|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Sept 13, 2021 4:35:10 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that being on the WWE section of this board doesn’t automatically make someone a fully qualified medical, legal, financial, psychological, historical and telepathy expert? It certainly grants credits towards a Doctorate in Sarcasm, with a minor in hypocrisy and double standards theory. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Sept 13, 2021 6:41:12 GMT -5
KO has been rather cryptic hinting about going to AEW and if that’s his plan, Sami will most likely join him as their contacts expire around the same time
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Sept 13, 2021 7:37:14 GMT -5
KO has been rather cryptic hinting about going to AEW and if that’s his plan, Sami will most likely join him as their contacts expire around the same time Sounds lovely
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 13, 2021 12:46:37 GMT -5
WWE doesn't care who they're release since it's the brand name that brings the money and viewers. The talent these days doesn't sell the WWE brand so whoever gets released isn't that big to Nick Khan and Vince McMahon imo. funny, ECW worked on largely the same premise. seemed to work until all their stars left.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 13, 2021 12:47:08 GMT -5
KO has been rather cryptic hinting about going to AEW and if that’s his plan, Sami will most likely join him as their contacts expire around the same time Sounds lovely I could live without Sammy, but I’m not gonna complain
|
|
voicesinmyhead
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 4, 2009 19:21:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,450
|
Post by voicesinmyhead on Sept 13, 2021 13:09:30 GMT -5
WWE doesn't care who they're release since it's the brand name that brings the money and viewers. The talent these days doesn't sell the WWE brand so whoever gets released isn't that big to Nick Khan and Vince McMahon imo. funny, ECW worked on largely the same premise. seemed to work until all their stars left. You can’t seriously be comparing ECW to current day WWE. Current day WWE has way more money, the name recognition, and a significant amount of history. Even though AEW has momentum, they still don’t hold a candle to WWEs revenue and a head start of multiple decades. I don’t even know why we are all arguing about stuff like this. It should be a good thing that there are multiple companies. I don’t know why everyone wants to see WWE “lose” to the point where they are out of business. Why can’t they both be around?
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Sept 13, 2021 13:43:13 GMT -5
Somebody lock this.
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Sept 13, 2021 13:50:10 GMT -5
I could live without Sammy, but I’m not gonna complain I think he'd be one HELLUVA signing for AEW...
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 13, 2021 15:01:05 GMT -5
funny, ECW worked on largely the same premise. seemed to work until all their stars left. You can’t seriously be comparing ECW to current day WWE. Current day WWE has way more money, the name recognition, and a significant amount of history. Even though AEW has momentum, they still don’t hold a candle to WWEs revenue and a head start of multiple decades. I don’t even know why we are all arguing about stuff like this. It should be a good thing that there are multiple companies. I don’t know why everyone wants to see WWE “lose” to the point where they are out of business. Why can’t they both be around? you're right, i'm not comparing ecw overall to the current day wwe. the only comparison i made was responding to the idea that wwe the brand sells the show instead of individual talents, which is much like how heyman formulated ECW - hence the crowd chanting ECW, instead of the star's names, a lot of the time. that was where the comparison started and stopped. so not sure what your gripe is.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Sept 13, 2021 17:29:12 GMT -5
Can you actually take a look at the WWE Roster in 2004 lol it was abysmal, yet everyone and their mother watched WWE during the attitude era. It was one of the coolest things on TV, yet the roster was filled with people like Johnny Stamboli, Chuck Palumbo, Ernest Miller, Billy Kidman, Rob Conway, the list goes on and on.
WWE could have a roster full of young prospects and people would still watch. The IWC does not define the WWE audience. The larger percentage of their audience are casual fans, and losing people like Kevin Owens isn't going to cause that majority of people to stop watching the show.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 13, 2021 17:35:12 GMT -5
Can you actually take a look at the WWE Roster in 2004 lol it was abysmal, yet everyone and their mother watched WWE during the attitude era. It was one of the coolest things on TV, yet the roster was filled with people like Johnny Stamboli, Chuck Palumbo, Ernest Miller, Billy Kidman, Rob Conway, the list goes on and on. WWE could have a roster full of young prospects and people would still watch. The IWC does not define the WWE audience. The larger percentage of their audience are casual fans, and losing people like Kevin Owens isn't going to cause that majority of people to stop watching the show. the difference is that they had an abundance of stars at the top level in 2004 still. the wwe have created stars under pressure before, it will be interesting to see if and how they do it again.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Sept 13, 2021 17:42:20 GMT -5
Can you actually take a look at the WWE Roster in 2004 lol it was abysmal, yet everyone and their mother watched WWE during the attitude era. It was one of the coolest things on TV, yet the roster was filled with people like Johnny Stamboli, Chuck Palumbo, Ernest Miller, Billy Kidman, Rob Conway, the list goes on and on. WWE could have a roster full of young prospects and people would still watch. The IWC does not define the WWE audience. The larger percentage of their audience are casual fans, and losing people like Kevin Owens isn't going to cause that majority of people to stop watching the show. the difference is that they had an abundance of stars at the top level in 2004 still. the wwe have created stars under pressure before, it will be interesting to see if and how they do it again. I think it's fair that while they may not be "top level" in the eyes of WWE, in the eyes of the audience and social media, there are an abundance of talent that would qualify as top level currently on the Raw/Smackdown roster
