Raw rating lowest since July 2012

[Big Vic]

Guys Vince expected this, of course it was going to drop below the 3 million mark. There is a lot of ways to consume media these days through streaming sites for example. This is good news for WWE, 2 million is bigger than 1 million right? No other wrestling company is even at the 1 million mark. [/CyNick]

[Evil Vito]

On a happier note, here's a picture of Noelle Foley:

http://i.imgur.com/Jlt5lK3.jpg

<font color=goldenrod>How somebody that attractive sprang from the loins of Mick Foley I'll never know.</font>

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

well his wife is a gorgeous model lol

[The CyNick]

For some perspective:

MNF featured the undefeated New England Patriots, one of the biggest draws in the sport. As a result MNF had more than 2 million viewers WoW or a 17% gain.

RAW lost 300K viewers WoW or a 10% decline in viewership. Keep in mind, this is before any DVR numbers are calculated.

Another show I track on Monday's is this Love and Hip Hop show on VH1 which does well on Mondays. It was down 13% in viewership. I tried to see if there was panick on the L&HH message board, but couldn't find the thread on ratings. Its a good indication that RAW wasn't so much bad, as MNF just had the game that casual fans felt was can't miss.

RAW was as usual one of the top 3 most watched things on cable on Monday night. It usually hovers between #2 and #3, depending on how well Sportscenter does (up 9% this week). Clearly football was devastating to RAW this week, but it'll be intetesting to see if the DVR numbers make up some of the decline WoW. That said, declines are never a good thing, but context is important.

[The CyNick]

I pretty much agree with all of this -- right down to Sasha Banks vs. Becky Lynch being one of the best women's matches I have ever seen. It is probably my favorite match from this entire year. I am far more into Becky's character than Bayley's.

Calling Becky up to the main roster has been bittersweet. Sure, it's great to see her making money on the big stage; but it felt like she had so much left to achieve in her program with Sasha Banks. I would have loved to have seen them get to compete in the first-ever women's Ladder Match officially sanctioned by the WWE, or in the Iron Man Match.

But anyway, what does Mick Foley know about wrestling, right?

He fits right in with the IWC.

He doesn't understand the conplexities of booking, just wants the 2 or 3 people he likes to be pushed to the moon.

It's funny, he complains about Cesaro, it looked to me like Cesaro was about to get pushed, and he gets injured. How is that WWEs fault?

As for the girls, hey I look at the positive, they got two segments on the show. The focus is on the title. The Paige-Charlotte match was good, and set up a future match. The other girls will get their time to shine eventually.

[The CyNick]

network subscriptions though guys. It makes up for all of it. ALLLLLL OF IT

How about record intetest from advertisers.

I would recommend reading some articles about viewership on cable. It will give you a better understanding.

[The CyNick]

Ha!

I hope they keep dropping.

Why?

[Maluco]

It's sad that Cynicks arguments are inevitably the ones that are being made at the top of WWE too. Just churn out the next batch of samsie TV, nothing exciting, keep the motor running...Cena will be back soon and we can rely on him again. It's sad.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

How about record intetest from advertisers.

I would recommend reading some articles about viewership on cable. It will give you a better understanding.

irrelevant to what we're arguing. You're talking finance, we're talking about actual viewership of the product.

Network subscriptions going up could have very little to do with the actual product. Same with advertisers. IN FACT advertisers being interested in television series can have a lot to do with an actual decline in the integrity of a product depending on how you look at it.


#fatherknowsbest

[Simple Fan]

How about record intetest from advertisers.

I would recommend reading some articles about viewership on cable. It will give you a better understanding.

Yeah because advertisers determine if the product is any good. Do you read your post sometimes. KFC and Hardee's are advertising on WWE programing, the product is great.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Well the stance is this. We are looking at it from an art stand point, CyNick is looking at it from a business standpoint.

Now I know he'll tell you a bunch of horseshit about how he enjoys the product, but that is clearly because he is a troglodyte.

[drave]

he is a troglodyte.


For those visual learners:

https://ocec.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/troglodyte.jpg?w=625&h=390&crop=1

[The CyNick]

irrelevant to what we're arguing. You're talking finance, we're talking about actual viewership of the product.

Network subscriptions going up could have very little to do with the actual product. Same with advertisers. IN FACT advertisers being interested in television series can have a lot to do with an actual decline in the integrity of a product depending on how you look at it.


#fatherknowsbest

At the end of the day, the WWE just wants to generate TV rights fee money. If more advertisers are interested in RAW, in theory it means USA will pay more for the rights fees. When RAW was getting 6 million viewers every week, the problem was because the product was so low rent, interest from advertisers was low.

In recent years WWE has made an effort to make the product more appealing to advertisers. Possibly at the expense of some viewers. But the net effect has been higher TV rights fees. As long as those are going in the right direction, WWE is happy.

Again, and this point will be glossed over or ignored in your response, that isn't to say a 10% WoW decline is positive, you just have to understand the bigger picture.

[The CyNick]

It's sad that Cynicks arguments are inevitably the ones that are being made at the top of WWE too. Just churn out the next batch of samsie TV, nothing exciting, keep the motor running...Cena will be back soon and we can rely on him again. It's sad.

Not to beat a dead horse but if you have WWE the choice of higher ratings or higher revenues, they will always take higher revenues.

Revenues continue to grow, so overall, things are positive. Maybe the ratings are an indication of future revenue decline, but it could also be an indication of a bunch of other factors as well (ie overall decline in TV viewership).

[The CyNick]

Yeah because advertisers determine if the product is any good. Do you read your post sometimes. KFC and Hardee's are advertising on WWE programing, the product is great.

I watched RAW, I enjoyed it. But that's just a matter of opinion. It would be a waste of time to try to convince someone to like something they dislike.

I'm just trying to put TV numbers in perspective.

[Simple Fan]

Ha!

I hope they keep dropping.

Why?

So maybe they start to realize that the product is not connecting with the fans. You can say all you want about how business is good but that has nothing to with the programing. Sheamus is champion that jobbed to Kalisto in the tournamrnt, Reigns is being force fed to the WWE Universe, and WWE has shit the bed building any new star power.

[The CyNick]

Well the stance is this. We are looking at it from an art stand point, CyNick is looking at it from a business standpoint.

Now I know he'll tell you a bunch of horseshit about how he enjoys the product, but that is clearly because he is a troglodyte.

If I didn't like the product, I wouldnt watch. It would seem really odd to watch week after week, talk about it day after day in here, to then say oh I actually hate every minute of the show. What a waste of time that would be.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

lol oh jeez

You realize we all know this right? You aren't exactly reinventing our knowledge wheel. We understand many of the decisions made and why the production is the way it is. That doesn't mean we need to appreciate steaming piles of crap heaped in front of us.

For instance, we understand why the commentators no longer really story tell or commentate matches. They need to SHILL SHILL SHILL because of the advertising and the pace they have to move at. We get it. It's a tough fucking job with the expectations placed in front of them. It doesn't make it any less soul less.

WWE is a money making machine, it's not wrestling. Many of us like wrestling. We also like Sports Entertainment, and stories which we can really take a bite out of. But that means the stories being told have to speak to us. Which they don't. Because the product isn't very good, because it doesn't have to be. Because they won years and years and years ago. So instead of appealing to people with half a brain and making a decent cohesive product, they appeal to advertisers for higher tv fees. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the product is good. Which you love to argue.

Mind you, if you enjoy it that's your deal. Fine. Cool. Amazing. It's great that you have no taste.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

If I didn't like the product, I wouldnt watch. It would seem really odd to watch week after week, talk about it day after day in here, to then say oh I actually hate every minute of the show. What a waste of time that would be.

hahahahaha you do realize most of us don't really watch right? We are just life long wrassling fans and have posted here since we were pre-teens. You fucking weirdo.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Sorry before you try "strengthen" your argument. We keep up but we don't watch. Because we love wrestling. But we don't sit around watching RAW knowing we hate it. We love wrestling and WWE is all there really is in the main stream. So we gripe about it because we're passionate on something we always loved growing up.


Okay now tell me how I don't understand and am a lesser being than you.

[Simple Fan]

I watched RAW, I enjoyed it. But that's just a matter of opinion. It would be a waste of time to try to convince someone to like something they dislike.

I'm just trying to put TV numbers in perspective.

Its not that we diskike the WWE, we are wrestling fans that enjoy the genre of entertainment and WWE just are not connecting with us at the moment.

[The CyNick]

So maybe they start to realize that the product is not connecting with the fans. You can say all you want about how business is good but that has nothing to with the programing. Sheamus is champion that jobbed to Kalisto in the tournamrnt, Reigns is being force fed to the WWE Universe, and WWE has shit the bed building any new star power.

WWE feels Roman is a guy they can build around. You obviously disagree, but WWE had a plan and they are trying to see it through. As a person who watches week after week, I prefer when they slowly build someone up, like they are doing with Roman. If he fails, you try something else.

WWE has also had a ton of bad luck recently, which spoiled some short term plans.

[Simple Fan]

Roman does fail every time he picks up a mic. Vince is dead set on pushing the guy that doesn't deserve the push he's getting.

[The CyNick]

lol oh jeez

You realize we all know this right? You aren't exactly reinventing our knowledge wheel. We understand many of the decisions made and why the production is the way it is. That doesn't mean we need to appreciate steaming piles of crap heaped in front of us.

For instance, we understand why the commentators no longer really story tell or commentate matches. They need to SHILL SHILL SHILL because of the advertising and the pace they have to move at. We get it. It's a tough fucking job with the expectations placed in front of them. It doesn't make it any less soul less.

WWE is a money making machine, it's not wrestling. Many of us like wrestling. We also like Sports Entertainment, and stories which we can really take a bite out of. But that means the stories being told have to speak to us. Which they don't. Because the product isn't very good, because it doesn't have to be. Because they won years and years and years ago. So instead of appealing to people with half a brain and making a decent cohesive product, they appeal to advertisers for higher tv fees. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the product is good. Which you love to argue.

Mind you, if you enjoy it that's your deal. Fine. Cool. Amazing. It's great that you have no taste.

You claim to understand the reason behind decisions, yet you're in this thread acting like a 10% decline in viewers is a major event.

WWE to be successful needs to appeal to a wide base. What's intetesting is people like you think your opinion on the current state of the product is the right one. When someone like me comes along and says I actually like the show, I am the villain. I've never once told anyone they are WRONG for disliking the product. Yet, you claim I have no taste.

It's funny to me that you guys get worked up that a weekly viewer of RAW actually enjoys RAW.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Wow you're casting a lot of emotions on me big guy.

You're allowed to enjoy the product, we're allowed to bring up reasons we think you're wrong. :)

And I don't think it's the end of the world. I just think it's indicative of the fact that they aren't producing quality. They're the only game in town so the ratings will be back. But once again #fatherknowsbest

[Simple Fan]

Really hate how Reigns was champion for 5 minutes and has never held another singles title and has an automatic rematch already. What has Roman done to deserve a rematch? It just lazy booking and storytelling.

[The CyNick]

hahahahaha you do realize most of us don't really watch right? We are just life long wrassling fans and have posted here since we were pre-teens. You fucking weirdo.

Right, but you guys who "dont watch" can site the result of every single match from every RAW.

if you actually don't watch, then you should have no opinion on the product. I dont go on a Bachelor message board and say the show currently sucks because I watched it 7 years ago. It would be ignorant.

[The CyNick]

Wow you're casting a lot of emotions on me big guy.

You're allowed to enjoy the product, we're allowed to bring up reasons we think you're wrong. :)

And I don't think it's the end of the world. I just think it's indicative of the fact that they aren't producing quality. They're the only game in town so the ratings will be back. But once again #fatherknowsbest

You can come up with reasons I am wrong to enjoy something? You are some next level narcissist.

[The CyNick]

Roman does fail every time he picks up a mic. Vince is dead set on pushing the guy that doesn't deserve the push he's getting.

So why do you think Vince is dead set on pushing him? Is he trying to lose money?

[drave]

So why do you think Vince is dead set on pushing him? Is he trying to lose money?


His look. That has always been his thing.

[drave]

He does sell a lot of merch, which ultimately is what matters anyway - the almighty $$$.

Doesn't take away from the fact that he still seems quite bland to most people over the age of 10.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I do think it's really funny that CyNick has such a hard time admitting that a guy in his 70s has been out of touch for a long time.

[Simple Fan]

Right, but you guys who "dont watch" can site the result of every single match from every RAW.

if you actually don't watch, then you should have no opinion on the product. I dont go on a Bachelor message board and say the show currently sucks because I watched it 7 years ago. It would be ignorant.

I watch every week and they're only tid bits that are actually entertaining. Usually the New Day segment. A lot of it has the chance to be great but they screw it up . Big fan of Wyatt, WWE does nothing with him to build the character the way it should be. Big Cesaro fan, WWE does nothing to help the guy out. I enjoy the matches on Raw but the storutelling is weak and dull.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

lol it doesn't take much more than reading the results and watching some clips to realize how fucking horrendous it is.

[drave]

I think it also says a lot when they have to "edit" crowd reactions (on replays of Raw and especially Smackdown!) to make "their guy" seem "good".

[Big Vic]

For some perspective:

MNF featured the undefeated New England Patriots, one of the biggest draws in the sport. As a result MNF had more than 2 million viewers WoW or a 17% gain. I wonder if the patriots played last year on MNF, I wonder what the numbers were then.

[hb2k]

I might be wrong on this given I live in a different country, but I'm fairly certain this National Football League we're hearing about is more than a couple of years old, and may in fact have been playing every year at this time for every one of the last 18 years. If they did better ratings that entire time, I'm wondering if the football defense may have a hole or two in there.

Im not denying that competition isn't an issue, but its time to look in the mirror.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

FUN FACT: TNA on a Monday night drew 2.2 million viewers.

[drave]

Can we start saying lolwwe now? :D

[Shadrick]

Roman does fail every time he picks up a mic. Vince is dead set on pushing the guy that doesn't deserve the push he's getting.

1. i think thats hyperbole.

2. whats your definition of deserve?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I might be wrong on this given I live in a different country, but I'm fairly certain this National Football League we're hearing about is more than a couple of years old, and may in fact have been playing every year at this time for every one of the last 18 years. If they did better ratings that entire time, I'm wondering if the football defense may have a hole or two in there.

Im not denying that competition isn't an issue, but its time to look in the mirror.

but this year the NFL drugged the audience to all over the states to strictly tune into the patriots vs the bills

[Emperor Smeat]

Might have been the Observer or F4W that had an article about historical breakdowns and while football has taken a bit of a bigger chunk this year away, majority of the decline is still on the WWE's end.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUm8G5LWUAEaDMb.png

Even by Road to Mania standards, the audience and ratings have been dropping the past few years.
http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/avgbuild.png

[The CyNick]

He does sell a lot of merch, which ultimately is what matters anyway - the almighty $$$.

Doesn't take away from the fact that he still seems quite bland to most people over the age of 10.

So you answered your own question. Reigns sells, that's why he was chosen and continues to be pushed.

This goes back to this thing where people are expecting WWE to cater to everyone individually.

[The CyNick]

I watch every week and they're only tid bits that are actually entertaining. Usually the New Day segment. A lot of it has the chance to be great but they screw it up . Big fan of Wyatt, WWE does nothing with him to build the character the way it should be. Big Cesaro fan, WWE does nothing to help the guy out. I enjoy the matches on Raw but the storutelling is weak and dull.

I really don't want to get into Bray. Guy has basically only worked with the very top guys since he broke in. He's a heel, so he loses in the end. I think ultimately he will turn babyface (that's why WWE goes out of their way to showcase the fireflies). The ironic thing is when he turns face, and wins more, people on here will say he's boring and WWE is forcing him down our throats.

Cesaro is limited in terms is storylines because he's not a good promo guy. He needs to get over by doing cool things in the ring. WWE started to showcase him more, but he blew out his shoulder. Miserable timing.

[The CyNick]

lol it doesn't take much more than reading the results and watching some clips to realize how fucking horrendous it is.

So now its you watch "some clips"

Maybe that's how a bunch of people consume RAW, where even a year ago it wasn't as readily available. Could explain some of those changes in viewing patterns I talk about.

[The CyNick]

I wonder if the patriots played last year on MNF, I wonder what the numbers were then.

