Originally Posted by Destor (Post 5492468)

whats a fair shot and why are people entitled to it

Originally Posted by Vastardikai (Post 5492616)

There's always a place in the wrestling business for a good hand. He'll almost certainly be a trainer in the Performance Center after his WWE run is over.

I would argue that Big E is another example of attitude keeping someone around. He was just kind of there from his debut. They gave him the one big babyface run that fizzled. He was kind of just being used as a very buff jobber. He could have very easily been cut after he lost the IC title, but everyone seems to like him, as well. And he got another chance from there became part of one of the biggest draws in the WWE.

I am ultimately saying that having a good attitude in WWE can give you chances that having all the talent in the world won't.

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott (Post 5492621)

Sounds like the title of another book written by Whitey McSportsfan.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJNH8MPWsAEkkFH.png

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott (Post 5492622)

Even with that, though, it wasn't from lack of trying to fuck him up.

He was another one who was over in NXT even in that short stay. But they totally dropped the 5 count gimmick on the main roster presumably because they didn't want to educate fans on who the fuck King Kong Bundy was (much like never mentioning the goddamn Freebird Rule except in the ingredients list of the New Day t-shirt cereal box). They just made him mute and stuck him with Ziggles for zero reason, stripping out what was already working.

Then, even later, there was the point in time at the beginning of New Day where all three of them were on the chopping block because the bullshit forced babyface thing wasn't working, and they had to beg Vince to turn heel, which was exactly what they needed to start down the road to where they are now.

Even with someone like Big E, and him being an okay dude, it seems really hard for the company to get out of their own goddamn way.

Originally Posted by xrodmuc316 (Post 5492619)

I don't think they "have to" have to, but I think it is strongly encouraged. Clearly some guys have way more freedom to post what they want than others.

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott (Post 5492620)

When "budget concerns" is a phrase used, the implication is that you're overspending. Again, you either shouldn't have thrown that money around to begin with, or you're using that as an excuse... and the money you "save" looks like extra in the coffers.

If the talent isn't that valuable to you, then don't throw that value out there. This isn't limited to this particular crop of cuts, or even this field.

You act as if folks are saying they should be spending every dime they're making. Not the point at all. However, using that $200 million example, if you're spending $50 million, you're still up $150 million. There isn't really a dire need to save that chunk of cash just to make it look better on paper. If you have it to spend, and contracted people on the promise of it, then you go "Whoops, I don't actually have the money to give you, bye!" then turn around and brag about making $200 million. That sounds like a crock of shit to the folks you just kicked to the curb. Especially to ones that don't even get the chance to see any supposed return on investment because you changed your mind on investing in them.

Instead, it sounds more like an empty excuse. Much like when people used the phrase "in this economy..." around the 2008 housing bubble burst, even when the job wasn't even tangentially connected to the mortgage crisis at all. "Budgetary concerns" is almost a corporate way of saying "I could pay you, but I don't feel like it because profit margins" in fewer words and trying to dress it up like it can't be helped even if it can.

One thing their change in hiring philosophy will hopefully eliminate is their need to warehouse people and waste their time and careers just so someone else can't have them that they've been doing for about two decades or so now. Small solace, but still a minuscule plus.




Asking "who that perfect wrester" is basically just rode past the entire point of it being a hypothetical, can't-miss person that WWE would find a way to completely fuck up. It wasn't anyone in particular: they prob'ly don't exist. And if they did, I say again, WWE would likely fuck them up.

A thing I've said for years is that they are so intent on trying to find the next Hulk Hogan, that they'll overlook the next Rick Rudes, or Roddy Pipers, or a litany of other past top stars in their blind pursuit to not only find that cash cow figurehead, but somehow copy and paste them. That's not how any of that works, but it feels like nobody can tell Vince and company that.

I've also said that my decline in interest in WWE television started in the throes of the Smackdown Six era brand split. Smackdown had overtaken RAW in interest, ratings, match quality, and goddamn storytelling. It was done over time, and with talent that was supposedly for the most part subpar to who was on "the flagship". Heyman took that supposed chicken shit and made state fair quality chicken salad. And instead of having RAW do that same shit with the supposedly superior crop of talent, they instead just started poaching the people who were now over and have them appear on Monday nights and still put the same crummy effort into getting any of the stars they supposedly already had over. Nowadays, it's like they're mostly treating everyone like they're RAW talent from that era, and most of the NXT call-ups have been actively fucked with in one way or another at the transition if they even get called at all.

