The WWE Future Endeavors Thread

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect No one is crying poor. Having $200 million in spare cash doesn’t mean your budget is $200 million. Just because you are rolling in dough doesn’t mean streamlining your talent roster is inherently counterintuitive.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect I hate being pushed into the position where I am defending this company, but who is that perfect wrestler? I’m not saying the WWE doesn’t miss the boat on talent. They obviously do. But not everyone they miss is this giant missed opportunity either. I used to think that way, but it’s just so wrong. Most of the people being released do kind of fit that Flippy McKickpads description. Or they’re just the shits in the ring. There are people who do, somehow, get over in this environment. Drew McIntyre, the Street Profits, Bianca Belair. I would love for the WWE to be calibrated to my tastes as a fan. I’d love for it to lose the forced promos, terrible tropes and be booked like proper pro-wrestling. God knows I’m hungry for it. But people act as if it’s impossible to be good at your job in this environment.

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.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott 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.

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.

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect 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.

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.

[XL]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott 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.

None of this really affects WWE though. They’re a behemoth that does what it wants. People will still want to go there because it’s the top of the mountain. You might find that “indie standouts” make the jump less as they’ve seen their contemporaries get fucked around but WWE have all but said “we don’t want the indies anyway, we’ll just create from scratch”. They’ve got the industry locked up for now.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott 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.

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.

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect 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.

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.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott 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.

No, I’m not trolling. I’m genuinely confused as to why you would use an analogy of a business releasing two-thirds of its workforce to be something analogous to the WWE releasing 18 wrestlers they thought were expendable for one reason or another. They’re nowhere near the same scenario. But even so, I don’t think it makes the point that anyone is crying poor by doing so.