Angle/Benoit/Jericho would've replaced The Rock/Triple H at the top (and ALL THREE men were way over with the fans). Eventually - Angle, Benoit, and Jericho would've then paved the way for guys like RVD, Cena, and Orton.


p.s. A guy like Eddie Guerrero right now. Does it really matter if he is the king of sh</>it right now? (i.e. WWE champ on Smackdown).

What if the NHL were to "split up" into the Eastern and Western Conference? Granted - a SH</>IT team like the Maple Leafs could have a better chance of winning the cup, but would it mean anything to longtime fans if they actually did? Would it "be the same"? :p

If the Eastern and Western Conference created their own 82 game schedules, would the NHL be better off?

Would it matter to the longtime fans if more players 'appeared' to be bigger superstars due to the split? Or would the fans intuitvely know that under a unified NHL, a lot of these players would be WIPED OFF the 'scoring leaders' sheet?

[The CyNick]

Long Winded response to Heyman #546:

In terms of the profits thing, 98/99, 99/00 will all be ahead of this year in terms of profits, this year's profits ($30+ mil) may or may not pass the numbers form 01/02. So it will likely be #3 or 4. However you have to remember that 00/01 was the XFL, which was the best year wrestling profits wise for the company, but the XFL brought the overall numbers down to $16 million (the wrestling profits that year were a little less than $100 million). So in theory 03/04 will be #4 or 5 for wrestling. The reasoning is more about cost cutting measures that have very little to do with the brand extension, but like I said before it does help them run more international events, which are very profitable (at least for now).

Before the brand extension they were running two shows per night (most nights) except for TV tapings. They would run an A show and then a B show, usually headlined by RVD. The problem with that is its tough to advertise to an international market that you'll be coming with a "B show" line-up. Of course you could argue right now, SD is a B-show, but if we're talking about the concept of brand extension, the two shows should be equal in order to create two viable touring brands.

No TV exec is going to know who Billy Gunn is, let alone consider it as a reason to give a promotion a TV spot. Depth doesn't matter to these people, all they care about is who will bring in the ratings, and Billy Gunn has NOTHING to do with that. I would bring in the same ratings as Billy Gunn, and I've never worked a match in my life.

There were some good feuds in the time period of 99-02, but at the same time, the guys who were stars in 1999 were the only guys who were stars in 2002. The point is, in those years no NEW talent was created until the brand extension. A lot of that had to do with the fcat that you had the same guys from 99 on top, and they were trying to protect their spots, as a result you didn't see meaningful JOBs to create new stars. Angle is the perfect example of how one roster hurts pushes, yes he was given the title, but the top spots on the shows went to Austin, HHH, Taker and Rock. Same thing happened with Jericho. At least after the brand extension they had shows booked around Lesnar, Angle and now we're seeing Eddie and Benoit on top. That wouldn't have happened with one roster.

All of the guys like Austin, Rock and HHH who were created as top stars did so when there was nobody in the company who could carry the ball. As a result they were forced to create new stars in order to stay in business. But the point I was trying to make is that when you look at the time period after those guys were made nobody else was made. Why? Because all the established guys were trying to keep their spots on the card. If you only have one roster that means you only have say 4 top spots, at least with two shows you have 8, its simple mathematics.

Orotn and Cena may have still got pushes, but you have to recognize the guys like HHH, HBK, Taker, Austin, Angle, Lesnar and co would have the top spots locked up. Guys like Cena and Orton would have had to fight for the middle-bottom spots and wouldn't get the TV time they are now. You look at Cena and he's #2 on SD, that would have NEVER happened with one roster so quickly. What happens then is that fans dont get to see them skyrocket to the top and they are more likely to lose faith in them (ala RVD, Jericho and otrhers). Most of the guys who ended up as major draws were protected like crazy or got immediate pushes to the main events right form the start.

Brock didn't leave because he was too successful, he left because he's a professional athlete and the WWE treats their wrestlers like circus animals, thats what forced him to leave. The WWE likes their workers to be marks for the business so that when they get treated like $hit they dont compalin, they ask for more. Hulk Hogan was pushed to the moon and he's been in the business for well over 20 years. Beisdes, having two rosters doesn't mean you HAVE to push a guy really quickly, it just allows the opportunity to push someone if they are good enough.

Taker is on most of the house shows, the speciall attraction thing is just a gimmick for TV. HBK is basically on a full schedule at this point, he works most of the house shows, and he's one of the focal points of every TV, so I dont know where you get that from. In terms of putting Cena and Orton on TV twice a week, I say they would get burned out too fast. Some people think Cena is already over doing it with one rap per week, imagine if you had to hear two per week?