You can't compare games YoY. We're the Pats undefeated when they played, was it this far into the season? Were other entertainment shows trending in the same direction as RAW.

But don't worry gloss over the entire point.

[The CyNick]

I might be wrong on this given I live in a different country, but I'm fairly certain this National Football League we're hearing about is more than a couple of years old, and may in fact have been playing every year at this time for every one of the last 18 years. If they did better ratings that entire time, I'm wondering if the football defense may have a hole or two in there.

Im not denying that competition isn't an issue, but its time to look in the mirror.

As I've stated, any ratings decline is not good. But when other shows show the same pattern as RAW (worse actually) it indicates that on that week, football siphoned viewers.

[Heisenberg]

NFL isn't catching now WWE RAW ppl this time, they are just as guilty of not wanting to offend anyone as much as WWE.


There are other avenues in which a man or woman can get their entertainment on, like Netflix and Chill, Amazon Instant and Piss, getting lost in YouTube and PornHub

[Innovator]

As I've stated, any ratings decline is not good. But when other shows show the same pattern as RAW (worse actually) it indicates that on that week, football siphoned viewers.

I remember after the TV deal was announced, Vince said it wasn't a long term deal, which means they're probably going to start negotiations in a year or so. Declining ratings gives USA more leverage to pay a lower amount for the rights and charge less for ad time.

[The CyNick]

Might have been the Observer or F4W that had an article about historical breakdowns and while football has taken a bit of a bigger chunk this year away, majority of the decline is still on the WWE's end.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUm8G5LWUAEaDMb.png

Even by Road to Mania standards, the audience and ratings have been dropping the past few years.
http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/avgbuild.png

I find a lot of people with newsletters and podcasts get out of their depth when talking about TV ratings in a historical sense.

If you talk to people in the TV business, you hear about DVR proof programs and their value. Sports leagues are one of the few remaining providers of such programming. A lot of sports execs have lined their pockets because rights fees have went through the roof due to this changing landscape. Unfortunately WWE isn't sports, so they don't have the same luxury. On top of that you have an increase in usage of things like You Tube, Hulu, etc for consuming entertainment. It all cuts into the overall audience on traditional TV.

If you read articles from Variety, they talk about declining ratings across the board. If for example USA's overall numbers were say up 5% YoY and WWE was down 10% YoY, then I would say WWE should be somewhat concerned. But everything I've read, the opposite is true. And the lesson from the Attitude Era was that you can draw 6-7 million viewers per week, but if advertisers are not willing to support your product, you won't see the benefits. So even if WWE dropped to 2 million viewers per week, if advertisers see them as more premium, WWE will net or ahead.

[The CyNick]

I remember after the TV deal was announced, Vince said it wasn't a long term deal, which means they're probably going to start negotiations in a year or so. Declining ratings gives USA more leverage to pay a lower amount for the rights and charge less for ad time.

Which is contradicted by record intetest from advertisers. More demand means higher price. WWE knows this increase in intetest is happening, so they will likely ask for more. On top of that you have a lot of cable networks looking for programming that will raise their average. WWE even with the recent decline would still increase the average for the majority of cable networks. In the end, their fees should at least stay the same, if not increase.

The more intetesting thing to me will be do they lock in long term this time around. A lot of people are predicting a decline in TV rights fees across the board in the next decade as viewing habits change.

[BigCrippyZ]

Really hate how Reigns was champion for 5 minutes and has never held another singles title and has an automatic rematch already. What has Roman done to deserve a rematch? It just lazy booking and storytelling.

Yeah, and Cynick argues that it's WWE "slowly" building him up. That's absurd. He hasn't even won another singles title. Yeah, it's slow if you consider the fact that Vince's first attempt at making Roman a world champ/main eventer never took off because it was rejected so blatently before it started. Instead of trying to build Roman up in between he just decides to wait a while without having Roman successfully get more over before basically trying the same thing again.

[The CyNick]

Yeah, and Cynick argues that it's WWE "slowly" building him up. That's absurd. He hasn't even won another singles title. Yeah, it's slow if you consider the fact that Vince's first attempt at making Roman a world champ/main eventer never took off because it was rejected so blatently before it started. Instead of trying to build Roman up in between he just decides to wait a while without having Roman successfully get more over before basically trying the same thing again.

At the end of the day, it looks to me like the plan was always to get the title on Rollins. I think they decided it made more sense long term to avoid having Brock lose, and get the belt on Rollins. That way you still have the story of Reigns finally getting to the top of the mountain and you could still sell Brock vs Reigns as unfinished business.

But the mistake they made was involving Daniel Bryan. That hurt Reigns a great deal.

[Emperor Smeat]

I remember after the TV deal was announced, Vince said it wasn't a long term deal, which means they're probably going to start negotiations in a year or so. Declining ratings gives USA more leverage to pay a lower amount for the rights and charge less for ad time.

Think 2017 is when the clause in the current contract comes up. Sort of like TNA's deal with Destination America but with the WWE and not USA being the ones to opt out.

Investors might try to force Vince out for real if he fails or lies about getting a massive deal again. Stocks still haven't fully recovered from that blunder and the Network being well under what the WWE kept hyping.

[Simple Fan]

1. i think thats hyperbole.

2. whats your definition of deserve?

Someone who can actually connect with fans. Roman is not a tier guy and I don't believe he will be as long as he's playing John Cena 2.0 . The guy has potential to be " the guy" just not at the moment. Guys like Cesaro, Ambrose, Owens, and Ziggler are more deserving in my opinion. Reigns is being force fed and he just comes off as a phony.

[drave]

So you answered your own question. Reigns sells, that's why he was chosen and continues to be pushed.

This goes back to this thing where people are expecting WWE to cater to everyone individually.

I answered YOUR question to someone else.

The point was that despite Reigns selling a lot of merch (to kids), most people who have been long time viewers and are > 10 years old do not care for him or his very boring character, nothing more.

Selling a lot of merch =/= good entertainment.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Just as a point of interest, what else do you enjoy watching Cynick?

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Might have been the Observer or F4W that had an article about historical breakdowns and while football has taken a bit of a bigger chunk this year away, majority of the decline is still on the WWE's end.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUm8G5LWUAEaDMb.png

Even by Road to Mania standards, the audience and ratings have been dropping the past few years.
http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/avgbuild.png

Those figures match up and it leads to one thing.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ttE5rqNNBh0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[The CyNick]

Just as a point of interest, what else do you enjoy watching Cynick?

The only other non sports thing I watch right now is Walking Dead.

I liked Sopranos, 24, and Breaking Bad when they were on. Those are the only scripted drama type shows I ever got into.

But sports takes up most of my TV time.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Right, but you guys who "dont watch" can site the result of every single match from every RAW.

if you actually don't watch, then you should have no opinion on the product. I dont go on a Bachelor message board and say the show currently sucks because I watched it 7 years ago. It would be ignorant.

this is why people perceive you to be a ding bat by the way. Because you appeal to constant fallacies. And it's why it's most likely that you are in some shape or form trolling.

This has been addressed on multiple occasions and you've ignored it to press on with your narrative. Up your game the CyNick I know you've got more than this.

[The CyNick]

this is why people perceive you to be a ding bat by the way. Because you appeal to constant fallacies. And it's why it's most likely that you are in some shape or form trolling.

This has been addressed on multiple occasions and you've ignored it to press on with your narrative. Up your game the CyNick I know you've got more than this.

People can respond with an insufficient explanation of how they can get into detailed discussions about shows they claim to not watch.

How was the Habs game last night? Real answer - I have no idea, I didn't watch. IWC response - it was awful, it was one sided and boring. I didn't watch, but I saw two clips and read a summary online.

[Simple Fan]

Love how you keep bringing up the IWC like your not apart of it.

[The CyNick]

Love how you keep bringing up the IWC like your not apart of it.

To me IWC is a sub set of sports entertainment fans on the Internet. You can be online and not be part of the IWC.

I use it to group the people who watch and spew hated week after week and think they are smarter than Vince and co.

[Simple Fan]

Your a member of a internet wrestling forum, you are apart of the IWC.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

To me IWC is a sub set of sports entertainment fans on the Internet. You can be online and not be part of the IWC.

I use it to group the people who watch and spew hated week after week and think they are smarter than Vince and co.

lol I don't think anyone here thinks they are smarter than Vince McMahon.

But to ignore the fact that wrestling is a politicking backstabbing petty business where constant poor decisions are made based on ego is just naive. We know what we see.

Just because we can't do the job better than Vince, doesn't mean the job can't be done better. I personally don't partake in fantasy booking, but I do possess the ability to critique.

I take it you've been to University as you seem a very articulate (albeit sometimes obtuse) individual. Well it taught me the ability to think critically and critique something I don't like in a constructive manner. Quality is certainly subjective, but like I said before, we some how all can surmise that the Rock is better than Barry Horowitz.

Though, much like you, my fellow IWC members (that's what we all are) have the propensity to bother me all the same. You aren't alone in this in the least. It drives me nuts if I hear somebody derail the Rocks work, or call Steve Austin a lousy worker... hell if someone tries to say they weren't a fan of Hulkamania when they grew up in the 80s I know they're lying. These are all things we see in the internet community. And you are not alone in people having vastly differing opinions on all of this.

What you are alone in is being a complete and utter blowhard who thinks he's smarter than everyone for the most part lol.

[Damndirty]

I tried to watch Smackdown tonight, and honestly, it made me too ashamed to tell anybody I'm a fan of wrestling. Once upon a time, I would have a panic attack if I missed a minute of a WWF/E show, but that time has long passed with this aimless Disney circus flavor of pro wrestling. The saddest part is that I am yet to meet any children who actually watch it or even know what it is. TPWW is the only place I have anyone to talk about the sport without being ridiculed, and I can't even discuss the material of today with even this community because I don't find it entertaining anymore. Is this a phase or is it truly that dreadful of a show these days?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

also, the whole "we think we're smarter than Vince" is that same nonsense where if I'm angry at the way Sidney Crosby played on Saturday night, you can retort by saying "WELL HE DID BETTER THAN YOU COULD" like wut? I'm not a professional hockey player nor do i get paid to book wrestling storylines. But I know what I like and I have an idea of what is well received by most audiences, the same as I know if Sidney Crosby played crap or played well.

[Rammsteinmad]

I tried to watch Smackdown tonight, and honestly, it made me too ashamed to tell anybody I'm a fan of wrestling. Once upon a time, I would have a panic attack if I missed a minute of a WWF/E show, but that time has long passed with this aimless Disney circus flavor of pro wrestling. The saddest part is that I am yet to meet any children who actually watch it or even know what it is. TPWW is the only place I have anyone to talk about the sport without being ridiculed, and I can't even discuss the material of today with even this community because I don't find it entertaining anymore. Is this a phase or is it truly that dreadful of a show these days?

Well Mick Foley and ex-WWE writers agree that the product is awful right now. And personally I'd take Mick Foley's word over CyNicks.

[The CyNick]

Your a member of a internet wrestling forum, you are apart of the IWC.

Well then I'm coming up with a different term

[The CyNick]

lol I don't think anyone here thinks they are smarter than Vince McMahon.

But to ignore the fact that wrestling is a politicking backstabbing petty business where constant poor decisions are made based on ego is just naive. We know what we see.

Just because we can't do the job better than Vince, doesn't mean the job can't be done better. I personally don't partake in fantasy booking, but I do possess the ability to critique.

I take it you've been to University as you seem a very articulate (albeit sometimes obtuse) individual. Well it taught me the ability to think critically and critique something I don't like in a constructive manner. Quality is certainly subjective, but like I said before, we some how all can surmise that the Rock is better than Barry Horowitz.

Though, much like you, my fellow IWC members (that's what we all are) have the propensity to bother me all the same. You aren't alone in this in the least. It drives me nuts if I hear somebody derail the Rocks work, or call Steve Austin a lousy worker... hell if someone tries to say they weren't a fan of Hulkamania when they grew up in the 80s I know they're lying. These are all things we see in the internet community. And you are not alone in people having vastly differing opinions on all of this.

What you are alone in is being a complete and utter blowhard who thinks he's smarter than everyone for the most part lol.

I think lots of people online think they can do things better than Vince, which is absolutely insane given that NOBODY has come close to the success Vince has had. WCW was the closest and they managed to have success for barely over a year, and then they were squashed dead by Vince. My favourite thing online is reading how people say a guy like Jim Cornette is a great mind and a booking genius. He's had stops in other companies, but I didnt see them blast off in terms of popularity. I never saw him create a worldwide superstar. Its a very unique industry, and only Vince has mastered it, therefore I give him the benefit of the doubt on decisions.

The other major beef I have is when people talk like Vince makes decisions for anything other than making money for his company in mind. The narrative is usually things like "oh he wanted to bury that guy because he's from WCW". Has any of the so called reporters in this industry ever got a quote from Vince or HHH to validate that claim? No of course not. But the people who read that garbage, take it like its gospel, and try to pass it off as fact in conversations like this one.

Roman Reigns may not catch on as a #1 babyface, but it wasnt long ago, when he looked like he was on his way to becoming just that. The same Vince that is apparently out of touch, also managed to place Daniel Bryan in the main event of 30 and create one of the most special moments in WWE history. Was he out of touch by having Daniel go down with a career threatening injury? The same Vince green lights NXT every night. Because NXT exists to appeal to a subset of the sports entertainment audience, the people on here say its the best thing in the company. Its the same guy giving the go ahead. Cant have it both ways thats all.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Vince abd h being fairly savvy corporate men give corporate answers in out of character interviews spinning their narrative. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put that together

[Rollermacka]

So remember a few months ago when all the "dirt sheets" said that Vince was letting go of the reigns and letting HHH book more of RAW? So is that what's happening or is everyone still blaming the "powers that be" for RAW's declining ratings?

[Mercenary]

Vince wont let go till he is dead

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

the dirtsheets are like any other sports reporters to be honest. they take whatever scoop they can get and run with it. You have to take it for what it's worth.

As a Jay's fan, right now, David Price has been reported (by reputable reporters no less) to be signing with about 32524 different teams and went from havng a chance to be back with the jays, to never a chance ever, to a bit more of a chance, to maybe kind of a chance.

You have to do your best to sift through the bullshit. I personally think Meltzer does the best he can to be legit, but even he is incredibly full of shit like most reports 65 per cent of the time.

[Ruien]

I tried to watch Smackdown tonight, and honestly, it made me too ashamed to tell anybody I'm a fan of wrestling. Once upon a time, I would have a panic attack if I missed a minute of a WWF/E show, but that time has long passed with this aimless Disney circus flavor of pro wrestling. The saddest part is that I am yet to meet any children who actually watch it or even know what it is. TPWW is the only place I have anyone to talk about the sport without being ridiculed, and I can't even discuss the material of today with even this community because I don't find it entertaining anymore. Is this a phase or is it truly that dreadful of a show these days?

Children tend to know who John Cena is if you ask them. But that is about it.

[The CyNick]

Vince abd h being fairly savvy corporate men give corporate answers in out of character interviews spinning their narrative. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put that together

But scummy newsletter writers with sources who can't be named should be trusted?

Nutty

[The CyNick]

the dirtsheets are like any other sports reporters to be honest. they take whatever scoop they can get and run with it. You have to take it for what it's worth.

As a Jay's fan, right now, David Price has been reported (by reputable reporters no less) to be signing with about 32524 different teams and went from havng a chance to be back with the jays, to never a chance ever, to a bit more of a chance, to maybe kind of a chance.

You have to do your best to sift through the bullshit. I personally think Meltzer does the best he can to be legit, but even he is incredibly full of shit like most reports 65 per cent of the time.

I see a major difference. A real sports reporter will actually try to get info from the source, and then possibly speculate. Never seem Dave or any of those guys get a quote from Hunter or Vince. Or even day they were reached out but didn't comment. Why? Because they don't want real information. They just want to spin their own narrative.

What Meltzer and co have built a business around is outright lies and passing off the personal speculation as fact. For example the motivation behind not pushing certain guys. It would be like a sports reporter saying a GM is terrible because he didn't pull the trigger of a ficticious trade that was never presented. There are guys like that in real sports, but they are bloggers, and real media outlets would never awknowledge them because it's known they are full of crap. The problem is the Melter Bots just repeat what he "reports" as fact.

[Maluco]

No human being is perfect though Cynick, his motives are not pure money, everyone has their pride, arrogance and personal likes and dislikes to stop us from being robots.

