The WWE Future Endeavors Thread

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by XL Oh absolutely. However you seem to be applying very “real world” ideals to something as idiosyncratic as professsional wrestling. My ability to do my job to the required standard isn’t as hampered by the powers that want me to do the job to the required standard. What about Keith Lee or Karrion Kross’ main roster runs suggests they were set up to succeed? You can easily say “they’re not stars”, “they never had IT”, “I don’t see it”, “they didn’t take advantage of the opportunity” but come on.

Everyone wants to blame the office. Keith Lee and Karrion Kross were not that good. Keith Lee was brought in and immediately worked with Randy Orton. He was in the 5 vs. 5 match at Survivor Series. He got the Brock spot in the Royal Rumble. They tried to put him in top positions against top guys to produce top work. He’s not a young guy and his psychology is kind of spotty for what they want for a “big boy” (as Brock called him). His promos aren’t good either. Yeah, the company could have moved heaven and earth for him, but come on — at some point you’ve got to connect.

Karrion Kross got his chances too. They gave him promo time. Not the best push or presentation in the world, by any stretch. But for a guy that is supposed to be a “monster,” he isn’t that big and comes off as really generic to me. If he hit it out of the park and was really dynamic, he might have been given more chance to stick around. But again, I don’t know how many mountains you want to move for a guy who doesn’t do anything outstanding.

[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect Everyone wants to blame the office. Keith Lee and Karrion Kross were not that good. Keith Lee was brought in and immediately worked with Randy Orton. He was in the 5 vs. 5 match at Survivor Series. He got the Brock spot in the Royal Rumble. They tried to put him in top positions against top guys to produce top work. He’s not a young guy and his psychology is kind of spotty for what they want for a “big boy” (as Brock called him). His promos aren’t good either. Yeah, the company could have moved heaven and earth for him, but come on — at some point you’ve got to connect. Karrion Kross got his chances too. They gave him promo time. Not the best push or presentation in the world, by any stretch. But for a guy that is supposed to be a “monster,” he isn’t that big and comes off as really generic to me. If he hit it out of the park and was really dynamic, he might have been given more chance to stick around. But again, I don’t know how many mountains you want to move for a guy who doesn’t do anything outstanding.

Something I mentioned on other forums, but I feel like it applies here: Keith Lee is two years older than Big E. However, Big E looks about 7 years younger than 35, but Lee looks about 10-15 years older than 37. Like, he looks like he could be Big E's father. Maybe that's the true "Power of Positivity."

Kross is just a generic fuck who looks like a bad CAW created by some edgy teenager. All of his personality is stored in his wife. I believe he was good friends with Drake whatever his name was, the Qanon Ref. Hence the whole Anti-Vax thing. I'm sure that made him a real peach to be around (there's been talk of his attitude much like Lee's). I wouldn't doubt that he felt like the only way they could use Scarlett was if she was with him, and WWE just decided not to bother with either of them. If that is the case, it would make him significantly dumber than Candido, Mero, and Morrison put together. But that part is speculation.

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect These all sound like pretty sensible cuts. WWE are monsters if they hire everybody, but they are also monsters if they dare fire anyone they aren’t using or don’t want to use anymore. It’s crazy how quickly people got used to WWE never releasing anyone (even though they should have), and now act like it’s some crazy thing when what is essentially a talent search program cuts people. I think talent should be able to get out of their deals too, for the record. But acting like WWE are villains in this is a bit much. They gave this talent chances (in their own world) and they didn’t live up to it. Also, just because your profit margin is huge doesn’t mean you don’t have a budget. I hear Alvarez get on them for that every time this sort of things happen. If you want to cap your talent expenses at a certain amount, that is entirely your prerogative. It’s got nothing to do with your profit margin (other than you being able to afford it).

Here's the thing about that: the primary problem comes from using the excuse about budgetary cuts like your're hemorrhaging money, but then coming out with major profits when the financials come out. At the very least, it's a bad look when you cry poor, and wipe away the tears with way more cash than you made last year.

The optics of that are one of two things: you're either doing something unsustainable while trying to continue the illusion that you make record profits, or you just don't give a fuck about your EMPLOYEES* at all.

Originally Posted by hb2k Vince ixnayed her coming up with Kross, saying she was "too hokey".

Originally Posted by XL He was entirely right tbf. Could they not just have asked her to tone it down though?

Originally Posted by Weapon X minus the lip syncing, i thought she was perfect with kross in nxt. liked her more than him.

Yeah, Scarlett was too hokey, but dressing Kross up like MasterBlaster without the midget on his back was apparently "good shit!" They could have tweaked shit with them, because that was already a ready-made package that could've used polish. Instead, they have to completely fuck with everything, and when that didn't go over well, it's somehow the fault of the talent.