In terms of fans creating new stars, thats how it 'should' work, but it doesn't in practise with one roster (and sometimes even with two). I can point to Jericho in 99 and 2000, RVD in 2001 and 2002 and Benoit in 2001 and others as examples of guys who were ready to run with the ball but due to established guys being protected they never got the proper push. Again, with only one roster there are only so many spots at the top, and once again, the established guard will fight to stay on top. If Vince had the balls to push these guys aside it would be a different story, but we know he doesn't. The only time he creates new stars is when he's out of viable main events and he's forced to (hence the panic). And ratings were not going "upwards" as you say when Lesnar was champ, they had been going down pretty much since the eraly part of 2001, when business peaked.

Yes, Kurt won the title with the rosters unified, but so what? The point is he didn't get a chance to be a top guy, until after the brand extension. Tell me if I'm worng, but I assume you understand that a guy can have the World Title and still not get pushed (if you dont understand I'll send you some tapes of Jericho in 2001/02). Once again it goes back to more spots = more stars.

As for Eddie, he won the title when SD was clearly the #1 show, its not his fault that they have turned SD into ECW. The point isn't about how good or bad SD is, its that because of the brand extension we get Eddie on top on one show and Benoit also on top on anothr show. That would never have happened with a unified roster. Instead we would get HBK vs Taker for the WWE title, followed by HHH vs HBK, followed by HHH vs Taker, followed by Taker vs HBK and so on.

[Heyman]

Long Winded response to Heyman #546:

Depth doesn't matter to these people, all they care about is who will bring in the ratings, and Billy Gunn has NOTHING to do with that. I would bring in the same ratings as Billy Gunn, and I've never worked a match in my life.



I just have one comment to make on this.

Take a look back at the WWE after 1997 Survivor Seres (relative to WCW). WCW seemingly had all of the top stars, while the WWE only had a couple of 'well-known' names (Undertaker and Shawn Michaels). Outside of those two people, no one else was really an established "star" (relative to the top "stars" of WCW).

You had Austin, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Rocky Maivia, Mankind, Kane, Owen Hart, Ken Shamrock, New Age Outlaws, etc.

Through time however, we know how the WWF became a more popular show than WCW.

<font color=white>The WWF created NEW stars, while the plethora of 'establised' stars in WCW created a major glass ceiling</font>.

As result, no real new stars were created in WCW, while guys like The Rock, Austin, Triple H, and Mick Foley became 'Household names" (while people like Kane, the rest of Degeneration X, D'Lo Brown, etc.,etc. became an excellent supporting cast).

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that maybe it's not such a bad idea (long term) to have Smackdown be a show full of 'depth', but have only 1 or 2 current 'established' stars.

If a guy like Taker went to Raw for instance (in exchange for 3 or 4 wrestlers who MIGHT draw one day), then Smackdown increases its potential for the future.

Think about the WWE again. From Survivor Series 97 to December 98', guys like Austin, Triple H, The Rock, Mankind, Kane, Ken Shamrock, and a HOST of others all saw major upswings in their careers.

I'm thinking that the same thing could happen with Smackdown.

-Kurt Angle could be your Shawn Michaels from 1998 (a guy that can do one more significant JOB before calling it quits).

-Big Show could be your Undertaker from 98' (an established star still in his prime, that has been World Champ.......a guy that wins most of his matches, but will do a significant JOB or two......kinda like when Austin beat Taker).

John Cena and Eddie Guerrero can be your top stars, while guys like Mordecai, RVD, Booker T, and (assets from Taker trade --> Christian, Matt Hardy, Edge?) can provide the show with excellent depth (and hence - make it a "quality" show).

[Heyman]

I just have one comment to make on this.

Take a look back at the WWE after 1997 Survivor Seres (relative to WCW). WCW seemingly had all of the top stars, while the WWE only had a couple of 'well-known' names (Undertaker and Shawn Michaels). Outside of those two people, no one else was really an established "star" (relative to the top "stars" of WCW).

You had Austin, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Rocky Maivia, Mankind, Kane, Owen Hart, Ken Shamrock, New Age Outlaws, etc.

Through time however, we know how the WWF became a more popular show than WCW.

<font color=white>The WWF created NEW stars, while the plethora of 'establised' stars in WCW created a major glass ceiling</font>.

As result, no real new stars were created in WCW, while guys like The Rock, Austin, Triple H, and Mick Foley became 'Household names" (while people like Kane, the rest of Degeneration X, D'Lo Brown, etc.,etc. became an excellent supporting cast).

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that maybe it's not such a bad idea (long term) to have Smackdown be a show full of 'depth', but have only 1 or 2 current 'established' stars.