Is it so strange to think that Vince might not have gone for certain things because they weren't his creations or characters, for example.

He has proven, with the likes of Punk and Bryan that if he sees cash, he can be flexible, but it is unrealistic to think he hasn't made bad decisions based on other factors before.

He is a genius, and is rightly heralded as such, but we have seen this before in WWE before WCW tackled them. Even the best of us get in a rut and get too comfortable.

[BigCrippyZ]

I see a major difference. A real sports reporter will actually try to get info from the source, and then possibly speculate. Never seem Dave or any of those guys get a quote from Hunter or Vince. Or even day they were reached out but didn't comment. Why? Because they don't want real information. They just want to spin their own narrative.

What Meltzer and co have built a business around is outright lies and passing off the personal speculation as fact. For example the motivation behind not pushing certain guys. It would be like a sports reporter saying a GM is terrible because he didn't pull the trigger of a ficticious trade that was never presented. There are guys like that in real sports, but they are bloggers, and real media outlets would never awknowledge them because it's known they are full of crap. The problem is the Melter Bots just repeat what he "reports" as fact.

So because they don't get their info straight from the top, they're not legit reporters or don't have legit inside sources?

You can't compare real sports reporting to WWE reporting. Real sports reporters have actual access to the top coaches, players, staff, etc., through league mandated/required weekly press conferences, media days, etc. Not only that but many of the best sports coaches, teams, etc., are often highly secretive or sandbag reporters regarding game plans, deal negotiations, injuries, etc. With the exception of the NFL's mandatory injury reporting being the strictest regarding info that teams are required to disclose.

WWE doesn't have mandatory weekly press conferences or media days with the upper level executives, talent or staff regarding game plans, deal negotiations, injuries, etc. WWE doesn't want to reveal their secrets or have a narrative get out that they don't control. There's no benefit to Vince or HHH answering questions about creative plans, etc. so they don't even allow the opportunity. There's also no benefit to the top coaches, talent, staff of real sports teams answering questions about game plans, etc. The difference is obviously most are required to provide the opportunity in real sports.

Don't get me wrong, there are many WWE sites/"reporters", including guys like TPWW's own Ryan Clark who just subscribe to Meltzer's work and then re-write it and pass it off as there own like they have inside sources. Those guys are horrible. To disparage Meltzer as some kind of guy who doesn't have inside info is stupid though. His info isn't always solid but find me someone reporting on an industry as unique as pro wrestling and you'll find that often their sources aren't always accurate either.

[Ruien]

Didn't HHH say in the Stone Cold podcast that its frustrating that the internet nerds know more about that is going on sometimes than the actual writers? Pretty sure that occurred in some form in the past year.

[Emperor Smeat]

So remember a few months ago when all the "dirt sheets" said that Vince was letting go of the reigns and letting HHH book more of RAW? So is that what's happening or is everyone still blaming the "powers that be" for RAW's declining ratings?

Think that was just for anything Authority related since it directly impacted his character. If I remember, he gained a lot of control over Smackdown but not enough to fully revamp the show's status since RAW is still the main priority.

[#1-norm-fan]

lol I don't think anyone here thinks they are smarter than Vince McMahon

I definitely think I am smarter than an out of touch 70 year old man who thinks that poop and fart jokes are the pinnacle of comedy. Now this Cynick character may scoff at that but he seems to share that 70 year old man's idea of what's entertaining so... I DUNNO *fart*

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think lots of people online think they can do things better than Vince, which is absolutely insane given that NOBODY has come close to the success Vince has had. WCW was the closest and they managed to have success for barely over a year, and then they were squashed dead by Vince. My favourite thing online is reading how people say a guy like Jim Cornette is a great mind and a booking genius. He's had stops in other companies, but I didnt see them blast off in terms of popularity. I never saw him create a worldwide superstar. Its a very unique industry, and only Vince has mastered it, therefore I give him the benefit of the doubt on decisions.

The other major beef I have is when people talk like Vince makes decisions for anything other than making money for his company in mind. The narrative is usually things like "oh he wanted to bury that guy because he's from WCW". Has any of the so called reporters in this industry ever got a quote from Vince or HHH to validate that claim? No of course not. But the people who read that garbage, take it like its gospel, and try to pass it off as fact in conversations like this one.

Roman Reigns may not catch on as a #1 babyface, but it wasnt long ago, when he looked like he was on his way to becoming just that. The same Vince that is apparently out of touch, also managed to place Daniel Bryan in the main event of 30 and create one of the most special moments in WWE history. Was he out of touch by having Daniel go down with a career threatening injury? The same Vince green lights NXT every night. Because NXT exists to appeal to a subset of the sports entertainment audience, the people on here say its the best thing in the company. Its the same guy giving the go ahead. Cant have it both ways thats all.

You think? That's exactly the problem. No, Dale got it right. You think wrong.

Also, you do realize that Jim Cornette was right there at Vince McMahon's right-hand side during some of the most critical re-building periods the WWE has ever had, right?

One could very easily make the argument that Vince never "created" a massive international star on his own either. He's given them platforms, which is what the role of an old-school booker was to do.

What about Kevin Sullivan? He basically created Goldberg by using a Mike Tyson template. I'm not a massive hater of The Berg, but you can't deny that how he was presented was a large part of his success in the industry. It's really annoying when you do this "Vince is responsible for all the good; none of the bad" bullshit.

It's also been widely reported that Vince does not have much input in NXT at all. Sure, he could shut it down in a second -- but let's not pretend he's running that show or a major creative influence. That's just not true.

Your last paragraphs just ramble into nonsense. Apparently you should ask a racist if he racist or something. You're impossible. There is plenty of supported evidence that allows you to see a large picture of what the WWE culture is like, and what Vince McMahon's attitudes are towards certain things.

[Mr. Nerfect]

This says all you need to know about the modern Vince McMahon, and where he feels priorities are:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/WWE">@WWE</a>. E is for entertainment.
<a href="http://t.co/48SOQyqI29">pic.twitter.com/48SOQyqI29</a></p>&mdash; Vince McMahon (@VinceMcMahon) <a href="https://twitter.com/VinceMcMahon/status/643919759415898113">September 15, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Mr. Nerfect]

Didn't HHH say in the Stone Cold podcast that its frustrating that the internet nerds know more about that is going on sometimes than the actual writers? Pretty sure that occurred in some form in the past year.

He definitely said it recently in response to some criticism or something. And I'm sure he has a point -- even in the territory days when one person had the book, you'd still have to juggle egos, politics, injuries and all that sort of thing. Now you do have merchandising agreements, licencing agreements, video game placements, network relations, international television agreements, contracts and many things on top of that. With all that being said, the WWE is not being forced to have a shitty product right now.

The fact that the format is the same, tired old thing each and every week just fucking sucks. It's bad television, as any writer could tell you. Redundancy is a cardinal sin, and I can't remember the last time a Stephanie McMahon promo had a point. In fact, last week she actually said "As you just said" to preface what she was saying. Fucking yawn. Maybe Bonnie Hammer or whatever her name is wants McMahons on television. Well, the McMahons can still explain that their appearances are worth more when they are sporadic. If that doesn't get through, you can still drip them in effectively over an episode, instead of the storytime segments off top.

And that's down to Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn. They think that is a "hook" at the start of their show in 2015. Okay, fine. Well, your hook is not fighting the downward trend in ratings.
"Oh, but television is changing!"
RAW is a live program designed for prime-time viewing on a Monday night. It's broken people's viewing habits, and people aren't watching live anymore. What happened to that experience? What happened to that "catch it as it happens" edge that the program used to have? Was it the hot-shotting of the Attitude era? Possibly, but there's no doubt that people are finding the product sterile. Is it overexposure and product fatigue?

There are far more people who WANT to watch than are watching. Not everybody who likes watching wrestling is watching WWE, and that is a realistic grab of an audience they are missing. The other day, I heard a kid talking about Rey Mysterio and Shawn Michaels. Neither is involved in the WWE product currently. Are the WWE Network subscriptions for the current product, or are they for the nostalgia material?

In the past, I've wanted to see guys pushed, only to later learn that they weren't really a great worker and I didn't understand the fuck-ups they were making. Attitude problems come to the surface. But that being said, it doesn't excuse the WWE for booking the current crop of guys they do SO FUCKING BADLY! I no longer care about them! That's not me saying "I could do better". I know a lot of people who could make me care about them more though. And I am a fan, I do have an opinion, I do have a critical eye for what I do and don't enjoy, so let me tell you -- the current WWE fucking sucks. I WISH it didn't. But it does. And the big problem is with them and not others.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I definitely think I am smarter than an out of touch 70 year old man who thinks that poop and fart jokes are the pinnacle of comedy. Now this Cynick character may scoff at that but he seems to share that 70 year old man's idea of what's entertaining so... I DUNNO *fart*

Well let's be reasonable. As far as creative and coherent ideas, I think Vince is probably past his sell by date. But there's more to being just a creative mind that goes into the product. Variables that you and I would probably crumble having them forced upon us.

So yeah, while creatively, I can think of something far better than the Katie Vick angle, or having to reference Reid Flair's death to appeal to the lowest common denominator... I also wouldn't really know how to coordinate with a producer how to piece a show together to ensure Brock Lesnar comes across as a star.

I mean I'd get the idea of how to BOOK him like a star, but the logistics and the ins and outs make Vince a genius. It does go a little beyond the storylines... which I really wish it didn't. Plus as Chris Jericho has pointed out, there is that fine line b/w genius and madness, which Vince often crosses. Every 1000 shitty ideas he has and we're forced to stomach, he has one MONEY idea where every thing clicks and I could probably say I wouldn't be able to make that happen. I could maybe think of the idea, but I couldn't be the quarterback and make it happen.

And I mean for every fart and poop joke that is terrible, when Vince is in character and on screen, he is pretty fucking hilarious.

[The CyNick]

No human being is perfect though Cynick, his motives are not pure money, everyone has their pride, arrogance and personal likes and dislikes to stop us from being robots.

Is it so strange to think that Vince might not have gone for certain things because they weren't his creations or characters, for example.

He has proven, with the likes of Punk and Bryan that if he sees cash, he can be flexible, but it is unrealistic to think he hasn't made bad decisions based on other factors before.

He is a genius, and is rightly heralded as such, but we have seen this before in WWE before WCW tackled them. Even the best of us get in a rut and get too comfortable.

And of course I have never once said Vince is perfect. If you asked someone on here do I think Vince is perfect, they would say yes, but thats because most people on here read what they want to read, not what is actually written.

No, I think at the end of the day Vince does what HE THINKS is what the fans want, because in the long run, thats best for business. The guy has THE MOST PROFITABLE company in the history of the entire industry. Thats not by accident.

Its more than Punk and Bryan. In 2004 he pushed Eddie and Benoit. If you go by the Dirt Sheet Playbook, those guys had multiple strikes against them; "WCW guys", "midgets", one of them couldnt cut a promo if his life depended on it, etc. Yet somehow those guys were pushed to the moon. But since that doesnt fit into the narrative, its largely ignored.

In all honesty, its overblown on here. The majority of people liked the low rent elements of the Attitude Era, and a result, they say the current era sucks. Ive been watching since the early to mid 80s, and I still enjoy it. But my opinion doesnt count because it goes against the Dirst Sheet Playbook.

[#1-norm-fan]

From a business and marketing standpoint, he's well aware of what he's doing. That includes all the little production aspects. CyNick wants to throw a blanket reference to him being a genius out there as if his business smarts is directly related to his creative mind so if you think giving a diva a farting gimmick or ending a heavily-featured blood feud without explanation is retarded, YOU must be wrong because Vince can't be.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

But my opinion doesnt count because it goes against the Dirst Sheet Playbook.

Incorrect.

[The CyNick]

So because they don't get their info straight from the top, they're not legit reporters or don't have legit inside sources?

You can't compare real sports reporting to WWE reporting. Real sports reporters have actual access to the top coaches, players, staff, etc., through league mandated/required weekly press conferences, media days, etc. Not only that but many of the best sports coaches, teams, etc., are often highly secretive or sandbag reporters regarding game plans, deal negotiations, injuries, etc. With the exception of the NFL's mandatory injury reporting being the strictest regarding info that teams are required to disclose.

WWE doesn't have mandatory weekly press conferences or media days with the upper level executives, talent or staff regarding game plans, deal negotiations, injuries, etc. WWE doesn't want to reveal their secrets or have a narrative get out that they don't control. There's no benefit to Vince or HHH answering questions about creative plans, etc. so they don't even allow the opportunity. There's also no benefit to the top coaches, talent, staff of real sports teams answering questions about game plans, etc. The difference is obviously most are required to provide the opportunity in real sports.

Don't get me wrong, there are many WWE sites/"reporters", including guys like TPWW's own Ryan Clark who just subscribe to Meltzer's work and then re-write it and pass it off as there own like they have inside sources. Those guys are horrible. To disparage Meltzer as some kind of guy who doesn't have inside info is stupid though. His info isn't always solid but find me someone reporting on an industry as unique as pro wrestling and you'll find that often their sources aren't always accurate either.

They are just terrible reporters. Actually, check that, they are just NOT reporters. But they like to pass themselves off like they are. Vince has done interviews in the past where he's shooting. He did the one with Austin, and Austin hit him with questions that were controversial, and Vince answered them without blinking an eye. And that was on his own Network, so obviously he's not afraid to pull back the curtain. The problem with the Dirt Sheets is that if they were to interview Vince, they wouldn't have the ability to lean on "sources say" to carry on their lies. And without the lies, they dont have the "controversies" to read about in their Dirt Sheets.

I've heard Triple H discuss backstage things in different setting. He was interviewed by Chris Jericho, and was very open about the behind the scenes happening. But what happens is when the Dirt Sheet guys get quotes that dont fit their narrative, they just ignore it as "well he's just working".

I dont know why you are hating on Ryan. Anything I see posted gives credit to whatever publication they are pulling the info from. Its the guys like Dave (there are others too, I just mention him specifically because he's the top guy) that pass themselves off as "insiders", when the reality is they have no connections to the top levels of the creative workings of WWE.

Survivor Series is one of probably 100 examples of shoddy reporting. The reports going into SurvSer was "WWE is deciding between Reigns and Ambrose for champion". When the tournament was first revealed, most people on here GUESSED that Reigns and Ambrose would end up in the Finals. I think Noid nailed the Final Four perfectly. Does that mean he's an "insider" or was it just the most logical booking? So the Dirst Sheet writers run with that GUESS and pass it off as "inside information". Then when they are WRONG, they backtrack and run with the classic excuse "well WWE changes their mind all the time, so there was chaos, and a last minute change resulted in Sheamus as champ". Why not just ask Vince or Hunter if there was a last minute change? Because it doesn't work with their narrative.

[The CyNick]

Didn't HHH say in the Stone Cold podcast that its frustrating that the internet nerds know more about that is going on sometimes than the actual writers? Pretty sure that occurred in some form in the past year.

I listened to that interview, I just dont recall the quote. Would need to know the context.

[The CyNick]

I definitely think I am smarter than an out of touch 70 year old man who thinks that poop and fart jokes are the pinnacle of comedy. Now this Cynick character may scoff at that but he seems to share that 70 year old man's idea of what's entertaining so... I DUNNO *fart*

Hahaha, how is your billion dollar company doing?

I find it ironic that you are talking about a 70 year old man is out of touch, and you are in a thread that is talking about what a crisis it is that Monday's ratings have declined. You should read some recent articles about what major networks think about daily TV ratings that dont factor in DVR and Digital numbers. At least Vince has the excuse of being 70 years, whats your excuse for not understanding the paradigm shift in entertainment consumption.

BTW - WWE is I believe the 5th most popular VOD service. Not bad for an out of touch 70 year old.

[The CyNick]

This says all you need to know about the modern Vince McMahon, and where he feels priorities are:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/WWE">@WWE</a>. E is for entertainment.
<a href="http://t.co/48SOQyqI29">pic.twitter.com/48SOQyqI29</a></p>&mdash; Vince McMahon (@VinceMcMahon) <a href="https://twitter.com/VinceMcMahon/status/643919759415898113">September 15, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I find New Day entertaining.

Another Vince creation.

[BigCrippyZ]

Why not just ask Vince or Hunter if there was a last minute change? Because it doesn't work with their narrative.