And being "the shits in the ring" is relative. Yes, I'm glad they got rid of the potentially lethal cancer that was Eva Marie again, but they still have Baron Corbin. Some of them were too new. Some of them never got an opportunity to be anything other than background bland. And the people who can and do stand out get meddled with. Again, something that happens most release cycles.

I'm actually not as excited about Steiner as I should be, because I'm just waiting for the punchline- that moment where they have someone that has future star written all over him, but somehow drop the boat and have him gone in the next eight months.

Overall, this isn't an indictment of the here and now. It's and ongoing gripe with WWE in general that has been happening for ages.

Originally Posted by XL (Post 5492644)

I’m not entirely sure there’s more than maybe 5 acts on the roster that you’d miss if they were cut. Maybe that’s the benefit of “pushing the brand over the talent”?

You could go through the roster 3 times over and cut people that wouldn’t be missed; Jaxson Ryker, Elias, Corbin, Ziggler off the top of my head. Would you really miss Owens if he doesn’t re-up? Rollins? New Day? Crews? Cesaro? Nakamura? There’s are guys in there that I like but I’m not sure I’d miss them. I think that’s what sits awkwardly with a release like Keith Lee; they barely tried and there’s guys still there that they have tried everything with to little pay off. They seem like they wanted to make something of Ryker, it was never going to happen, it didn’t, and now he’s nowhere to be seen. The deal with B-Fab really sucks too. Imagine signing a new contract with more money - a number the company decided days before - then being told you’re being cut due to budget cuts. What happened in 3 days? If they don’t think they needed her with Hit Row why go through all that? Can you imagine the high of “I’m on the main roster” to “I don’t have a job”?

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect (Post 5492639)

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that making $200 million means you’re instantly justified in spending $50 million. I’m still at a loss as to how cutting people for budget concerns means you’re worried about your overall profits or how they’re even connected. I’m not trying to be difficult. The richest guy I know spends as little money as he can. His budget isn’t necessarily bigger just because he makes more than most other people.

Originally Posted by Vastardikai (Post 5492626)

No one should expect that anything that works at NXT and their small, niche crowd will translate to working on the bigger, mainstream audience. Things that worked in NXT: Adam Rose and Emma's bad dancer gimmick.

They dropped the 5 count gimmick because they didn't need an awkward guy ripping off King Kong Bundy at the time. They need a guy to be muscle for Dolph Ziggler. And he was a massive dude who could fill that role.

Originally Posted by Vastardikai (Post 5492626)

No one should expect that anything that works at NXT and their small, niche crowd will translate to working on the bigger, mainstream audience. Things that worked in NXT: Adam Rose and Emma's bad dancer gimmick.

They dropped the 5 count gimmick because they didn't need an awkward guy ripping off King Kong Bundy at the time. They need a guy to be muscle for Dolph Ziggler. And he was a massive dude who could fill that role.

As for your last point, this sounds like bitching because they gave Steve Austin "The Ringmaster" gimmick off the bat and he suggested tweaks to make it work. This is the thing about attitude I'm talking about: They could have very easily just bitched about the shitty hand they were dealt and they'd have been released. Instead, they believed in themselves and what they were doing, saw what wasn't working, and suggested tweaks to make it work.

That's not a failure on Creative's end. That is what separates the folks who are forgotten about from the biggest stars in wrestling. These folks would rather piss and moan than fight and prove that they want this shit. Sometimes that means suggesting changes. Sometimes, that means learning how to fucking yodel.

Originally Posted by xrodmuc316 (Post 5492794)

Early era NXT, yes that stupid stuff didn't translate. But starting with when K.O. and Balor came in, which was when Takeovers started drawing big, there were countless guys who didn't have to change anything and were over on the main roster. Then after so many botches, it became much harder to be invested the same way.

I am not sure if the exact dates, but for me personally I feel like the confidence was gone after they botched Bobby Roode. There were a few more callups after him where it was less excitement for what could be and more curiosity of how much they would screw it up.

After Ricochet and Black, that was when it seemed like it shifted to where nobody wanted to get called up because even they knew it would turn out bad.

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott (Post 5492791)

I'm going to ask you then in the most simplistic way possible:

Say that you, personally, were the CEO of a business, and you hired exactly three employees (making the total folks working for the company four). Then, you fired two of those three employees... not for performance issues or discipinary actions or anything, but "budgetary concerns". Then, you proceeded to publicly post that your company increased its profits year on year.