If a guy like Taker went to Raw for instance (in exchange for 3 or 4 wrestlers who MIGHT draw one day), then Smackdown increases its potential for the future.

Think about the WWE again. From Survivor Series 97 to December 98', guys like Austin, Triple H, The Rock, Mankind, Kane, Ken Shamrock, and a HOST of others all saw major upswings in their careers.

I'm thinking that the same thing could happen with Smackdown.

-Kurt Angle could be your Shawn Michaels from 1998 (a guy that can do one more significant JOB before calling it quits).

-Big Show could be your Undertaker from 98' (an established star still in his prime, that has been World Champ.......a guy that wins most of his matches, but will do a significant JOB or two......kinda like when Austin beat Taker).

John Cena and Eddie Guerrero can be your top stars, while guys like Mordecai, RVD, Booker T, and (assets from Taker trade --> Christian, Matt Hardy, Edge?) can provide the show with excellent depth (and hence - make it a "quality" show).

:::sees The CyNick online::::

:::waits for long-winded reponse #547::::

ahem.

:p

[The CyNick]

I just have one comment to make on this.

Take a look back at the WWE after 1997 Survivor Seres (relative to WCW). WCW seemingly had all of the top stars, while the WWE only had a couple of 'well-known' names (Undertaker and Shawn Michaels). Outside of those two people, no one else was really an established "star" (relative to the top "stars" of WCW).

You had Austin, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Rocky Maivia, Mankind, Kane, Owen Hart, Ken Shamrock, New Age Outlaws, etc.

Through time however, we know how the WWF became a more popular show than WCW.

<font color=white>The WWF created NEW stars, while the plethora of 'establised' stars in WCW created a major glass ceiling</font>.

As result, no real new stars were created in WCW, while guys like The Rock, Austin, Triple H, and Mick Foley became 'Household names" (while people like Kane, the rest of Degeneration X, D'Lo Brown, etc.,etc. became an excellent supporting cast).

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that maybe it's not such a bad idea (long term) to have Smackdown be a show full of 'depth', but have only 1 or 2 current 'established' stars.

If a guy like Taker went to Raw for instance (in exchange for 3 or 4 wrestlers who MIGHT draw one day), then Smackdown increases its potential for the future.

Think about the WWE again. From Survivor Series 97 to December 98', guys like Austin, Triple H, The Rock, Mankind, Kane, Ken Shamrock, and a HOST of others all saw major upswings in their careers.

I'm thinking that the same thing could happen with Smackdown.

-Kurt Angle could be your Shawn Michaels from 1998 (a guy that can do one more significant JOB before calling it quits).

-Big Show could be your Undertaker from 98' (an established star still in his prime, that has been World Champ.......a guy that wins most of his matches, but will do a significant JOB or two......kinda like when Austin beat Taker).

John Cena and Eddie Guerrero can be your top stars, while guys like Mordecai, RVD, Booker T, and (assets from Taker trade --> Christian, Matt Hardy, Edge?) can provide the show with excellent depth (and hence - make it a "quality" show).

Okay here goes:

First, I dont understand what this has to do with Billy Gunn, but I digress.

What we've seen with Smackdown is that losing stars has had a negative impact on ratings, since Mania, and especially after the draft where it was made clear they are #2 their numbers have went down. Losing Taker would be damaging, but if they got guys like Christian and Edge back, then maybe it would be worth it. But if they only get back guys like Hardy then its not.

The difference with RAW vs Nitro was that when the Monday Night Wars really heated up WCW already had all the established guys, and WWE had to try to make new stars. But with RAw and SD, the difference is they had an equal number of stars at one point, and then all of a sudden in a 2 month period SD lost most of the top guys, while RAW gained some new stars from SD. People were basically told, SD sucks, dont bother watching it.

In the future, yes Samckdown may be able to build new stars, and thats fine, but thats going to take some time, whats the point of having one show suffer, when you can split up the stars equally to make TWO successful shows? Furthermore, its easier to create new stars when you have a bunch of established stars. Why? Well, how do you make new stars? You have them beat established guys. If you dont have any established guys, its harder to make new stars. Even when WWE made Austin a star in 97 (against Bret) it took over a year before ratings started to swing in the WWE's favor, and even then it was still neck and neck for a while because WCW had more depth.

The problem with WCW like you said is that they didn't create new stars. If the same thing happens over on RAW (which likely will happen) then SD will look better (if the young guys they have pan out), but the problem with the WWE's formula is that SD talent will be taken from SD and moved over to RAW so HHH has fresh opponents. This wont change until Hunter retires. So thats why you cant really compare the brand extension to WWE vs WCW.