Are you dense or do you lack reading comprehension abilities? I just told you why. They don't have access to Vince or HHH.

Guys like Jericho and Austin do. Not only that, but by going on with Jericho or Austin, (especially on WWE Network) they can still control more of the the narrative. I.e., "Don't ask me any questions about future creative plans."

I'm not saying HHH or Vince won't be honest when being interviewed by someone like Austin or Jericho, but it's always questions about things after the fact. In their interviews with HHH or Vince, Austin and Jericho aren't asking what the future creative plans are.

In comparison, you can have reporters who know people working in the company who are privy to future/upcoming creative and/or business decisions who will share them prior to them occurring.

[The CyNick]

You think? That's exactly the problem. No, Dale got it right. You think wrong.

Also, you do realize that Jim Cornette was right there at Vince McMahon's right-hand side during some of the most critical re-building periods the WWE has ever had, right?

One could very easily make the argument that Vince never "created" a massive international star on his own either. He's given them platforms, which is what the role of an old-school booker was to do.

What about Kevin Sullivan? He basically created Goldberg by using a Mike Tyson template. I'm not a massive hater of The Berg, but you can't deny that how he was presented was a large part of his success in the industry. It's really annoying when you do this "Vince is responsible for all the good; none of the bad" bullshit.

It's also been widely reported that Vince does not have much input in NXT at all. Sure, he could shut it down in a second -- but let's not pretend he's running that show or a major creative influence. That's just not true.

Your last paragraphs just ramble into nonsense. Apparently you should ask a racist if he racist or something. You're impossible. There is plenty of supported evidence that allows you to see a large picture of what the WWE culture is like, and what Vince McMahon's attitudes are towards certain things.

Do you know what exactly Cornette contributed to WWE's rebuild? Dont tell me what the Dirt Sheet writers wrote, give me your own inside scoops. What I know is that since he left WWE, Cornette has not done anything worth talking about, except complain on the internet. Probably tells you all you need to know about his contributions vs Vince's.

You know who else had a major contribution to WWE's success in the late 90s? Vince Russo. Notice he didnt make your Wall of Fame (doesnt fit the narrative, I know). Did you see what happened to him after he left Vince's wing? I did too, it wasnt pretty.

Ive never once said "Vince is responsible for all the good and none of the bad". If I was an American, I would sue you for liable. But I'm a good natured Canadian, so I will let it pass. But hey, it upped your word count, so well done lad.

NXT has been reported as Triple H's baby. Of course the NXT Triple H is a different person than the Dirt Sheet villain Triple H who buries everyone so he can push himself. I bet he's just building NXT so that he can book himself against the entire roster and Pedigree them all. That aside, the issue that gets lost is that NXT is a company wide effort. Triple H has said himself that NXT is meant to target a different audience from RAW and Smackdown. Quite frankly, booking to satisfy the passionate WWE fans is easier, but it likely wont appeal to the wider audience. Thats why its on the WWE Network, which is essentialy made up of all passionate fans. At the end of the day, if Vince thought it was crap, he wouldn't allow it on his Network. But he does, and he pushes it like crazy, and allows it to grow.

Most interviews I've read of guys who were real players in WWE and would have had extensive experience with Vince usually have nothing but positive things to say about him.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I find New Day entertaining.

Another Vince creation.

Actually, when talking to the guys from New Day, Vince completely missed the mark with them, and it was those guys figuring it out on their own which made it happen. That is from their own mouths, not the dirtsheets.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Do you know what exactly Cornette contributed to WWE's rebuild? Dont tell me what the Dirt Sheet writers wrote, give me your own inside scoops. What I know is that since he left WWE, Cornette has not done anything worth talking about, except complain on the internet. Probably tells you all you need to know about his contributions vs Vince's.

You know who else had a major contribution to WWE's success in the late 90s? Vince Russo. Notice he didnt make your Wall of Fame (doesnt fit the narrative, I know). Did you see what happened to him after he left Vince's wing? I did too, it wasnt pretty.

Ive never once said "Vince is responsible for all the good and none of the bad". If I was an American, I would sue you for liable. But I'm a good natured Canadian, so I will let it pass. But hey, it upped your word count, so well done lad.

NXT has been reported as Triple H's baby. Of course the NXT Triple H is a different person than the Dirt Sheet villain Triple H who buries everyone so he can push himself. I bet he's just building NXT so that he can book himself against the entire roster and Pedigree them all. That aside, the issue that gets lost is that NXT is a company wide effort. Triple H has said himself that NXT is meant to target a different audience from RAW and Smackdown. Quite frankly, booking to satisfy the passionate WWE fans is easier, but it likely wont appeal to the wider audience. Thats why its on the WWE Network, which is essentialy made up of all passionate fans. At the end of the day, if Vince thought it was crap, he wouldn't allow it on his Network. But he does, and he pushes it like crazy, and allows it to grow.

Most interviews I've read of guys who were real players in WWE and would have had extensive experience with Vince usually have nothing but positive things to say about him.

Any time you reference the dirt sheets you deserve to have your nuts zapped. You actually sound retarded.

[The CyNick]

From a business and marketing standpoint, he's well aware of what he's doing. That includes all the little production aspects. CyNick wants to throw a blanket reference to him being a genius out there as if his business smarts is directly related to his creative mind so if you think giving a diva a farting gimmick or ending a heavily-featured blood feud without explanation is retarded, YOU must be wrong because Vince can't be.

Ive never said he's batting 100%

Ive said his batting average is multiple times better than anyone else in the history of the business.

[#1-norm-fan]

*poops on CyNick's head*

*is now best friends with CyNick for some reason*

*farts*

*sends genius post to Vince McMahon*

*accepts job offer*

[BigCrippyZ]

Actually, when talking to the guys from New Day, Vince completely missed the mark with them, and it was those guys figuring it out on their own which made it happen. That is from their own mouths, not the dirtsheets.

Cynick: "Yeah, but it doesn't matter that New Day said that. If it doesn't come directly from Vince or HHH, it isn't credible and didn't happen."

[The CyNick]

Are you dense or do you lack reading comprehension abilities? I just told you why. They don't have access to Vince or HHH.

Guys like Jericho and Austin do. Not only that, but by going on with Jericho or Austin, (especially on WWE Network) they can still control more of the the narrative. I.e., "Don't ask me any questions about future creative plans."

I'm not saying HHH or Vince won't be honest when being interviewed by someone like Austin or Jericho, but it's always questions about things after the fact. In their interviews with HHH or Vince, Austin and Jericho aren't asking what the future creative plans are.

In comparison, you can have reporters who know people working in the company who are privy to future/upcoming creative and/or business decisions who will share them prior to them occurring.

Im not saying they should ask about future plans. I'm saying now that Surv Ser is behind them, they could ask if that was a change in direction. My point is they dont even TRY to interview the actual decision makers because it doesnt help their cause.

I know what you are saying about Austin, but Austin asked him point blank about Cesaro, which was a thing that was ongoing at the time, and Vince gave an honest answer about his opinions and why he wasn't being pushed to the moon. It just shows how WWE doesn't respect the Dirst Sheet guys as legitimate reporters, because they are not.

I can start a blog tomorrow about the NHL and get 100K followers. Doesnt mean Im going to get accredited to cover NHL games.

[The CyNick]

Actually, when talking to the guys from New Day, Vince completely missed the mark with them, and it was those guys figuring it out on their own which made it happen. That is from their own mouths, not the dirtsheets.

But thats what guys are supposed to do. Vince took three guys going NOWHERE and said here's a platform, try to make it work.

New Day is actually a shining example of guys who went out and grabbed the brass ring that Vince talks about.

Just like when Vince put Hunter with Pac and The Outlaws, I dont think he envisioned they would do exactly what they did, but he gave them the platform, and they contributed creatively, and Vince gave it the green light. New Day is doing that today, just within the confines of a PG Universe.

[The CyNick]

Any time you reference the dirt sheets you deserve to have your nuts zapped. You actually sound retarded.

Thats what people in the industry call them.

I could use the term you would prefer...role models.

[The CyNick]

*poops on CyNick's head*

*is now best friends with CyNick for some reason*

*farts*

*sends genius post to Vince McMahon*

*accepts job offer*

I admire your persistence.

[The CyNick]

Cynick: "Yeah, but it doesn't matter that New Day said that. If it doesn't come directly from Vince or HHH, it isn't credible and didn't happen."

You Got SWERVED

[BigCrippyZ]

My point is they dont even TRY to interview the actual decision makers because it doesnt help their cause.

Again, you're making an assumption. You actually think that if a lot of these "reporters" had the opportunity to interview or question Vince or HHH, they'd turn it down or not mention it?

I know what you are saying about Austin, but Austin asked him point blank about Cesaro, which was a thing that was ongoing at the time, and Vince gave an honest answer about his opinions and why he wasn't being pushed to the moon. It just shows how WWE doesn't respect the Dirst Sheet guys as legitimate reporters, because they are not.

I can start a blog tomorrow about the NHL and get 100K followers. Doesnt mean Im going to get accredited to cover NHL games.

I agree that most of the "reporters" running these sites are actually terrible writers or don't have real sources from a traditional reporter standpoint. That being said, the few legit "dirt sheet" reporters there are out there shouldn't be disparaged because they're not working for a major media outlet.

What about me? I left a large, established law firm and now run my own large, successful firm. Does that mean I'm not really an attorney or less of an attorney?

[Simple Fan]

CyNick has now been demoted from ZZ to VKM Kiss my Ass club photos.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwdeujTp7YfbUyjYi8_GLhRrW7uyuesLOijlrKBj5FzKicGkwdRQ

[The CyNick]

CyNick has now been demoted from ZZ to VKM Kiss my Ass club photos.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwdeujTp7YfbUyjYi8_GLhRrW7uyuesLOijlrKBj5FzKicGkwdRQ

hahaha

classic

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Thats what people in the industry call them.

I could use the term you would prefer...role models.

lol yes, I live every day wishing to be Dave Meltzer.

[The CyNick]

lol yes, I live every day wishing to be Dave Meltzer.

You said it

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I can only assume you dream of being Kevn Dunn. A creepy little weirdo with a poo fetish.

[Theo Dious]

I love how this place is so easily butthurt that one person can completely own the whole place.

CYNICK 4 LYFE

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Actually Theddy Damndest, I know it's easy to go with that narrative if you're going to be black and white, but I don't think any body cares about someone enjoying the product and putting it over. What we get annoyed with is being told we're sheep because we don't enjoy the product.

I don't see this as about owning anyone and us being butthurt or trying to defeat the Cynick. We are responding to a guy telling us we don't understand something we have been a part of for multiple decades.

If anything, I want to give Cynick the chance to express his opinion without talking at us.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

and if your focus is on other people being butt hurt, I'd say you have some of your own issues you need to deal with.

[#1-norm-fan]

I admire your persistence.

Do you? Does that mean you're finally gonna respond to that post of mine you've been avoiding for a month (as I BELIEVE you gave your word you'd be doing in post 293 of the jump the shark thread) or are you just gonna admit you're backed into a corner as far as defending WWE's writing? Or are you just gonna keep ignoring it hoping it will go away and you can keep bullshitting your way into thinking WWE's writing is top notch? I bet you keep going with that last option. Just a hunch.

[#1-norm-fan]

I can only assume you dream of being Kevn Dunn. A creepy little weirdo with a poo fetish.

*tries to fart but accidentally poops*

*sends description of incident to Kevin Dunn to pitch at next creative meeting*

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Dunn: Genius! Give this to Sasha Banks! Where's Sasha? She's in the can!

[Mr. Nerfect]

Do you know what exactly Cornette contributed to WWE's rebuild? Dont tell me what the Dirt Sheet writers wrote, give me your own inside scoops. What I know is that since he left WWE, Cornette has not done anything worth talking about, except complain on the internet. Probably tells you all you need to know about his contributions vs Vince's.

You know who else had a major contribution to WWE's success in the late 90s? Vince Russo. Notice he didnt make your Wall of Fame (doesnt fit the narrative, I know). Did you see what happened to him after he left Vince's wing? I did too, it wasnt pretty.

Ive never once said "Vince is responsible for all the good and none of the bad". If I was an American, I would sue you for liable. But I'm a good natured Canadian, so I will let it pass. But hey, it upped your word count, so well done lad.

NXT has been reported as Triple H's baby. Of course the NXT Triple H is a different person than the Dirt Sheet villain Triple H who buries everyone so he can push himself. I bet he's just building NXT so that he can book himself against the entire roster and Pedigree them all. That aside, the issue that gets lost is that NXT is a company wide effort. Triple H has said himself that NXT is meant to target a different audience from RAW and Smackdown. Quite frankly, booking to satisfy the passionate WWE fans is easier, but it likely wont appeal to the wider audience. Thats why its on the WWE Network, which is essentialy made up of all passionate fans. At the end of the day, if Vince thought it was crap, he wouldn't allow it on his Network. But he does, and he pushes it like crazy, and allows it to grow.

Most interviews I've read of guys who were real players in WWE and would have had extensive experience with Vince usually have nothing but positive things to say about him.

Cornette came up with the Hell in a Cell idea, he was largely responsible for protecting Kane during the first six months of his career. He, Jim Ross and Bruce Pritchard would hang out with Vince at his house and block out the entire show. After leaving the main roster, he went down to OVW, where he helped craft basically anyone that came up from OVW at that point in time until Heyman took over in 2005.

His plans for ROH were basically what Triple H did with NXT, except Sinclair didn't commit to them. What a bad idea, huh?

Cornette and Russo are very different people with very different attitudes to the industry. It's not a case of not fitting the narrative, it's a case of them playing different roles in them.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I can start a blog tomorrow about the NHL and get 100K followers. Doesnt mean Im going to get accredited to cover NHL games.

But if you're the biggest game in town, doesn't that mean you must be doing something right? Doesn't the market dictate which product should survive?

[Mr. Nerfect]

But thats what guys are supposed to do. Vince took three guys going NOWHERE and said here's a platform, try to make it work.

New Day is actually a shining example of guys who went out and grabbed the brass ring that Vince talks about.

Just like when Vince put Hunter with Pac and The Outlaws, I dont think he envisioned they would do exactly what they did, but he gave them the platform, and they contributed creatively, and Vince gave it the green light. New Day is doing that today, just within the confines of a PG Universe.

And why were these guys going nowhere? Seems that whenever something good happens it's "Praise Vince!" and whenever nothing is happening, somehow it's the talent's fault. That seems especially contradictory to your alleged point that Vince McMahon is involved so heavily in the creative direction of everything, including NXT (which many insiders -- yes, people actually involved in the business -- have confirmed that he doesn't).

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>Crediting Vince with getting the New Day over is hilarious. It's well documented that he intended for the group to be faces, and he could not understand at all why the group was getting booed to shit for months. He actually thought they were going to win over the crowds and especially the African-American demographic with that shit.

The members themselves acknowledged that Vince never saw them as a heel group. They basically turned themselves heel by realizing their reactions were terrible. At that point they no longer gave a fuck and had really nothing to lose so they decided to just have fun with it and it's worked spectacularly well, to the point where Vince can't go back to the original plan.

New Day has thrived in spite of Vince, not because of him.</font>

[Ruien]

<font color=goldenrod>Crediting Vince with getting the New Day over is hilarious. It's well documented that he intended for the group to be faces, and he could not understand at all why the group was getting booed to shit for months. He actually thought they were going to win over the crowds and especially the African-American demographic with that shit.

The members themselves acknowledged that Vince never saw them as a heel group. They basically turned themselves heel by realizing their reactions were terrible. At that point they no longer gave a fuck and had really nothing to lose so they decided to just have fun with it and it's worked spectacularly well, to the point where Vince can't go back to the original plan.

New Day has thrived in spite of Vince, not because of him.</font>

Yes but did Vince or HHH say that in an interview? Nope? Sorry :'( It does not matter if the talent says it. Needs it to come from Vince or HHH.

[Savio]

Kofi said in an interview that he himself want the group to be faces

[Rollermacka]

Yes but did Vince or HHH say that in an interview? Nope? Sorry :'( It does not matter if the talent says it. Needs it to come from Vince or HHH.

How dare you question the Almighty Meltzer or the Gospel PWI with your logical skepticism..... If you read something quoted from "an anonymous source" your better believe it's the truth!