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect Everyone wants to blame the office. Keith Lee and Karrion Kross were not that good. Keith Lee was brought in and immediately worked with Randy Orton. He was in the 5 vs. 5 match at Survivor Series. He got the Brock spot in the Royal Rumble. They tried to put him in top positions against top guys to produce top work. He’s not a young guy and his psychology is kind of spotty for what they want for a “big boy” (as Brock called him). His promos aren’t good either. Yeah, the company could have moved heaven and earth for him, but come on — at some point you’ve got to connect. Karrion Kross got his chances too. They gave him promo time. Not the best push or presentation in the world, by any stretch. But for a guy that is supposed to be a “monster,” he isn’t that big and comes off as really generic to me. If he hit it out of the park and was really dynamic, he might have been given more chance to stick around. But again, I don’t know how many mountains you want to move for a guy who doesn’t do anything outstanding.

The bigger issue here, though, is that they (WWE) have gotten to the point that they have deluded themselves into wanting instant gratification and THINK they can generate that themselves.

Let's not even specify anyone, let's make up a hypothetical amalgamation. Imagine Wrestler X has made a name for himself on the indys. And I don't mean as Flippy McKickpads, I mean a solid guy who can go bell to bell. This ficticious person looks like Ultimate Warrior in his prime, wrestles similar to Mr. Perfect, and has the gift of gab to rival Paul E line for line. They spend two years in NXT, and has a natural progression from nobody to NXT Champion. Has a following, and some catchphrase or some shit that nets him a unique marketable chant. These are all things you'd think would add up to an impossible to fuck up main roster talent that they can pad their ranks with.

Then he gets called up to RAW, and he suddenly wears coveralls to hide the physique. He gets the Sin Cara mood lighting. He gets no promo time. He jobs every other week in squash matches. Fans barely get a chance to do the chant. Complete 180 from what fans were witnessing for two years. Finally, Vince goes "nah, I don't see it", and this guy is out on his ass.

This isn't specifically about or limited to Kross and Keith, or anyone on this current slate of releases... but since they're here:

I've said from day one that *I* personally don't see the attraction with Keith Lee. I could never divorce him from being Shane Taylor's tag team partner in RoH. They were both generic big guys to me. However, I could clearly see Keith Lee was getting traction in NXT. Also, matches with Randy Orton shouldn't exactly be a barometer of success in WWE, since he does have a record of derailing pushes if *he* didn't like the match no matter what came before or after. They kepts trying to fuck with his gear, his gimmick, and his NAME instead of just letting him be.

As stated earlier, Kross and Scarlett were a package already. He wasn't the absolute best on the stick, but it wasn't like he was absolute ass, either. But the whole "If it ain't broke... let's break it" company mentality still won out, even though it wasn't the way most of us predicted (face it, most of you were like me and figured they would push Scarlett beyond Mars and Karrion Kross would get the Marc Mero treatment unless she got pregnant like Maria Kanellis did).

It makes no sense to try to "create new stars", while either simultaneously rejecting or actively fucking with all these supposed new stars. They start latching onto the barest handful of moneymakers and humping them dry for about a decade and then calling back people who have moved on to try to trade on the nostalgia that they themselves don't even actively educate their fans on. There's going to come a day where nobody knows who Stone Cold Steve Austin is.

It's easy to say about anyone who gets released everytime releases happen things like there was "nothing special about them" or "nothing of value was lost", but there is something of value lost. These people aren't supposed to be interchangable actors that can be plugged in anywhere and replaced like a car part. Hell, actors aren't even often interchangeable actors. Fans usually have shitfits if a show is recast or hilarity ensues with a big-budget film getting direct to video sequels with a very different person playing the lead role of who is supposedly the same guy.

WWE has very greatly distanced themselves from what they actually are so much over the last couple of decades. You have all the Vince-isms of "don't call it a belt" and a bunch of shit worded in ways that people don't actually speak. You have a maniac in the truck in love with sickening camerawork and a new toy in the last couple of years in the whole AR floating entrance shit. You have a bunch of people in suits who aren't even fans of the business they're in telling people who are supposed to be the product that they aren't suited to be the product because reasons. Or that someone who is so green that they could literally kill someone/themselves in the ring that they're good to go because they "look good on camera", or tell a top draw their voice is terrible, or a littany of other things. It's an unweildy corporate entity that seems to be actively trying to somehow simultaneously sustain their viewership, grow their profits, yet drive fans away by making them not care or invest in anyone because nobody will be invested into long enough for anyone to actively care about.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott Here's the thing about that: the primary problem comes from using the excuse about budgetary cuts like your're hemorrhaging money, but then coming out with major profits when the financials come out. At the very least, it's a bad look when you cry poor, and wipe away the tears with way more cash than you made last year. The optics of that are one of two things: you're either doing something unsustainable while trying to continue the illusion that you make record profits, or you just don't give a fuck about your EMPLOYEES* at all.

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.