You're telling me that you can't possibly see how that looks really, really bad, especially to the two people you've shown the door? You don't see how that could be interpreted as you being a greedy dickhead in any way? You can't fathom, at all, how saying "hey, we made multiple truckloads of money" right after literally telling half of your company that you don't have the money to spend to keep them, are exceptionally bad optics to pretty much everyone but you and/or any other CEO who thinks like you or any shareholders you may be trying to appease?

A profit margin and a budget is not as divorced as you seem to think it is. If you made more money, you could spend more money. Again, not saying you burn up every dime of profit you project, but you have in your power the ability to increase that budget at the expense of not making as much profit as you would have. If you made less money, or heaven forbid actually in the hole, you trim the fat. But if you could not stay profitable without letting those people go, you really aren't profitable to begin with. You're only buying time until that bubble bursts. This isn't limited to this hypothetical, or even to WWE. You'll eventually run out of folks to fire, assets to sell, and corners to cut just so that your financials look good in the end.


:sigh: Fine. We are going to have to disagree on this one by an exceptionally wide gulf.

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott (Post 5492791)

I'm going to ask you then in the most simplistic way possible:

Say that you, personally, were the CEO of a business, and you hired exactly three employees (making the total folks working for the company four). Then, you fired two of those three employees... not for performance issues or discipinary actions or anything, but "budgetary concerns". Then, you proceeded to publicly post that your company increased its profits year on year.

You're telling me that you can't possibly see how that looks really, really bad, especially to the two people you've shown the door? You don't see how that could be interpreted as you being a greedy dickhead in any way? You can't fathom, at all, how saying "hey, we made multiple truckloads of money" right after literally telling half of your company that you don't have the money to spend to keep them, are exceptionally bad optics to pretty much everyone but you and/or any other CEO who thinks like you or any shareholders you may be trying to appease?

A profit margin and a budget is not as divorced as you seem to think it is. If you made more money, you could spend more money. Again, not saying you burn up every dime of profit you project, but you have in your power the ability to increase that budget at the expense of not making as much profit as you would have. If you made less money, or heaven forbid actually in the hole, you trim the fat. But if you could not stay profitable without letting those people go, you really aren't profitable to begin with. You're only buying time until that bubble bursts. This isn't limited to this hypothetical, or even to WWE. You'll eventually run out of folks to fire, assets to sell, and corners to cut just so that your financials look good in the end.


:sigh: Fine. We are going to have to disagree on this one by an exceptionally wide gulf.

Originally Posted by XL (Post 5492802)

What do you mean EC3 never got called up? He had that 3 week feud with Ambrose where he was silent and got smashed.

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect (Post 5492808)

I like you as a poster, Mr. Guycott, but your analogies make no sense to me. When did the WWE fire 2 of its 3 employees? That has to make sense as an apples to apples comparison. And, honestly, if you’ve only budgeted for 1 employee, it doesn’t make sense to have 3. I just don’t see how it is crying poor to minimize your costs. Businesses aren’t obligated to run up their expenses just because they have high revenue. And higher revenue doesn’t mean the expenses have to go up either.

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott (Post 5492820)

Okay, so basically what you're telling me is that you're trolling. At this point you have to be, because not agreeing with me is not the same is not being able to grasp what I am getting at. So, I'll just add you to that list with Droford and keep it moving. Good morning.

Originally Posted by xrodmuc316 (Post 5492858)

The budget cut reason doesnt have to mean WWE is strapped for cash, it just means that they have more employees than they need. If they are making a billion dollars a year, saving 5 million on wrestlers isnt really much of a difference one way or the other.

That is the issue to me, the negative press and bad optics of saving half a percent of the yearly budget is not worth it. They would be better off keeping those guys on payroll than killing the morale of the locker room.

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott (Post 5492819)

I don't remember this at all, which is a great example of how botched that was. I only remember him being back in NXT and being really shocked he was able to still call himself EC3 instead of going back to being Derek Bateman. He was jacked, had swag, and was already well trained in the "WWE way" since he was there before, so he seemed like yet another no-brainer roster addition.

Originally Posted by XL (Post 5492936)

On December 17, 2018, it was announced EC3 would be debuting on the main roster. During the following weeks, he was seen during backstage segments of Raw and SmackDown Live, before making his official debut on the February 4, 2019 episode of Raw, appearing on Alexa Bliss' talk show A Moment Of Bliss. During the segment, EC3 was interrupted by Dean Ambrose, leading to a match that EC3 won. The following week on Raw, they competed in a rematch, which Ambrose won with a small package. After his short feud with Ambrose, EC3 would be off Raw for the following months, and was relegated to Main Event as a jobber. At the WrestleMania 35 pre-show on April 7, EC3 competed in the André the Giant Memorial Battle Royal, but was eliminated early in the match.