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>The group talked at length in Jericho's podcast that Vince wanted the group to be faces and actually thought it would work. That's good enough for me since they'd have no reason to make it up.</font>

[Damian Rey]

Yeah, but don't you remember when Daniel Bryan lied about Mania plans to protect Kayfabe and Batista lied about Mania plans because Vince doesn't tell his talents everything? C'mon Vito, get it together.

[Ruien]

Vito is the dirtsheet sheep to the max. Maaan, Vito, you need real facts here. The only thing that counts as a fact is if Vince or HHH states it. Maybe Steph depending on who is doing the interview.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

lol Dave Meltzer is a constant interview with Steve Austin and Jim Ross on their podcasts, who they make it clear that they respect and actually defer to for information on wrestling.

That's not to say Meltzer isn't full of shit from time to time, but he's a pretty even keel reporter and I don't think either Jim Ross or Austin (MAMMOTHS in the business) would bother with him if he was some punk. Same with Wade Keller.

But Cynick obviously knows more than Ross and Austin. Especially about what Vince is thinking, because 2 men who worked closely with Vince wouldn't know Vince like Cynick.

[McLegend]

I don't see the issue in HHH beating Sting.

1) Sting wasn't hurt at all by losing to HHH. Sting does have a name value, and the WWE did do a good job building his name prior to Wrestlemania to give him even more credit.

2) Sting was going away for a while after Wrestlemania and HHH wasn't going anywhere so for that reason alone HHH should have won.

[McLegend]

O shit was the Sting/HHH thing in the other thread?

Fuck

[Rollermacka]

Vito is the dirtsheet sheep to the max. Maaan, Vito, you need real facts here. The only thing that counts as a fact is if Vince or HHH states it. Maybe Steph depending on who is doing the interview.

Since were on the subject, I personally think 90% of what "dirt sheets" report are bull shit. I use TNA as an example. Meltzer reports back in like July that he received a "memo from a DA executive" saying TNA is getting cancelled in Oct (I don't know how a journalist who does not work for either company would receive such privileged information, but let's say he did) So October rolls around and TNA is still on DA..... then Dixie does an interview saying TNA is moving stations in 2016.... so then the dirt sheets "report" that they WERE going to cancel them in Oct, but they gave them an extension to be on TV.

[The CyNick]

Do you? Does that mean you're finally gonna respond to that post of mine you've been avoiding for a month (as I BELIEVE you gave your word you'd be doing in post 293 of the jump the shark thread) or are you just gonna admit you're backed into a corner as far as defending WWE's writing? Or are you just gonna keep ignoring it hoping it will go away and you can keep bullshitting your way into thinking WWE's writing is top notch? I bet you keep going with that last option. Just a hunch.

I actually said in that thread that I thought it was lazy writing, but the issue was the talent screwed it up, so it got to a point where its useless to try to fix it through writing. They just decided to hit the reset button. That doesn't make it good writing, just understandable. And I dont think one angle being terrible means 'everything sucks'.

What I would recommend you do is look up Victor Newman vs Jack Abbott. And tell me there is 100% continuity between them being allies and enemies. The show those characters are on is the #1 daytime drama, and has been for years and years.

[The CyNick]

Cornette came up with the Hell in a Cell idea, he was largely responsible for protecting Kane during the first six months of his career. He, Jim Ross and Bruce Pritchard would hang out with Vince at his house and block out the entire show. After leaving the main roster, he went down to OVW, where he helped craft basically anyone that came up from OVW at that point in time until Heyman took over in 2005.

His plans for ROH were basically what Triple H did with NXT, except Sinclair didn't commit to them. What a bad idea, huh?

Cornette and Russo are very different people with very different attitudes to the industry. It's not a case of not fitting the narrative, it's a case of them playing different roles in them.

You're throwing out random things that Cornette apparently did. Do you have sources on this? Please please dont say the sheets or Cornette himself.

Ask Kevin Owens about Cornette as a booker/person in charge. Guys like you like and respect Owens, right?

[The CyNick]

<font color=goldenrod>Crediting Vince with getting the New Day over is hilarious. It's well documented that he intended for the group to be faces, and he could not understand at all why the group was getting booed to shit for months. He actually thought they were going to win over the crowds and especially the African-American demographic with that shit.

The members themselves acknowledged that Vince never saw them as a heel group. They basically turned themselves heel by realizing their reactions were terrible. At that point they no longer gave a fuck and had really nothing to lose so they decided to just have fun with it and it's worked spectacularly well, to the point where Vince can't go back to the original plan.

New Day has thrived in spite of Vince, not because of him.</font>

Who said 'Vince could not understand why they were getting booed'?

At the end of the day Vince will be proven right. They are 3 black guys, basically playing over the top preachers, talking about positivity. They will be full fledged babyfaces at some point in 2016.

I dont see how you can say they succeeded in spite of Vince. He took three characters that were aimless as singles, and put them together. Vince has said on many occasions that he listens to the crowd. He repackaged New Day, and maybe he did think they would catch on babyfaces right off the bat. They didnt, so he listened to the fans, and turned them heel. Now you can see the fans starting to take to them (as Vince expected to happen) and they will likely go babyface at some point.

What I will say in this case, is the New Day guys took the Unicorn by the horn, and rather than just drowning when the gimmick didnt catch on in the exact way as first laid out, they adapted, and added their own flare. No different than how Rock rolled with the punches when he was getting booed, and created a character that turned into a massive success. But he still needed Vince to buy in to the shift, just like New Day would have has to sell Vince on what they are doing now. Its a joint effort between Vince and the talent.

[The CyNick]

Yeah, but don't you remember when Daniel Bryan lied about Mania plans to protect Kayfabe and Batista lied about Mania plans because Vince doesn't tell his talents everything? C'mon Vito, get it together.

So you think Vince lays out every long term plan to all talent. Vince tells guys what they need to know when they need to know it.

Roman Reigns said he wasn't told about Mania booking until the night before.

But in your mind, we just ignore what Roman said regarding how far in advance the talent was filled in with plans because it doesnt fit the narrative.

[Simple Fan]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTesZTzL4Qe_-xnCW0XnGygQu_fZA8wkdygtgWXXdUPoR6c10K0

[The CyNick]

lol Dave Meltzer is a constant interview with Steve Austin and Jim Ross on their podcasts, who they make it clear that they respect and actually defer to for information on wrestling.

That's not to say Meltzer isn't full of shit from time to time, but he's a pretty even keel reporter and I don't think either Jim Ross or Austin (MAMMOTHS in the business) would bother with him if he was some punk. Same with Wade Keller.

But Cynick obviously knows more than Ross and Austin. Especially about what Vince is thinking, because 2 men who worked closely with Vince wouldn't know Vince like Cynick.

I have no problem with Dave in terms of historical knowledge. For example, if I wanted when someone in the business dies, I think he's a solid source for bios and stuff like that. Beyond that, Austin and Ross are trying to sell their podcasts to the same people who currently read the sheets, so it makes sense to speak to their fearless leader.

Where I think he's full of shit is his access to inside information. I think (check that, I know with 100% certainty) his info is BS. I believe his whole business is based on selling the idea that WWE is in constant trouble, and are always doing the wrong thing. You gotta pay to read next week's issue to know what mistakes are being made. I cant remember the first issue of the Dirt Sheet I ever read, might have been 98 or 99, but even then he was selling issues in the same manner, and business was great. Then he is able to backtrack on everything by saying WWE is constantly changing plans. Okay!

[The CyNick]

I don't see the issue in HHH beating Sting.

1) Sting wasn't hurt at all by losing to HHH. Sting does have a name value, and the WWE did do a good job building his name prior to Wrestlemania to give him even more credit.

2) Sting was going away for a while after Wrestlemania and HHH wasn't going anywhere so for that reason alone HHH should have won.

#2 is the biggest thing to me.

HHH is a weekly TV character. If it was Steve Austin coming back to wrestle, then sure, I would say its fine for HHH to lose. But Sting is not Austin. HHH got the win, but they moved mountains to protect Sting in that match.

The other thing that gets ignored is that from his debut, Sting never really got the type of pop you would expect from a top level star. It was a nice pop, but I remember hearing it, and thinking I expected more.

[Simple Fan]

The pop for Sting was fine. Hinter is not going to be hurt by a Sting loss and using Sting to sell the Monday Night Wars is a bigger waste of Sting than anything he did in TNA beside the Jeff Hardy incident. Wish Sting would have stayed away from WWE and just retired. The mans reasoning for not signing with WWE years back is exactly why he should have stayed away. WWE has no idea how to use Sting and really never intended on making Sting look like the Icon he is.

[Ruien]

Since were on the subject, I personally think 90% of what "dirt sheets" report are bull shit. I use TNA as an example. Meltzer reports back in like July that he received a "memo from a DA executive" saying TNA is getting cancelled in Oct (I don't know how a journalist who does not work for either company would receive such privileged information, but let's say he did) So October rolls around and TNA is still on DA..... then Dixie does an interview saying TNA is moving stations in 2016.... so then the dirt sheets "report" that they WERE going to cancel them in Oct, but they gave them an extension to be on TV.

I see where you are going with this but this was not really on topic. I was really making fun of CyNick for calling all and any wrestler not named HHH to not be a credible source of information while doing an interview.

[BigCrippyZ]

Where I think he's full of shit is his access to inside information. I think (check that, I know with 100% certainty) his info is BS.

:lol:

You're so full of shit. You're as big or even bigger a phony than most of the dirt sheet reporters.

You know his info is bullshit how exactly?

You completely ignore the times that Meltzer and others have been spot on in their reporting of future plans/outcomes. Instead all you do is focus on the times when they were incorrect in reporting future plans or outcomes and the fact they make money off of their reporting.

Vince and HHH are the only sources that are reliable to you and if dirt sheet reporters don't have access to Vince or HHH, they're full of shit. You never do address the issue of dirt sheet reporters simply not having access to guys like HHH or Vince but instead only have access to others in the company that will anonymously share future plans with them as they're made aware of them.

[BigCrippyZ]

Roman Reigns said he wasn't told about Mania booking until the night before.

But in your mind, we just ignore what Roman said regarding how far in advance the talent was filled in with plans because it doesnt fit the narrative.

Yes. I have NO problem believing and understanding that Roman wasn't told of the outcome of a match he was going to be in until the night before. It's completely reasonable, believable and understandable.

Roman isn't on the level of Rock, Batista, Austin, Taker, HHH, Cena, Jericho, Sting, etc. Roman doesn't have the contracts, stroke, experience, drawing power, history, etc. of guys like Rock, Batista, Austin, Taker, Cena, Jericho, etc.

Batista, Rock, Jericho, Taker, HHH, etc., all have the draw, contracts, history, etc., to decide whether or not they want to come back based on who they're going to work with and what the plans for them are. None of them may have the final say or expectations to know specific match outcomes or specific writing/booking plans or details more than a day in advance. It's reasonable to believe that guys like Rock, Batista, Lesnar, Taker, etc. would AT LEAST be told (either before or upon returning) what the overall plans and expectations were for them in terms of who they'll be feuding with, face/heel alignment, etc.

[Simple Fan]

Its also reasonable to believe that Vince doesn't completely make a decision on some things until last minute.

[BigCrippyZ]

Its also reasonable to believe that Vince doesn't completely make a decision on some things until last minute.

Very true. It's also reasonable to believe that Vince & co. often change their minds on their original plans.

[Ruien]

Yes it is. Did Vince ever tell you that in a notarized letter? If not then bullshit. Must have the stamp to prove it too.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I have no problem with Dave in terms of historical knowledge. For example, if I wanted when someone in the business dies, I think he's a solid source for bios and stuff like that. Beyond that, Austin and Ross are trying to sell their podcasts to the same people who currently read the sheets, so it makes sense to speak to their fearless leader.

Where I think he's full of shit is his access to inside information. I think (check that, I know with 100% certainty) his info is BS. I believe his whole business is based on selling the idea that WWE is in constant trouble, and are always doing the wrong thing. You gotta pay to read next week's issue to know what mistakes are being made. I cant remember the first issue of the Dirt Sheet I ever read, might have been 98 or 99, but even then he was selling issues in the same manner, and business was great. Then he is able to backtrack on everything by saying WWE is constantly changing plans. Okay!

He is very quick to point out when they were doing well and ACTUALLY to put over Vince when ever I've heard the chance. You are simply pushing your narrative.

lol I can't stop arguing with you, you're the cut on the roof of my mouth I can't stop tonguing, you sick bastard.

[Damian Rey]

So you think Vince lays out every long term plan to all talent. Vince tells guys what they need to know when they need to know it.

Roman Reigns said he wasn't told about Mania booking until the night before.

But in your mind, we just ignore what Roman said regarding how far in advance the talent was filled in with plans because it doesnt fit the narrative.

You're talking about results. I'm not talking results. I'm talking plans. Batista was told a plan. He has gone on record saying he was to come in as the huge babyface to challenge for the title. Daniel Bryan stated through several outlets, including a company produced documentary, that the plan was never to main event and only when the fans threatened to shit on the main event did things change.

To which again I ask why in the world those two would lie? What reason do they have to throw Vince under the bus?

[BigCrippyZ]

Yes it is. Did Vince ever tell you that in a notarized letter? If not then bullshit. Must have the stamp to prove it too.

Unfortunately no. :'(


"It's not true then."

[#BROKEN Hasney]

The Micker says this might be his last Raw

FINAL RAW FOR FOLEY?
WWE is at a real crossroads. Allow me to paraphrase Albert Einstein, who said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results". Wrestling historians can argue about when the ‪#‎AttitudeEra‬ in wrestling officially began. But for me, it will always be at a meeting called by Mr McMahon in the Spring of 1997, where he admitted that what had worked for them for so long in the past (I interpreted that to mean one-dimensional characters that tended to be job-related) was no longer working, and that if they were going to survive, the wrestlers themselves were going to have to step up, and help create those dimensions that would establish the emotional bond between the wrestlers and the fans - part of the lifeblood of professional wrestling.

Today's WWE Superstars (I'm including the women here, since the term "Diva" had its time, and that time is done) are at a distinct disadvantage in some ways. They can't flip birds, and use the colorful language. They can't bleed - even when the situation seems ripe for it. Man, Roman Reigns's life would be so much easier if he could survive vicious assaults the way guys in my era did. But all the blood, the language and the violence paled in comparison to the real secret weapon of the Attitude Era; the FREEDOM TO CREATE...THE FREEDOM TO TRY...THE FREEDOM TO FAIL - the idea that going down swinging (I hope I'm not losing you guys in all the non-baseball playing countries) was almost as important as hitting the ball out of the park - as long as you took your best swings. There's a difference between playing to win, and playing not to lose: one breeds confidence, the other breeds fear.It's the difference between cutting the type of promos Stone Cold Steve Austin and Dwayne The Rock Johnson gave, and the cookie-cutter approach all too often employed these days by WWE creative. One style allowed for creativity and emotion. The other calls for memorization and recitation.

I hope I don't sound like I'm picking on WWE. There is a big part of me that loves this company, and always will. Why else would I be up at 4:15 am, writing things that are likely to banish me deeper and deeper into the WWE doghouse? One of my favorite wrestlers proposed a storyline that would allow me a four of five week storyline that would allow me to dig in deep, and swing for the fences - and in the process, maybe advance a few of the super-talented but underutilized athletes on the roster. I would love to do it....but I doubt it's going to happen. After all, I might want to do something crazy like go out there without a script, and try to create some real emotion - in other words, the type of thing that saved WWE in the late 90's.

The talent pool has never been deeper. But the creative flow is stagnant...and it's been stinking for a while. I quoted Einstein to begin this thing. Let me conclude with the immortal words of Owen Heart: "Enough's enough: it's time for a change!"

He also mentioned in the comments:

It's frustrating. I live 90 minutes from WWE headquarters (less without traffic). They know I've offered to come in, for free, and give them my honest opinions. I have nothing to lose by telling them the truth. I don't work for them. If they don't like what I have to say, I get in my car and drive home. No big deal. But at least they get a different perspective.

[The CyNick]

Oh Mick.

I like Mick, I enjoyed his work over the years in WCW, ECW and of course WWE. But the guy is egotistical.

Why would he think WWE would randomly call him for his opinion? They have plenty of ex talent on the payroll who they can bounce creative ideas. Everything about that blurb comes down to "its all about Mick". We're nearing Mania season and Mick has an angle he should be involved him. I don't think he's at a stage where physically he should in a WWE ring. He wants everyone to gather around and find out if he's gong to stop watching (spoiler, he won't), does anyone really care?