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 13, 2021 17:54:32 GMT -5
the difference is that they had an abundance of stars at the top level in 2004 still. the wwe have created stars under pressure before, it will be interesting to see if and how they do it again. I think it's fair that while they may not be "top level" in the eyes of WWE, in the eyes of the audience and social media, there are an abundance of talent that would qualify as top level currently on the Raw/Smackdown roster to be honest, no, that wouldn't be fair. in comparison to goldberg in his prime, the rock, austin, edge, batista, cena, angle, rvd, triple h, shawn michaels, scott steiner...these names were far more recognized and publicly heralded than any names of today outside of maybe reigns, who they've put all their eggs in the basket of.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Sept 13, 2021 17:59:12 GMT -5
I think it's fair that while they may not be "top level" in the eyes of WWE, in the eyes of the audience and social media, there are an abundance of talent that would qualify as top level currently on the Raw/Smackdown roster to be honest, no, that wouldn't be fair. in comparison to goldberg in his prime, the rock, austin, edge, batista, cena, angle, rvd, triple h, shawn michaels, scott steiner...these names were far more recognized and publicly heralded than any names of today outside of maybe reigns, who they've put all their eggs in the basket of. Kids today, which is the larger percentage of the WWE audience, are going to know who Kofi Kingston is compared to knowing who Austin, Angle, RVD, Shawn, and Steiner are.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 13, 2021 18:08:45 GMT -5
to be honest, no, that wouldn't be fair. in comparison to goldberg in his prime, the rock, austin, edge, batista, cena, angle, rvd, triple h, shawn michaels, scott steiner...these names were far more recognized and publicly heralded than any names of today outside of maybe reigns, who they've put all their eggs in the basket of. Kids today, which is the larger percentage of the WWE audience, are going to know who Kofi Kingston is compared to knowing who Austin, Angle, RVD, Shawn, and Steiner are. that’s not really relevant to what I was saying. I was referencing the 2004 roster and the abundance of talent people tuned in to see those stars. if it was just chuck palumbos and billy kidman’s, most people would tune out
|
|
|
Post by ASR (therockisback) on Sept 13, 2021 18:10:05 GMT -5
I think it's fair that while they may not be "top level" in the eyes of WWE, in the eyes of the audience and social media, there are an abundance of talent that would qualify as top level currently on the Raw/Smackdown roster to be honest, no, that wouldn't be fair. in comparison to goldberg in his prime, the rock, austin, edge, batista, cena, angle, rvd, triple h, shawn michaels, scott steiner...these names were far more recognized and publicly heralded than any names of today outside of maybe reigns, who they've put all their eggs in the basket of. All those guys you mentioned plus Benoit, Kane, Taker, Mysterio, Jericho, Christian, Booker T, Flair, Orton, Nash, Bischoff, Big Show, Rhyno, Benjamin, Carlito, JBL, Eddie & Chavo, Rikishi, Matt Hardy, Dudleyz, Foley... 2004 was too stacked.
|
|
|
Post by ASR (therockisback) on Sept 13, 2021 18:14:40 GMT -5
If AEW made Rampage a 2 hour show (probs on a different day or night) and grabbed Balor, AJ, K.O, Sami, Bray, Braun, Murphy... they’d really hit the jackpot tbh. I don’t know why WWE has released so many top talent and potential top talent. At least other companies can sign these guys but the E really needs to maintain their roster. I doubt WWE wants to be actively releasing its talent. The magnitude of the financial hit of the pandemic for WWE must have been absolutely unreal. Payroll is likely WWE's largest expense being an entertainment company. While this is great current news for AEW, as a sense of normalcy comes back, so will WWE's profitability. I predict tons of new acquisitions over the next 2-3 years. They’ll probably stop releasing talent for now or maybe have one last round lol. I’m hoping they just keep most of these guys and push em tbh.
|
|
|
Post by ¡Twist Of Cinnamon! on Sept 14, 2021 6:16:10 GMT -5
I could live without Sammy, but I’m not gonna complain I think he'd be one HELLUVA signing for AEW... It is against the rules of the internet to post that video if it doesn’t follow a slightly witty pun.
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Sept 14, 2021 7:05:31 GMT -5
I think he'd be one HELLUVA signing for AEW... It is against the rules of the internet to post that video if it doesn’t follow a slightly witty pun. So I’m 100% in the clear
|
|
voicesinmyhead
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 4, 2009 19:21:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,450
|
Post by voicesinmyhead on Sept 14, 2021 10:46:53 GMT -5
You can’t seriously be comparing ECW to current day WWE. Current day WWE has way more money, the name recognition, and a significant amount of history. Even though AEW has momentum, they still don’t hold a candle to WWEs revenue and a head start of multiple decades. I don’t even know why we are all arguing about stuff like this. It should be a good thing that there are multiple companies. I don’t know why everyone wants to see WWE “lose” to the point where they are out of business. Why can’t they both be around? you're right, i'm not comparing ecw overall to the current day wwe. the only comparison i made was responding to the idea that wwe the brand sells the show instead of individual talents, which is much like how heyman formulated ECW - hence the crowd chanting ECW, instead of the star's names, a lot of the time. that was where the comparison started and stopped. so not sure what your gripe is. I understand what you’re trying to say, but my point is that the two companies you are comparing are so different and wwe is in such a position that this mindset or philosophy won’t hurt wwe like it did ecw.
|
|