Or as Noid would put it; “they gave him a big opportunity in an angle with one of the top guys on the brand”.

Originally Posted by Ruien (Post 5493345)

Kind of off topic for Seth real quick. Why are you okay with WWE releasing people in the pandemic but not ROH?

Originally Posted by Slik (Post 5495142)

Did Hit Row have more than 1 match on the main roster?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fightful has learned that WWE have released John Morrison, Top Dolla, Ashante Adonis, Isaiah Swerve Scott, Tegan Nox, Drake Maverick, Shane Thorne, and Jaxson Ryker.</p>&mdash; Sean Ross Sapp of Fightful.com (@SeanRossSapp) <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanRossSapp/status/1461520091934302209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Originally Posted by Slik (Post 5495144)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">My immediate thoughts...<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wwe?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#wwe</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WWE?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@wwe</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nxt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nxt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WWENXT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@wwenxt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/thankyou?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#thankyou</a> <a href="https://t.co/jMtv5X50KQ">pic.twitter.com/jMtv5X50KQ</a></p>&mdash; Drake Maverick (@WWEMaverick) <a href="https://twitter.com/WWEMaverick/status/1461520342539816961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Originally Posted by Slik (Post 5495150)

Taya Valkerie has CENA NUFF

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stop supporting a company that has ZERO respect for their talent. You love pro wrestling, spend your money on the hundreds of other alternatives. This is wrong. Ethically, as employers they don’t care about us. Talent or fans.</p>&mdash; TAYA VALKYRIE (@FrankyMonetWWE) <a href="https://twitter.com/FrankyMonetWWE/status/1461522622546644992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Yooooo FUCKKKKK them.</p>&mdash; TAYA VALKYRIE (@FrankyMonetWWE) <a href="https://twitter.com/FrankyMonetWWE/status/1461519388830543879?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Originally Posted by Supreme Olajuwon (Post 5495153)

People should watch this

Originally Posted by Lock Jaw (Post 5495163)

Wasn't Drake Maverick already released awhile ago?

Originally Posted by The God of TPWW (Post 5495164)

They released a bunch of junk. No loss.

Originally Posted by DaveWadding (Post 5495258)

Hope to see Johnny Mundo and Killshot on Azteca Underground in the near future.

And Taya reprising her role as a host for a demon spirit that was previously inside of a doll.

Originally Posted by Evil Vito (Post 5495283)

AEW strike me as a company that will just let deals lapse rather than release people, unless of course there are extenuating circumstances like Jimmy Havok.

Although their roster is bloated too, I think a lot of guys on the indies find their contract structure to be desirable. They know they're mostly filling out Dark/Elevation tapings but otherwise they retain full control of their careers, being allowed to take bookings anywhere they want the rest of the week. Meanwhile if they "take off" and make a name for themselves on the indies, AEW could always give them Dynamite time and they also have the fringe benefits AEW offers like insurance, etc.

Originally Posted by The God of TPWW (Post 5495530)

Wrestlers would come and go, show up randomly in other promotions all the time with no explanation. Look at the WWF during their expansion.

Buzz Sawyer for example. He randomly showed up with Cap Lou as his manager in April 84 and left a month later. No explanation. He was just there and gone.

Originally Posted by drave (Post 5495536)

Man, when I was young one of my friends's dad wrestled in a local fed. They would regularly hold shows at "Tyndall Armory" downtown which was awesome. I had no clue his dad played "two wrestlers". He had a Justin "The Hawk" Bradshaw gimmick with the cowbell and western look..... but he also played a masked babyface called "The Creeper". He had a long feud with a young "Flash Flanagan" (caught one his shirts forever ago too).


That shit was so cool man. His dad would take us to//from and we always thought he was The Creeper, but we never were able to find his gear at home or anything, to confirm it. I wish like hayell I could remember the name of the promotion, and dig up some tapes.

Originally Posted by Evil Vito (Post 5511824)

Casually waiting for Triple H to show up in GCW.

Originally Posted by Slik (Post 5511826)

William Regal was probably 'too expensive' for Nick Khan.

He's one of the best minds in wrestling ever and a great promo/gimmick coach and Regal knows exactly the stuff Vince likes and wants on the main roster...but maybe they can hire Johnny The Bull at a fraction of the price or something instead.

Originally Posted by Slik (Post 5511828)

Wiliam Regal debuts in AEW as Eddie Kingston's new manager, whose constantly trying to teach 'Edward' about the classier things in life.

Make it happen TK.