On top of that he doesn't listen to what Vince says. Vince specifically said he thinks one of the problems with guys today is they are afraid to fail. The problem is the talent expects everything to be handed to them. He talks about scripts. This may sound mean, but Mick is likely heavily scripted because they don't trust him to stay on point and within time constraints. New Day talks about how they are not scripted and given the green light to do their own promos. But not everyone is that good, so the guys who are not, are heavily scripted. I believe it was Triple H who said some guys prefer it that way. That shouldn't be an indictment on WWE creative.

Mick talks about using blood to get Roman over. Sure, that would be easier. But I don't think Toys R Us and Kay Jewellers would appreciate being associated with a form of entertainment where grown men mutilate their bodies and bleed in front of little kids in the first row. The product is more mature now, more family friendly. Maybe because Mick needed all those gimmicks as a crutch to get over, he can't fathom how it can be done without it.

At the end of the day Mick is just trying to get more eyeballs on his blog, which is smart. He'll be watching next week, the week after, the month after, and the year after that. Bank on it.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Mick screwed Mick

[The CyNick]

Mick screwed Mick

Are you sad that Mick proved his idle threats were just that?

Mick may be the poster boy for the Dirt Sheet Follower Fans.

Complain complain complain, but never leave.

[Big Vic]

I left

[The CyNick]

I left

This is why I didn't make you the poster boy.

By the way, did you see that Wyatt bump through the table last night?

[Big Vic]

No did it look pretty cool? Post a gif.

[The CyNick]

No did it look pretty cool? Post a gif.

I have no idea how. Just watch the show.

[Big Vic]

Kofi said in an interview that he himself want the group to be faces
It was Xavier actually:

In the interview, Woods talked about their initial idea behind the positivity gimmick - and his version doesn't include Vince McMahon or Kevin Dunn telling the trio to dance or impersonate Tyler Perry:
...it's maybe one of the only positive things on television, because you turn on the news and there's death, murder, car crashes and everything. Here's a positive thing with three guys, all college educated, all college athletes, all very eloquent so we'll preach a positive message like ‘do well in life and go to school, make sure you work out you could be big and strong like E, make sure if you stretch a lot you can be flexible and agile like Kofi and make sure if you read your books you could be smart like Woods.'
And then we realized after a few months it turned into ‘people don't like those who are happy. So it's kind of like a play on society, essentially, people of American society.
Back in the 80s, if someone's happy, someone's doing well, someone's getting hardships, you cheered for that person. But now it's 2015, and they don't like that. They want someone who's grimy and who doesn't like people and who doesn't smile and isn't happy and wants to punt a puppy across a football field. If that happened, people would be watching and it would get 3 million views on YouTube because it's something that's horrible so essentially society has created this thing where people like to see car wrecks, and they want to see a hot mess and they want to see a fall from grace. So if you don't have those things people are going to boo you because that's not entertaining to them, they want to see a mess, they want to see somebody fall on the sidewalk and bust their lip on the ground. They don't like nice things.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Smackdown viewership reaches record low

- As noted, Thursday's Thanksgiving edition of WWE SmackDown drew a record-low 1.652 million viewers, down from the 2.229 the week before. The final rating for the show was a 1.15, down from the previous week's 1.64 rating. This is close to the lowest-rated SmackDown in Syfy history, going back to a 1.14 in December 2010 on their debut episode.
-wrestlinginc.com

Fun fact, TNA was averaging 1.17 rating with 1.61 million viewers in 2011. they literally reached TNA levels with smackdown last week

[Rammsteinmad]

Considering WWE barely gives a shit about Smackdown, why should the fans?

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Considering WWE barely gives a shit about Smackdown, why should the fans?

Have you READ the spoilers? Someone is very strong! Ratings will be too!

[The CyNick]

Smackdown viewership reaches record low


-wrestlinginc.com

Fun fact, TNA was averaging 1.17 rating with 1.61 million viewers in 2011. they literally reached TNA levels with smackdown last week

Lol

Is this serious?

You guys should all be wrestling journalists. You are all qualified!

Real talk time with The CyNick. Smackdown was the 2nd most watched show in its timeslot on cable on Thursday.

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>SmackDown has been completely irrelevant for years. Nothing new or interesting happens on there and pretty much any good SmackDown match will be repeated on Raw anyway.

SmackDown has been that way since the brand split ended. It's just sorta "there" as opposed to advancing any kind of story.</font>

[Big Vic]

But when it moves to USA it will be really important for 1 week.

[The CyNick]

Raw was back up BTW

Football was down

Still trying to figure out of there is a correlation.

[Big Vic]

According to showbuzzdaily.com (http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/), Monday’s edition of Raw did an average of 3.17 million viewers; this is up from last week’s 2.964 million viewers, which was a record low. Monday’s show did hours of 3.309 million viewers, 3.190 million viewers and 3.005 million viewers.
The NFL on ESPN (Ravens vs. Browns) drew 10.116 million viewers, and was #1 for the night. Raw gained around 200,000 viewers, while the Monday Night Football game was down nearly 4 million viewers. Raw was #3, trailing the NFL and Major Crimes. RAW was #5 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, they were behind the NFL, SportsCenter, Street Outlaws and Love & Hip-Hop.

hmm so they were #3 overall, and #5 18-49.

[Emperor Smeat]

In terms of viewers, still well below their average. If it wasn't for last week's disaster, this week would have been the new record low for some perspective.

8pm getting weaker and 10pm hovering around the sub 3 million levels is what has been hurting the ratings the most for this year.

[BigCrippyZ]

In 2013, the WWE had a viewership of over 4 million viewers on 30 editions of RAW.

In 2014, RAW broke the 4 million plus viewership mark on 34 episodes of the WWE’s flagship program.

In 2015, the WWE has only had RAW episodes that had over 4 million viewers watching a total of nine times. Seven of the nine times happened during WrestleMania season, where the WWE peaked the night after WrestleMania with a 5.36 million viewership. After that, the only other shows to crack over 4 million viewers was the go home show to Extreme Rules (4.038 million) and the night after the Money in the Bank pay per view (4.11 million).

[Big Vic]

Yeah but WWE signed a deal with NBC which gave them a lot of money so that means WWE's product is good.

[The CyNick]

hmm so they were #3 overall, and #5 18-49.

They are #3 for viewership virtually every week. Usually behind football and sportscenter.

[The CyNick]

Yeah but WWE signed a deal with NBC which gave them a lot of money so that means WWE's product is good.

The key is understanding what is happening to the viewers. If they are still consuming WWE but in another manner, it's fine. If they completely left, it's not as fine.

That said, television as a whole is seeing viewership shrink, they key is understanding how WWE compares with the rest of cable. WWE ratings could decline every year but if they are declining slower than the rest of cable, their TV rights fees will increase.

The most important stat that is rarely talked about by anyone other than me is that they added a ton of new advertisers in the latest upfronts. That's the biggest driver of rights fees. At the end of the day you want to generate the most dollars.

[Simple Fan]

I don't care how much damn money they make as long as they put on a damn good show. Your the only one that talk about WWEs finances, no one else cares that KFC and Hardies are adverting on Raw.

[#1-norm-fan]

They are #3 for viewership virtually every week. Usually behind football and sportscenter.

It wasn't Sportscenter. They were behind a show called "Major Crimes".

But they dummy every competitor that isn't football. How can this be!?

[Emperor Smeat]

RAW used to be #2 until very recently which might explain where some of the lost RAW audience has been heading off to.

For some perspective, NFL lost around 4 million viewers this week because of the poor MNF matchup and yet the WWE barely capitalized on that pool if the number this week is still lower than 2 weeks ago. They gained 200,000 viewers on average from last week but are missing another 100,000 from the week prior.

November 16, 2015
Hour one – 3,541,000 viewers
Hour two – 3,290,000 viewers
Hour three – 3,047,000 viewers
Average – 3,292,667 viewers

[#1-norm-fan]

They just decided to hit the reset button. That doesn't make it good writing, just understandable. And I dont think one angle being terrible means 'everything sucks'.

What I would recommend you do is look up Victor Newman vs Jack Abbott. And tell me there is 100% continuity between them being allies and enemies. The show those characters are on is the #1 daytime drama, and has been for years and years.

Now that you finally found it in you to give one of those awesome CyNick responses, let's break this down.

"I actually said in that thread that I thought it was lazy writing, but the issue was the talent screwed it up" is pretty much the most glaring example of how deep into the WWE apologist gimmick you are. Even when you can't think of an excuse to rationalize WWE's lazy writing, you still make it clear it was the talent's fault. You literally say "it's lazy writing but the issue was the talent screwed it up." What? A rational mind would say lazy writing is an issue. But even when admitting it, you try to pass off the blame as if it would all be fine if the talent could just perform the poorly written shit they're given well. Jesus.

And if Vince thinks that just dropping an intense feud that's been showcased and built for months on TV and having them become friends again between shows with no explanation is "understandable", he's not just out of touch in his old age, he's borderline retarded. And if you think it is, you are too. I won't even do the PC "Well, I guess we just have different opinions" thing. It's retarded. There's no two ways about it. Luckily, I DON'T think you actually believe that though and instead you're doing what you usually do which is try to rationalize the best you can put as little blame as possible on Vince/the writers for being inept.

"And I dont think one angle being terrible means 'everything sucks'."

No. My point with bringing it up is to try to find angles that are so out there in the "shitty writing" department that even you can't come up with a bullshit rationalization for it. This wasn't an isolated angle. It wasn't just a rare lapse of judgment that pushed them to do something insanely ridiculous with one angle. Lazy shit like that is the norm. See the Wade Barrett vignettes where he actually had a personality that stood out as a badass bareknuckle fighter and immediately came back as the paint-by-numbers chickenshit that every heel not named Brock Lesnar plays because the writers probably can't even spell the phrase "character depth". See Chris Jericho coming back after weeks of mysterious videos, not speaking, crying in the ring and then the big mystery of why all this was happening just... ending. See the start/stop pushes that happen with the entire roster and prevent anyone from gaining momentum over time.

When they try to write something with some substance, it ends up being the most poorly written clusterfuck of a story on television. Maybe sticking to something more simple they can sink their teeth into like "Nattie farts a lot" is the way to go. I remember one week she started farting. And then the situations where she would fart would get more uncomfortable. Just a brilliant story arch. 5 stars. I think I'd actually take some Russo-esque dumb ideas over no ideas at all. (Though to be fair to Vince Russo, I don't think any idea he ever had was as bad as a diva who has uncontrollable gas.)

And as far as the "Victor Newman vs Jack Abbott" thing, I have no idea what soap they're even from. It's odd that you seem to have a decent understanding of their story over the years considering you said all you watch is WWE, The Walking Dead and sports. Feel free to give a brief explanation but forgive me if I don't look up every little detail of the relationship between two people on a soap opera that's probably been on my entire life. I'd be willing to be it's not as egregious as the Bellas thing though. I'd be very surprised if they were wishing death on each other in one episode and then best friends the next without even an attempt at an explanation. Mainly because even daytime soaps have higher standards than that level of "derp dee derp" writing.

[drave]

I was really stoked about that specific Barrett return. Big fan of Barrett, but they definitely failed there :(

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>They've dropped the ball with Barrett so many times. It's sad. He can talk, he can work, he's got good size. I really don't know what else they could want from the guy.

Shocked to find he's actually 35 years old already. So he's likely closer to retirement than he is to getting a main event push.</font> :(

[Big Vic]

He's english, doesn't really connect with the fans.

[XL]

The "Bad News" gimmick caught on, so they made him King of the Ring.

[Rammsteinmad]

Yeah, Barrett needs to do the whole "Bad News" thing again. People loved that!

[drave]

http://i.imgur.com/dPmlROY.gif

http://i.imgur.com/pV9KVzG.gif

https://38.media.tumblr.com/01e0500980310fd0b4d08d3e5afe9e1f/tumblr_mywq578e991qevcs2o1_250.gif

[Mr. Nerfect]

You're throwing out random things that Cornette apparently did. Do you have sources on this? Please please dont say the sheets or Cornette himself.

Ask Kevin Owens about Cornette as a booker/person in charge. Guys like you like and respect Owens, right?

You asked for things Cornette did and I gave them to you. Yes, Cornette is lying about the documented time he spent working for WWE. You are a hack troll and a cancer to logic.

And while I like Owens as a performer, he does seem like he would have been a twat to work with on the independent scene. I believe Cornette's side of that story more than Owens -- who I believe tells the truth as he sees it, but is just as stubborn as Corny and probably more of a mark for himself.

[Mr. Nerfect]

At the end of the day Vince will be proven right. They are 3 black guys, basically playing over the top preachers, talking about positivity. They will be full fledged babyfaces at some point in 2016.

Wow. You cunt.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Where I think he's full of shit is his access to inside information. I think (check that, I know with 100% certainty) his info is BS.

Lol, people talk to Meltzer. They've admitted to it. You troll cunt.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Barrett and Sheamus should be feuding with The New Day over the Tag Team Titles right now. Barrett & Sheamus -- Bad News -- WWE Tag Team Champions.

[drave]

You cunt.


(you seem to have forgotten it that time.)

[Mr. Nerfect]

Oh, thank you, drave. You mad cunt.

[drave]

Mad cunty mate, MAAAAAAD cunty.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Monday's WWE Raw television show (12/7) averaged 3.054 million viewers, according to Showbuzzdaily.com. Viewership was down from the 3.168 million average from last week (11/30).


Hour 1 = 3.270 million
Hour 2 = 3.042 million
Hour 3 = 2.850 million

[slik]

more info on the ratings:



Monday's episode of WWE (http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/wwe-news/) RAW is the second lowest audience for the show since permanently going to 3 hours in July of 2012. The audience is only 3% from the record-low 2.964 million viewers that the show averaged on November 23, 2015.

[Rammsteinmad]

So... was Raw shit on Monday?

[Maluco]

Half a million TVs switch off before his final segment, people noticeably filing out (according to reports) before the end, and almost one year later, they are still forcing Roman Reigns into positions he shouldn't be in. Defies all logic and belief and makes me depressed tbh.

[Simple Fan]

That final segment was horrendous. I about fell asleep on it and the tater tots stuff wasn't funny. The first time it might have been worth a chuckle but after he continued to call Sheamus a tater tot it just got silly retarded. The fact that they even out Reigns in there to start out with is dumb. We're going to have the ring crew set up all this stuff for Reigns even though the Authority hate the guy. It would have been a bit better had Reigns filled the ring up with tables, ladders, and chairs before he got in the ring. Reigns even pointed out that the fact that Sheamus called him out and that he was the only one there wasn't right. If Reigns wins at TLC I think I'll have to stop watching til after Mania or he drops the title, just don't want to see Reigns in the main event picture at all.

[The CyNick]

Lol, people talk to Meltzer. They've admitted to it. You troll cunt.

Do Triple H, Vince, or Steph feed Vince with info? Does Dave reach out to them to verify his stories? No. Because he's a bottom feeder "journalist".

If you wanted to know what an NFL team was planning in terms of their talent would you speak to the head coach, the GM, or a kid who collects the footballs after practice?

One funny thing Ive noticed from the thread on here that quotes things from the Observer, but there was a note about Lesnar v Owens NOT being a match currently on the lineup for Mania. If Dave or any of these guys had actual inside info they would know the top 4 matches for Mania. But they don't know shit so they can't say this is what is currently on the schedule.

Sorry to burst your bubble about him.

[The CyNick]

Monday's WWE Raw television show (12/7) averaged 3.054 million viewers, according to Showbuzzdaily.com. Viewership was down from the 3.168 million average from last week (11/30).


Hour 1 = 3.270 million
Hour 2 = 3.042 million
Hour 3 = 2.850 million

How did football do? Was it up week over week?

[The CyNick]

That final segment was horrendous. I about fell asleep on it and the tater tots stuff wasn't funny. The first time it might have been worth a chuckle but after he continued to call Sheamus a tater tot it just got silly retarded. The fact that they even out Reigns in there to start out with is dumb. We're going to have the ring crew set up all this stuff for Reigns even though the Authority hate the guy. It would have been a bit better had Reigns filled the ring up with tables, ladders, and chairs before he got in the ring. Reigns even pointed out that the fact that Sheamus called him out and that he was the only one there wasn't right. If Reigns wins at TLC I think I'll have to stop watching til after Mania or he drops the title, just don't want to see Reigns in the main event picture at all.