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott The bigger issue here, though, is that they (WWE) have gotten to the point that they have deluded themselves into wanting instant gratification and THINK they can generate that themselves. Let's not even specify anyone, let's make up a hypothetical amalgamation. Imagine Wrestler X has made a name for himself on the indys. And I don't mean as Flippy McKickpads, I mean a solid guy who can go bell to bell. This ficticious person looks like Ultimate Warrior in his prime, wrestles similar to Mr. Perfect, and has the gift of gab to rival Paul E line for line. They spend two years in NXT, and has a natural progression from nobody to NXT Champion. Has a following, and some catchphrase or some shit that nets him a unique marketable chant. These are all things you'd think would add up to an impossible to fuck up main roster talent that they can pad their ranks with. Then he gets called up to RAW, and he suddenly wears coveralls to hide the physique. He gets the Sin Cara mood lighting. He gets no promo time. He jobs every other week in squash matches. Fans barely get a chance to do the chant. Complete 180 from what fans were witnessing for two years. Finally, Vince goes "nah, I don't see it", and this guy is out on his ass. This isn't specifically about or limited to Kross and Keith, or anyone on this current slate of releases... but since they're here: I've said from day one that *I* personally don't see the attraction with Keith Lee. I could never divorce him from being Shane Taylor's tag team partner in RoH. They were both generic big guys to me. However, I could clearly see Keith Lee was getting traction in NXT. Also, matches with Randy Orton shouldn't exactly be a barometer of success in WWE, since he does have a record of derailing pushes if *he* didn't like the match no matter what came before or after. They kepts trying to fuck with his gear, his gimmick, and his NAME instead of just letting him be. As stated earlier, Kross and Scarlett were a package already. He wasn't the absolute best on the stick, but it wasn't like he was absolute ass, either. But the whole "If it ain't broke... let's break it" company mentality still won out, even though it wasn't the way most of us predicted (face it, most of you were like me and figured they would push Scarlett beyond Mars and Karrion Kross would get the Marc Mero treatment unless she got pregnant like Maria Kanellis did). It makes no sense to try to "create new stars", while either simultaneously rejecting or actively fucking with all these supposed new stars. They start latching onto the barest handful of moneymakers and humping them dry for about a decade and then calling back people who have moved on to try to trade on the nostalgia that they themselves don't even actively educate their fans on. There's going to come a day where nobody knows who Stone Cold Steve Austin is. It's easy to say about anyone who gets released everytime releases happen things like there was "nothing special about them" or "nothing of value was lost", but there is something of value lost. These people aren't supposed to be interchangable actors that can be plugged in anywhere and replaced like a car part. Hell, actors aren't even often interchangeable actors. Fans usually have shitfits if a show is recast or hilarity ensues with a big-budget film getting direct to video sequels with a very different person playing the lead role of who is supposedly the same guy. WWE has very greatly distanced themselves from what they actually are so much over the last couple of decades. You have all the Vince-isms of "don't call it a belt" and a bunch of shit worded in ways that people don't actually speak. You have a maniac in the truck in love with sickening camerawork and a new toy in the last couple of years in the whole AR floating entrance shit. You have a bunch of people in suits who aren't even fans of the business they're in telling people who are supposed to be the product that they aren't suited to be the product because reasons. Or that someone who is so green that they could literally kill someone/themselves in the ring that they're good to go because they "look good on camera", or tell a top draw their voice is terrible, or a littany of other things. It's an unweildy corporate entity that seems to be actively trying to somehow simultaneously sustain their viewership, grow their profits, yet drive fans away by making them not care or invest in anyone because nobody will be invested into long enough for anyone to actively care about.

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.

[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.

[screech]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott Here's the thing about that: the primary problem comes from using the excuse about budgetary cuts like your're hemorrhaging money, but then coming out with major profits when the financials come out. At the very least, it's a bad look when you cry poor, and wipe away the tears with way more cash than you made last year.

This is where I land on the issue too. If you cut someone because "you're not connecting with the crowd" or "creative has nothing for you" that's one thing. But to claim it's for budget cuts when you're making money hand over fist is, at the very least, shitty optics.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by screech This is where I land on the issue too. If you cut someone because "you're not connecting with the crowd" or "creative has nothing for you" that's one thing. But to claim it's for budget cuts when you're making money hand over fist is, at the very least, shitty optics.

The company got shit all the time for not having anything for people. Or would be blamed for guys not connecting. If the WWE just came out and said “We don’t want you here anymore and it’s our prerogative who we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to” people would still whinge.

I still don’t get the budget cut = they’re broke argument. Just because you can afford something doesn’t mean you have an expansive budget. Especially if you are trying to get elements of your business under control that would not necessarily be profitable if you were to lose major revenue streams.

[GD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect Karrion Kross got his chances too. They gave him promo time. Not the best push or presentation in the world, by any stretch. But for a guy that is supposed to be a “monster,” he isn’t that big and comes off as really generic to me. If he hit it out of the park and was really dynamic, he might have been given more chance to stick around. But again, I don’t know how many mountains you want to move for a guy who doesn’t do anything outstanding.

This has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Really tells you how far certain people will go with their hot takes. While I'm not a Kross fan, he did not get a fair chance. His presentation which made him special was greatly altered and he was separated from his wife/valet. Not to mention that his undefeated streak was killed off in a 2-minute nothing match on RAW while he was the champion. Then he was saddled with one of the most cringe-worthy gimmicks in recent times. For someone who rambles on about perception being key, this has to be one of the dumbest takes in a while. Absolutely cringe inducing stuff.