Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The CyNick
Well the financial year has not been released yet for the WWE, but the estimates earlier in the year was that they would hit profits of $30+ million for the year. Only 98/99, 99/00, and 01/02 will be close in terms of profits. 00/01 would have been the biggest profit making year, but that year had the XFL losses for the company, and even with the losses they still made $16 million that year.
|
So assuming that it does hit 30+ million for the year, it will be larger than 98/99, 99/00, and 01/02? (by a close margin).
Quote:
|
The brand extension has allowed them to run more international dates, and those usually do good business, so in that sense its helping.
|
Hmmmmmmmm..............
Isn't this possible?
Have one roster, but have two different groups of House Show rosters.
Quote:
|
In terms of losing guys to make another promotion, listen no TV people are going to pick up a new wrestling promotion because they have Billy Gunn or Rikishi. Thos guys are menaingless. The guys who have a chance of creating a stir for TV execs are the major stars, and that means Austin, Rock, Hogan and to a lesser extent Goldberg. If you had soem of those guys, you might get a promotion going, but even with them there are no guarantees because wrestling isn't doing that well anymore.
|
No - I know that guys like Billy Gunn and Rikishi are not names that draw, but they add depth to the roster. That way - when a promotion does land a "Stone Cold" or a "Hulk Hogan", the roster also looks like it has decent depth.....and therefore, can land a TV deal.
Quote:
|
If you go back to one roster, a lot of guys will get released, they will run out of feuds faster and they wont create any new stars.
|
From end 1999 to 2002 (when there was one roster, Raw and Smackdown), it didn't seem like the WWE 'ran out of feuds'. There were plenty of good feuds going on. Austin fought with the likes of Taker, The Rock, Triple H, Kurt Angle, and Chris Benoit. Triple H had The Rock, Kurt Angle, Austin, and Jericho.
No new stars being created? How did Austin get created? How did The Rock emerge? How did Triple H become a main-eventer (other than boning the boss' daughter). In 2001 - Jericho, Benoit, and Angle were ALL ready to become main-eventers. It was the WWE's fault that they made Angle and Jericho's FIRST title reigns a JOKE.
Today - the GIMMICKS of Orton and Cena really stand out.......just as The Rock's and Austin's did before their peaks. I'm pretty sure that the WWE would've given Orton and Cena more TV time anyways..........so with that in mind, it's not like having ONE roster would've held them back.
Quote:
|
Young guys coming up will have a harder time getting through
|
Couldn't one argue that having ONE roster prevents someone from being pushed TOO fast? (i.e. Lesnar). Success came too early for Brock and as result, he left.
Quote:
|
The guys like HHH, Taker, HBk and co will still be on top, only now they will take up top spots on two shows, instead of being split over two shows.
|
Taker is only a 'special attraction' now, while HBK can only work part-time anyways. Think about it. The WWE has TWO bright stars in John Cena and Randy Orton. WOuldn't it be to the WWE's advantage to have them on TV on a bi-weekly basis? I don't think the fans would exactly cry if a guy like Randy Orton took away TV time from Sable.
Quote:
|
At least now you have situations where guys like Benjamin, Cade, Jindrak and Dupree are being put in key spots out of necessity, if you have one roster there would be no panic to create new stars.
|
Why SHOULD there be a panic? Let it just happen naturally. Provided that the WWE gives wrestlers solid gimmicks, the fans will naturally allow someone to become a star anyways. This is why Stone Cold was put into a position to carry the torch from HBK. This is why The Rock/HHH took over from Stone Cold/Taker.......and why Jericho, Angle, and Benoit could've EASILY taken over The Rock/Triple H's spot (had the WWE not fucked up on it). Brock Lesnar is another example (if they had kept the "one champ" on two shows thing after Summerslam 02', I guarantee that ratings would have continued upwards).
Quote:
|
Fewer stars were created when there was one roster. Even a guy like Kurt Angle wasn't really given a chance to truley be a top guy until after the brand extension, ditto for Benoit and Eddie.
|
Kurt won the WWE title under a unified roster. It was the WWE's fault that they decided to make his title reign a joke.
If the WWE had booked things right a few years ago, Angle/Benoit/Jericho would've replaced The Rock/Triple H at the top (and ALL THREE men were way over with the fans). Eventually - Angle, Benoit, and Jericho would've then paved the way for guys like RVD, Cena, and Orton.
p.s. A guy like Eddie Guerrero right now. Does it really matter if he is the king of shit right now? (i.e. WWE champ on Smackdown).
What if the NHL were to "split up" into the Eastern and Western Conference? Granted - a SHIT team like the Maple Leafs could have a better chance of winning the cup, but would it mean anything to longtime fans if they actually did? Would it "be the same"?
If the Eastern and Western Conference created their own 82 game schedules, would the NHL be better off?
Would it matter to the longtime fans if more players 'appeared' to be bigger superstars due to the split? Or would the fans intuitvely know that under a unified NHL, a lot of these players would be WIPED OFF the 'scoring leaders' sheet?