I didn't care for the tater tots line but the crowd was with him. Read a report from a live fan who said he was massively over. Looks like what they are doing is working in the arenas.

[Emperor Smeat]

How did football do? Was it up week over week?

Got back the 4 million or so from last week.

Biggest gainer was Family Guy in terms of rankings. Outranked the 9pm and 10pm hours of RAW.

[Damian Rey]

I didn't care for the tater tots line but the crowd was with him. Read a report from a live fan who said he was massively over. Looks like what they are doing is working in the arenas.

Did you verify if the live fan was actually at the event via ticket confirmation or confirmed with Vince or security? Or did you just read another "report".

[Emperor Smeat]

Reigns has been getting more over with the crowds in recent weeks because crowds themselves have started to bail en masse before his main event matches and segments. Last Smackdown and yesterday being big examples of both.

From someone at RAW last night before the main event:
http://i.imgur.com/z3g0Vrs.jpg

[Simple Fan]

I didn't care for the tater tots line but the crowd was with him. Read a report from a live fan who said he was massively over. Looks like what they are doing is working in the arenas.

Doesnt matter, dudes not a main eventer and will turn fans away from the product if continued to be pushed as he is now.

[#1-norm-fan]

The much maligned CyNick appears to have begun half-assing the gimmick and isn't really trying to defend shit anymore. Fun's over. Time to pack it up, guys.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Do Triple H, Vince, or Steph feed Vince with info? Does Dave reach out to them to verify his stories? No. Because he's a bottom feeder "journalist".

If you wanted to know what an NFL team was planning in terms of their talent would you speak to the head coach, the GM, or a kid who collects the footballs after practice?

One funny thing Ive noticed from the thread on here that quotes things from the Observer, but there was a note about Lesnar v Owens NOT being a match currently on the lineup for Mania. If Dave or any of these guys had actual inside info they would know the top 4 matches for Mania. But they don't know shit so they can't say this is what is currently on the schedule.

Sorry to burst your bubble about him.

Yeah, with all the posts you've made since your ill-fated return to the boards, you're in no position to call anyone else out as a "bottom feeder", dude.

[Big Vic]

I didn't care for the tater tots line but the crowd was with him. Read a report from a live fan who said he was massively over. Looks like what they are doing is working in the arenas.
Is that same same fan that took a picture of people leaving the arena?

[Simple Fan]

I've heard more about Dave Meltzer from CyNick than I have from any other poster. To not like the guy he sure knows a lot about him. No one actually brings up Meltzer except him.

[Heisenberg]

all I seriously know about Meltzer is that he feuded with TNARick and /r/SquaredCircle loves to link his radio/opinion pieces


If he is of any importance I'd like an explanation. Otherwise, he's just another fan

[Rammsteinmad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Meltzer

I take every report I read online with a grain of salt, but Meltzer's been reporting on Wrestling/MMA a lot longer than most of us have been watching, and he does have a rapport/following/standing/presence with people within the industry.

I'm not saying he's alright spot on and his "reports" can sometimes be pretty vague, but I'd take Meltzer's word over CyNicks any day.

[Big Vic]

But CyNick got his info from a fan at the show, sure CyNick didn't cite anything but he doesn't have too.

[The CyNick]

Doesnt matter, dudes not a main eventer and will turn fans away from the product if continued to be pushed as he is now.

We'll see

To me he's talented, if the babyface thing doesn't work, he can still work as a heel.

He's in a tough spot being thrusted into the top spot at a time when the roster has never been thinner.

[The CyNick]

Yeah, with all the posts you've made since your ill-fated return to the boards, you're in no position to call anyone else out as a "bottom feeder", dude.

Have I presented myself as an insider, or someone with inside info?

I like the product, which makes me a villain here in bizzaro world

[The CyNick]

Is that same same fan that took a picture of people leaving the arena?

I don't know. You would have to ask the guy.

[The CyNick]

I've heard more about Dave Meltzer from CyNick than I have from any other poster. To not like the guy he sure knows a lot about him. No one actually brings up Meltzer except him.

Ive said before I reference him because his publication is referenced the most on this site.

[The CyNick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Meltzer

I take every report I read online with a grain of salt, but Meltzer's been reporting on Wrestling/MMA a lot longer than most of us have been watching, and he does have a rapport/following/standing/presence with people within the industry.

I'm not saying he's alright spot on and his "reports" can sometimes be pretty vague, but I'd take Meltzer's word over CyNicks any day.

I'm not in a competition. I don't come on here saying I have scoopz.

I just provide an opinion.

[The CyNick]

But CyNick got his info from a fan at the show, sure CyNick didn't cite anything but he doesn't have too.

www.tpww.net

[Simple Fan]

We'll see

To me he's talented, if the babyface thing doesn't work, he can still work as a heel.

He's in a tough spot being thrusted to top spot at a time when the roster has never been thinner.

Thats what I've been saying, he has potential but not as the joke cracking smiling babyface. He should be a badass that Handel's his business and says a few words.

Hes in the tough spot because he's not ready for the top. Like I've said he should have been ripping through the mid card and possibly have held both the IC and US titles by now. I feel the roster is fine, its just underutilized. You have a lot of talented guys that don't do anything. If the rosters thin it WWEs fault. Hell, they have Somoa Joe setting in NXT, if the rosters thin call him up.

[BigCrippyZ]

Ive said before I reference him because his publication is referenced the most on this site.

Since 1983, he has been the publisher/editor of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter (WON). Meltzer has also written for the Oakland Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Yahoo! Sports, and The National Sports Daily. He has extensively covered mixed martial arts since UFC 1 in 1993 and currently covers the sport for SB Nation. Meltzer has been called "the most accomplished reporter in sports journalism" by Frank Deford of Sports Illustrated. He is also a frequent lecturer on many aspects of the business of MMA, professional wrestling and boxing at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

Source: Rossen, Jake (2013-05-15). "In World of Wrestling, Trying to Keep It Real" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/sports/wrestling-reporter-dave-meltzer-tries-to-keep-it-real.html). The New York Times.

That's exactly the kind of person I'd want to depose as a testifying expert witness or at least as a non-testifying consulting expert in order to explain the intricacies of an unusual subject like the backstage goings-on of pro wrestling to me.

Clearly the guy's a bottom feeding joke and a hack though who doesn't know anyone in the business, have any legitimate sources or know anything. :roll:

[BigCrippyZ]

Have I presented myself as an insider, or someone with inside info?


No. That's not the point.

The point is anytime anyone with even a modicum of credibility comes out with info that may be potentially damaging to the company or your opinions, you claim the person has no credibility or are bottom feeders, etc.

You claim that because they aren't Vince or HHH or didn't get their info directly from Vince or HHH, these reporters or sources aren't credible. You do this despite the fact that you, 1. usually have no evidence that the reporter's sources were or weren't Vince or HHH, and 2. you don't know who their sources are.

No one's saying that guys like Meltzer are always right or that we take their reporting as 100% or gospel. In fairness though, I'd say Meltzer is probably the most credible and in a VERY small class of "legit" and credible pro wrestling reporters, in terms of length of reporting, accuracy over the years, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem like the kind of client that would at trial, yell and argue over top of the expert witness testifying against you about their lack credibility or knowledge. All the while your lawyer keeps telling you to shut up and that he'll handle it.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

well he's also a troll committed to a character.

[The CyNick]

That's exactly the kind of person I'd want to depose as a testifying expert witness or at least as a non-testifying consulting expert in order to explain the intricacies of an unusual subject like the backstage goings-on of pro wrestling to me.

Clearly the guy's a bottom feeding joke and a hack though who doesn't know anyone in the business, have any legitimate sources or know anything. :roll:

I stopped reading The Observer long time ago, but found this on a newz site, which credits The Observer:

"Regarding WWE SmackDown moving to the USA Network in January, there is said to be at least one significant change in the works. This could have something to do with commentary or the look of the show as it appears there are no plans to bring bigger names to SmackDown."

This is the man you say is a super JOURNALIST. There will be at least ONE change, but we have no idea what it is. Why dont you just ask your source? You would think this source would have all the scoopz. Anyone could just guess that there will be changes when a show moves networks. Maybe Frank Deford should reconsider his ridiculous opinion.

[The CyNick]

No. That's not the point.

The point is anytime anyone with even a modicum of credibility comes out with info that may be potentially damaging to the company or your opinions, you claim the person has no credibility or are bottom feeders, etc.

You claim that because they aren't Vince or HHH or didn't get their info directly from Vince or HHH, these reporters or sources aren't credible. You do this despite the fact that you, 1. usually have no evidence that the reporter's sources were or weren't Vince or HHH, and 2. you don't know who their sources are.

No one's saying that guys like Meltzer are always right or that we take their reporting as 100% or gospel. In fairness though, I'd say Meltzer is probably the most credible and in a VERY small class of "legit" and credible pro wrestling reporters, in terms of length of reporting, accuracy over the years, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem like the kind of client that would at trial, yell and argue over top of the expert witness testifying against you about their lack credibility or knowledge. All the while your lawyer keeps telling you to shut up and that he'll handle it.

I just dont accept info that is fifth hand, when the people who make the decisions could be reached out to, or at least have conducted interviews where they address a lot of the criticisms about the product. To me they are all the same. They write BS stories that they pass off as legit news. I have never said anything bad about him writing about the history of the business.

I'm actually really calm, and nothing like what you claim (I'm not sure who you feel is the "expert" in this scenario). If you read my posts, I rarely use foul language when addressing people. I enjoy reading other people's opinions, I just dont happen to agree that the product sucks right now. This whole thread is about ratings, and Ive just pointed out that TV is changing, and yes, RAW is down in ratings, but so are a lot of shows, most shows in fact. And at the end of the day, the show is still among the most watched things in its timeslot (usually top 2 or 3), and from an advertising perspective, things have never been better. Those things seem to get ignored by everyone who isnt me, because the people who are frequent posters on here, dont feel the product is catering to their whims. I look like the ugly girl at the dance because I'm the guy who actually enjoys what I'm watching.

[BigCrippyZ]

I stopped reading The Observer long time ago, but found this on a newz site, which credits The Observer:

"Regarding WWE SmackDown moving to the USA Network in January, there is said to be at least one significant change in the works. This could have something to do with commentary or the look of the show as it appears there are no plans to bring bigger names to SmackDown."

This is the man you say is a super JOURNALIST. There will be at least ONE change, but we have no idea what it is. Why dont you just ask your source? You would think this source would have all the scoopz. Anyone could just guess that there will be changes when a show moves networks. Maybe Frank Deford should reconsider his ridiculous opinion.

Is the idea that WWE is going to change something re: commentary or production/presentation for Smackdown but won't be bringing in bigger names when they move to USA not news? It's certainly news to me. I had no idea.

Now I'll agree it's not necessarily exciting news. Maybe his source is only in a position currently to know that there are plans to make changes to Smackdown and that those plans don't involve bringing in bigger names.

Should he not report that because it doesn't meet your standards of "quality" pro wrestling journalistic integrity? I'm all for having strict journalistic standards, especially as it relates to potentially damaging someone's reputation or causing inappropriate outrage or hysteria. I.e., accusing someone of a crime, making sure you report the facts accurately when reporting on criminal activities and the accused, important political, legal or policy issues, etc.

In fairness I have no idea re: the quality of Meltzer's reporting on other sports like MMA and UFC. I'd be willing to bet that his reporting on UFC, etc., might be a little more thorough re: the inner workings because 1. there's no "creative" story line planning going on that can change at any time, 2. its easier to get direct access to the competitors, their agents, UFC executives, etc. through more regular press conferences, etc., and 3. it's not "entertainment" but actual sport so there's less need to be secretive.

You're criticizing journalistic quality of people reporting on the inner workings, plans, outcomes and politics of a scripted and predetermined dramatic television show on the premise of athletic "competition". Seems to me like you take your pro wrestling "news" a little too seriously.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Vince and HHH cannot just be reached out to nor would they tell the truth. Remove your head from your ass

[The CyNick]

Vince and HHH cannot just be reached out to nor would they tell the truth. Remove your head from your ass

They do interviews. Vince did a shoot interview with Bob Costas and with Michael Lansberg. Vince rightfully doesnt see the dirt sheet writers as reporters. But I highly doubt the dirt sheetz reach out to either of them or Steph or Dunn. Again, like I said, they are happy being fed BS from the guy who collects the balls after practice.

Also both HHH and Vince did shoot interviews with Austin and I didn't see Austin pull any punches in terms of questions. Jericho also did a lengthy interview with HHH. Again, they covered a lot of stuff. That's what I'm saying about getting the info from the horses mouth instead of the guy who reports things like "there will be SOME change to Smackdown". How is that reporting? How about "Brock v Owens isn't on tap for Mania". Okay cool, if your sources are on point you should have the top matches or at least what Brock's match is. But he doesn't because his sources are garbage.

If you read his stuff week after week its literally littered with that kind of stuff. Then when he's flat out wrong about something, it's "plans changed". That's why as s "journalist" I rank his stuff along side those Weekly World News publications they used to have in grocery stores.

[Big Vic]

If you read his stuff week after week its literally littered with that kind of stuff. Then when he's flat out wrong about something, it's "plans changed".
Kinda like the Cesaro Big show feud right?

[The CyNick]

Is the idea that WWE is going to change something re: commentary or production/presentation for Smackdown but won't be bringing in bigger names when they move to USA not news? It's certainly news to me. I had no idea.

Now I'll agree it's not necessarily exciting news. Maybe his source is only in a position currently to know that there are plans to make changes to Smackdown and that those plans don't involve bringing in bigger names.

Should he not report that because it doesn't meet your standards of "quality" pro wrestling journalistic integrity? I'm all for having strict journalistic standards, especially as it relates to potentially damaging someone's reputation or causing inappropriate outrage or hysteria. I.e., accusing someone of a crime, making sure you report the facts accurately when reporting on criminal activities and the accused, important political, legal or policy issues, etc.

In fairness I have no idea re: the quality of Meltzer's reporting on other sports like MMA and UFC. I'd be willing to bet that his reporting on UFC, etc., might be a little more thorough re: the inner workings because 1. there's no "creative" story line planning going on that can change at any time, 2. its easier to get direct access to the competitors, their agents, UFC executives, etc. through more regular press conferences, etc., and 3. it's not "entertainment" but actual sport so there's less need to be secretive.

You're criticizing journalistic quality of people reporting on the inner workings, plans, outcomes and politics of a scripted and predetermined dramatic television show on the premise of athletic "competition". Seems to me like you take your pro wrestling "news" a little too seriously.

If the story is "no big names will be used" and he has a credible source, sure that's news. But being so vague proves to me his sources are junk and makes everything else in the story suspect.

He's kinda irrelevant when it comes to MMA journalism in my onion. Helwani gets all the big interviews and Front Row Brian is a better source for what I would call behind the scenes info. His website isn't what I would call must visit when it comes to MMA info. He can't play the same game with UFC that he does with WWE.

I don't care what he does. People who are dumb enough to spend 12$ a month to hear his quarter truths can do what they want. But he passes himself off as a journalist, so I think it's fair to question his practices. Especially when much of what he "reports" is just flat out wrong or can't be proven.

[The CyNick]

Kinda like the Cesaro Big show feud right?

What's this about now?

[Rammsteinmad]

You predicted a Cesaro and Big Show feud.

"Plans changed".

[BigCrippyZ]

They do interviews. Vince did a shoot interview with Bob Costas and with Michael Lansberg. Vince rightfully doesnt see the dirt sheet writers as reporters. But I highly doubt the dirt sheetz reach out to either of them or Steph or Dunn. Again, like I said, they are happy being fed BS from the guy who collects the balls after practice.

Also both HHH and Vince did shoot interviews with Austin and I didn't see Austin pull any punches in terms of questions. Jericho also did a lengthy interview with HHH. Again, they covered a lot of stuff. That's what I'm saying about getting the info from the horses mouth instead of the guy who reports things like "there will be SOME change to Smackdown". How is that reporting? How about "Brock v Owens isn't on tap for Mania". Okay cool, if your sources are on point you should have the top matches or at least what Brock's match is. But he doesn't because his sources are garbage.

If you read his stuff week after week its literally littered with that kind of stuff. Then when he's flat out wrong about something, it's "plans changed". That's why as s "journalist" I rank his stuff along side those Weekly World News publications they used to have in grocery stores.

Completely ignore the fact that you're evidence that Vince & HHH will do interviews with anyone who tries hard enough to get an interview is based on the fact that they've done a few interviews in the past with two guys who 1. worked for and were big, successful stars for the company, 2. probably had relatively good/close relationships with them and 3. who are basically celebrities outside of wrestling now too that also have big followings of non-wrestling and wrestling fans. Let's say that you're presumption is true, anyone who tries hard enough to get in touch with HHH or Vince or Stephanie or Dunn, would be able to do so, even a legit reporter or someone from a dirt sheet.

I've yet to hear Austin or Jericho (or even someone from an actual non dirt sheet news publisher like NYT, Sports Illustrated, etc.) ever ask someone in the position of Vince or HHH, "So, what are the main event plans for the next PPV or the next Mania?" or "What are the future creative plans for Superstar X?". Let alone have I heard them ever answer a question like that. That's because Vince, HHH & co. have no incentive to 1. tell them the plans and 2. be truthful about the plans. What would be the point? They'd be giving away the outcome and costing themselves potential revenues. Not to mention the fact that they can (and likely do) change the plans as needed or desired.

[BigCrippyZ]

That's what I'm saying about getting the info from the horses mouth instead of the guy who reports things like "there will be SOME change to Smackdown". How is that reporting?

I agree that simply saying there will be SOME change to Smackdown isn't as much news as rumor or speculation.

The point is, he didn't just say there will be some change to Smackdown, he qualified that by saying there will be some change to Smackdown but it won't involve bringing in bigger names to the show and it likely will involve a change in production or commentary. In addition, you have no idea who or how credible his sources may or may not be simply because you don't know who they are.


But being so vague proves to me his sources are junk and makes everything else in the story suspect.

That doesn't prove anything of the sort. If anything it proves that his sources MAY be junk. Or it could prove that like most journalists he is protecting his sources and himself. It could also just as likely be evidence that his sources told him "Vince is constantly changing his mind, so who knows if this info will be good in a week, but here's what I've heard..." The point is you don't know and you're making a huge presumption that Meltzer and his sources aren't credible.

Again, I think you take your pro wrestling news a little too seriously.

Maybe his sources are credible, maybe not. Maybe plans will change, maybe not. Either way, it's pro wrestling news, not political world affairs, a criminal accusation or anything remotely similar. We're all taking it with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile you're just complaining that it's not credible because the reporters may or may not be getting credible info (with little actual proof to the contrary other than presumptions) while making a living/money off of it. News flash. There are lots of journalists (and I'd argue most) making as much or more money than guys like Meltzer, who are reporting on much larger, more important and consequential stories with sources that are just as credible/non-credible.

I think whoever posted it earlier was possibly onto something. Sounds like you're jealous and bitter at the dirt sheet reporters.

[drave]

And at the end of the day, the show is still among the most watched things in its time slot (usually top 2 or 3)

Most watched because? It surely isn't because MORE viewers are tuning in, it is just the "best" of crap programming. I understand a top slot is a top slot, regardless. An overall drop in viewership is still a net loss.


and from an advertising perspective, things have never been better. Those things seem to get ignored by everyone who isnt me, because the people who are frequent posters on here, dont feel the product is catering to their whims. I look like the ugly girl at the dance because I'm the guy who actually enjoys what I'm watching.


So you tune in for the adverts? I watch for the actual show and the content of said show. Just confused on that statement I guess.

No one is debating that Reigns moves merch, just that there are people who find other wrestlers much more entertaining and they would rather watch. This is indicated by people leaving the main event at recent shows when Reigns is prominently involved. The average viewer doesn't care how much merch wrestler X sells, just that they keep the viewer entertained. THAT is the biggest point here, Reigns simply doesn't entertain the average long-time viewer that is now in their 20s or later.

[Damian Rey]

CyNick doesn't take fifth hand information. Only takes H and Vince's opinion as fact.

Cites a Twitter post and report from a fan supposedly at Raw this past Monday.

Yeah.

[The CyNick]

CyNick doesn't take fifth hand information. Only takes H and Vince's opinion as fact.

Cites a Twitter post and report from a fan supposedly at Raw this past Monday.

Yeah.

First, it's not opinions I'm concerned about. Everyone has opinions. Each as worthless as the next.

I'm talking about facts about the inner workings and decisions that have been made. H, Vince, Steph, Dunn would have those. When they speak, I listen.

The fan report I mentioned was a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT. The guy claimed he was at the show and reported what the crowd responded to. Dirt Sheetz would get a quote from that guys 2nd cousin's pool guy, who overheard the 2nd cousin talking to someone else and saying the show was not very good, even though he didn't see it.

[The CyNick]

You predicted a Cesaro and Big Show feud.

"Plans changed".

First, Im not claiming to be an insider. We all understand that, right? I'm just a regular guy.

Second, I never said I thought that was set in stone, I just predicted based on how I saw Cesaro being positioned on TV that he was going to get a push, and I thought overcoming Big Show would be a start.

Cesaro also got hurt and Show is off TV. So kinda tough to run that angle.

[Damian Rey]

First, it's not opinions I'm concerned about. Everyone has opinions. Each as worthless as the next.

I'm talking about facts about the inner workings and decisions that have been made. H, Vince, Steph, Dunn would have those. When they speak, I listen.

The fan report I mentioned was a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT. The guy claimed he was at the show and reported what the crowd responded to. Dirt Sheetz would get a quote from that guys 2nd cousin's pool guy, who overheard the 2nd cousin talking to someone else and saying the show was not very good, even though he didn't see it.

So did you verify If he was actually at the show? How did you confirm it? And what say you to the other FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS and PHOTOS of fans filling out of the arena prior to Roman's main event segment?

[Big Vic]

First, Im not claiming to be an insider. We all understand that, right? I'm just a regular guy.

Second, I never said I thought that was set in stone, I just predicted based on how I saw Cesaro being positioned on TV that he was going to get a push, and I thought overcoming Big Show would be a start.

Cesaro also got hurt and Show is off TV. So kinda tough to run that angle.
Correct, Cesaro got injured about 2 months after the big show match, hard to start a feud within those 2 months.

[Big Vic]

So did you verify If he was actually at the show? How did you confirm it? And what say you to the other FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS and PHOTOS of fans filling out of the arena prior to Roman's main event segment?
Well that other guys first hand account doesn't agree with CyNick so he's wrong.

[BigCrippyZ]

The fan report I mentioned was a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT. The guy claimed he was at the show and reported what the crowd responded to. Dirt Sheetz would get a quote from that guys 2nd cousin's pool guy, who overheard the 2nd cousin talking to someone else and saying the show was not very good, even though he didn't see it.

So the guy with the photographs of people leaving before the main event and his claims that there were very few people left in the crowd for the main event Reigns segment and even fewer who actually seemed entertained by it, his opinion doesn't carry as much weight. If so, why? Is it because it fits into your own personal narrative and bias that the product is good and we're all wrong?

I tend to find the guy with the photographic support to be more credible and put more weight behind his first hand observations as he has photographic evidence to support it.

That's the problem. We don't care that you enjoy the current product. Have fun. Enjoy away.

It's your marginalization that those of us that aren't enjoying and are critical of the quality of the product, that we are some small, insignificant portion of the viewing audience so our opinions and the facts we back them up with (like lower ratings and live attendance figures) aren't credible or relevant.

[Big Vic]

CyNick never cited from which dirt sheet he got the report of the fan who said the pop for reigns is great.

[BigCrippyZ]

CyNick never cited from which dirt sheet he got the report of the fan who said the pop for reigns is great.

True. Honestly though, I never did and don't expect him to.

[The CyNick]

CyNick never cited from which dirt sheet he got the report of the fan who said the pop for reigns is great.

www.tpww.net

[Damian Rey]

So your citing a source notorious for taking reports from Meltzer's site and rewriting them as their own? Brilliant.

[The CyNick]

So the guy with the photographs of people leaving before the main event and his claims that there were very few people left in the crowd for the main event Reigns segment and even fewer who actually seemed entertained by it, his opinion doesn't carry as much weight. If so, why? Is it because it fits into your own personal narrative and bias that the product is good and we're all wrong?

I tend to find the guy with the photographic support to be more credible and put more weight behind his first hand observations as he has photographic evidence to support it.

That's the problem. We don't care that you enjoy the current product. Have fun. Enjoy away.

It's your marginalization that those of us that aren't enjoying and are critical of the quality of the product, that we are some small, insignificant portion of the viewing audience so our opinions and the facts we back them up with (like lower ratings and live attendance figures) aren't credible or relevant.

Everything is relevant to varying degrees.

I watched RAW, I heard the crowd pop for Reigns' promo. I heard multiple tater tot chants, which tells me the fans were with him. That was confirmed by the dude who provided the live report.

That said, I also saw the photo of a few fans leaving. So clearly some fans didnt care for the final segment. But we already knew a segment of the fanbase is determined to reject Reigns as a headliner. Just like those same fans who show up to every arena to chant Cena Sucks.

Devil is in the detail. You said "very few people were left in the arena". For that to be true if they had say 8000 in the building to open the show, i would say you need to have at least 3/4 of the fans to leave. I don't think that one image of one part of one section tells that story.

The problem is you guys who think the product sucks refuse to look at the aspects of the business that are doing well. Ratings are important, but if RAWs audience is declining at a slower rate than the rest of the prime time shows on USA its likely a by product of changing behaviour vs definite decline in intetest. Especially when you look at their numbers on social media and VOD, which are through the roof.

[The CyNick]

So your citing a source notorious for taking reports from Meltzer's site and rewriting them as their own? Brilliant.

Can you not read? It was a FAN sending in a report. Dave's site does the same thing. I'm not working off an oped piece written by the editor of tpww.

[BigCrippyZ]

I think it's a common misconception that WWE makes any direct money from the advertisers on RAW and Smackdown. Not to be confused with WWE's direct sponsors, the advertisers pay NBC Universal/USA Network to run the commercials. In turn, WWE is paid a television rights fee based on a negotiated contract out of the advertising revenues that are paid to NBC Universal.

It is true that on a week to week or even quarter to quarter basis, WWE doesn’t get any more or any less money from advertisers on Raw when viewership goes up and down. It would be better for them if they did, because then they might be more responsive and open to change rather than stubborn and could potentially have incredibly successful weeks/quarters versus average weeks/quarters.

As of the last quarterly financials WWE released, TV rights fees equal 40 percent of WWE revenue, Network subs total 25 percent, and house show tickets sales and venue merchandise sales equals 18 percent of revenue. So low ratings means WWE is going to have to brace for a huge drop in TV rights fees next time they negotiate a contract, and in the mean time, fewer people are being reached as potential Network and house show customers.

WWE right now is like an athlete being lazy the year after they sign a big contract. However, eventually that contract ends, and if they only perform well in their the last year of their contract, people are going to notice that and pay less than they would otherwise, expecting that athlete to be lazy again once they sign the new deal and feel fat, happy and comfortable again.

[The CyNick]

Correct, Cesaro got injured about 2 months after the big show match, hard to start a feud within those 2 months.

It wasn't a priority. You don't want to have Show lose so quickly after they built up a big match with Lesnar.

Again, this whole thing is comical in that it was just an idea I presented as a possibility to give Cesaro something to do. I never once said I heard it would happen. Hell I've never ever claimed I have any inside info on anything. But now that it didn't happen you're using it as some type of slam against me.

Comical really.

[The CyNick]

I think it's a common misconception that WWE makes any direct money from the advertisers on RAW and Smackdown. Not to be confused with WWE's direct sponsors, the advertisers pay NBC Universal/USA Network to run the commercials. In turn, WWE is paid a television rights fee based on a negotiated contract out of the advertising revenues that are paid to NBC Universal.

It is true that on a week to week or even quarter to quarter basis, WWE doesn’t get any more or any less money from advertisers on Raw when viewership goes up and down. It would be better for them if they did, because then they might be more responsive and open to change rather than stubborn and could potentially have incredibly successful weeks/quarters versus average weeks/quarters.

As of the last quarterly financials WWE released, TV rights fees equal 40 percent of WWE revenue, Network subs total 25 percent, and house show tickets sales and venue merchandise sales equals 18 percent of revenue. So low ratings means WWE is going to have to brace for a huge drop in TV rights fees next time they negotiate a contract, and in the mean time, fewer people are being reached as potential Network and house show customers.

WWE right now is like an athlete being lazy the year after they sign a big contract. However, eventually that contract ends, and if they only perform well in their the last year of their contract, people are going to notice that and pay less than they would otherwise, expecting that athlete to be lazy again once they sign the new deal and feel fat, happy and comfortable again.

Nobody who understands the business things WWE makes money off ads ran during RAW.

You're so off base in your thinking that is not even funny. WWE had double or triple the ratings in the Attitude Era, but monetarily they didn't maximize TV rights fees because advertisers wanted no part of the show. Today, even though ratings are far lower, they are doing better financially in large part because WWE has reinvented itself as a respobsible corporate citizen. Now you have a lineup of advertisers looking to buy airtime from USA. That wasnt even happening 3 years ago. USA recently came out and responded to the declining ratings by touting how successful WWE is for them.

Further, as I've explained many many times, if ratings across the board on down, advertisers will still pay top dollar for the shows that draw the most of the right type of viewer. RAW week in week out is a top 3 viewed show on Monday. Therefore advertisers will still pay top dollar.

[Rammsteinmad]

Pretty sure you made claims like that Cesaro/Big Show feud was "obvious" or whatever. But I'm too lazy to look for it and don't really care.

[Big Vic]

The problem is you guys who think the product sucks refuse to look at the aspects of the business that are doing well. Because we don't care about their financials

Ratings are important, but if RAWs audience is declining at a slower rate than the rest of the prime time shows on USA its likely a by product of changing behaviour vs definite decline in intetest. Especially when you look at their numbers on social media and VOD, which are through the roof.
Their main event segment on youtube has a little over a million views, that is not "through the roof"

[Damian Rey]

Can you not read? It was a FAN sending in a report. Dave's site does the same thing. I'm not working off an oped piece written by the editor of tpww.

So you are now citing a report sent from a fan to a site that regularly publishes dirt sheet news? And how do you know the fan was actually there? Was there any confirmation?

If you think Meltzer is some hack why are you citing an even less credible wrestling website known for ripping off the work of others? I thought you only go to the source for facts? Is the main page now a legitimate source?

[Big Vic]

He still didn't even cite it he just said "www.tpww.net"

[Big Vic]

Wish I could have done that for school reports

Citations:
"New York Times"
"Fox News"

[BigCrippyZ]

Nobody who understands the business things WWE makes money off ads ran during RAW.

You're so off base in your thinking that is not even funny. WWE had double or triple the ratings in the Attitude Era, but monetarily they didn't maximize TV rights fees because advertisers wanted no part of the show. Today, even though ratings are far lower, they are doing better financially in large part because WWE has reinvented itself as a respobsible corporate citizen. Now you have a lineup of advertisers looking to buy airtime from USA. That wasnt even happening 3 years ago. USA recently came out and responded to the declining ratings by touting how successful WWE is for them.

Further, as I've explained many many times, if ratings across the board on down, advertisers will still pay top dollar for the shows that draw the most of the right type of viewer. RAW week in week out is a top 3 viewed show on Monday. Therefore advertisers will still pay top dollar.

I'm not talking about currently. I'm talking about the impact of declining ratings next time WWE's contract is up.

Regardless of whether or not ratings across the board are down in the future, if WWE's ratings are consistently down compared to where they were when they negotiated the current deal last year, even if they're attracting the same "quality" advertisers in the future that they are today, WWE's rights fees are more likely to decline as well. Sure everyone's rights fees might be down too because the lack of viewers over all and WWE may still be getting top dollar.

When WWE makes 40% of their revenues from television rights though, and those rights fees are due to audience size and ratings, any drop or potential drop in that revenue or audience/ratings size is a huge risk. Not only to their financial bottom line but also to their ability market their other products, i.e., Network subs, merch, live events, etc. For example, according to WWE, RAW DVR viewership has stayed stagnant at only an additional 10-12% of the live audience size.