|
Post by Lance Uppercut on Jul 26, 2014 4:38:43 GMT -5
Why do people like to say some variant of this? Isn't the goal of competition to eventually win? Are they saying that Vince shouldn't have bought WCW when it was offered to him? Should he have let someone else buy and try to take him down again?
It's like back when people used to say "Vince killed the territories". Eventually we all agreed that it was doomed for death anyway with the advent of cable television and Vince actually caring about having a polished product and the talent agreeing to whoever paid them most.
Now with WCW, and some part ECW, some people like to point out their deaths as ruining the industry. But is that really Vince's fault? Look at TNA, do you think a new owner would have washed away the stench of years of failure? Would it just keep failing and sold to new owners every couple of years?
ECW died because they couldn't afford to keep their best talent, and some of them weren't that good to begin with. WCW died for a number of reasons. Mostly turning into a laughable failure on multiple levels.
Notice I use the word competition. That's because that's the usual hot button word that people use when saying that WWE is so horrible right now. Of course there are room for alternatives, so no I'm not saying any other enterprise is doomed for failure. Just don't go trying to knock down the reigning king who's a 500 lb. gorilla.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Jul 26, 2014 4:41:14 GMT -5
WCW and ECW flamed out on their own accord, as both became money pits and had their TV deals vanish without a backup. Vince just happens to be the guy who bought the remains, really.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Jul 26, 2014 4:45:20 GMT -5
I think it's how horribly botched the Invasion Angle was more than anything. What should've been the greatest storyline ever was Austin and a bunch of chumps vs WWF. A lot of fans of all 3 companies never came back after that. By the time they gradually got the top WCW guys the Invasion was over and WWF had already won.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jul 26, 2014 5:02:41 GMT -5
I think it's how horribly botched the Invasion Angle was more than anything. What should've been the greatest storyline ever was Austin and a bunch of chumps vs WWF. A lot of fans of all 3 companies never came back after that. By the time they gradually got the top WCW guys the Invasion was over and WWF had already won. Yeah because the guys that the Alliance had were anything but a bunch of chumps That was the issue, the fact that the WCW roster at the time was absolute shit and the big named guys didn't want to go over. Outside of throwing millions of dollars at these guys, they couldn't do much
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jul 26, 2014 5:09:48 GMT -5
I think it's just people who are sad that his more "sports entertainment" oriented product won out. Here's the thing, though. By the time he bought them out, WCW and ECW were both sports entertainment as opposed to traditional wrestling as well. Traditional wrestling can draw, but it wasn't really what the crowd wanted to see at that time. They wanted outlandish storylines and action/comedy/sexy skits. So, I think people who say that are looking at things from an idealized perspective. Pro Wrestling is an evolving sport. Every generation seems to change a lot from the one before it. Please debate this point, as it's how I seem to recall events moreso than how they may have actually been.
|
|
Bad Moon
Unicron
for reasons known only to the goblins that live in my brain
Posts: 3,091
|
Post by Bad Moon on Jul 26, 2014 5:41:21 GMT -5
Because by beating the competition he made the wrestling landscape in America more homogenized. The same would have happened if WCW had won, more of their specific kind of wrestling and less of everything else, to the point where the three biggest promotions right now are WWE, off-brand WWE and deliberately anti-WWE, with only some very niché gimmick promotions beyond that. Too little variety of producst is bad for any business.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjames on Jul 26, 2014 6:02:50 GMT -5
Because it's something else that allows people who don't like him to blame Vince for.
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Jul 26, 2014 6:13:01 GMT -5
Because by beating the competition he made the wrestling landscape in America more homogenized. The same would have happened if WCW had won, more of their specific kind of wrestling and less of everything else, to the point where the three biggest promotions right now are WWE, off-brand WWE and deliberately anti-WWE, with only some very niché gimmick promotions beyond that. Too little variety of producst is bad for any business. This is accurate, competition in any market is supposed to improve the quality of the product being supplied (through having to constantly innovate), it is also supposed to give protection to the workers as they have various companies for whom they can work and earn a good wage. I use the term 'supposed' because it does not always work that way. I suppose you could say the goal of competition is to 'win' but in business usually winning involves holding a larger market share than your competitors, not necessarily wipe them out. At the time WWE bought WCW/ECW there was room in the wrestling market for more than one company to co-exist at a high level and compete for a bigger market share than the other (I'm not sure that would be the case these days). At the same time you can't really say Vince destroyed it on this occasion as WCW and ECW had run themselves into the ground before Vince bought the scraps. Competition in the entertainment industry is a good thing and I think we (as consumers) and the workers are worse off for the lack of it.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,218
|
Post by Push R Truth on Jul 26, 2014 7:41:45 GMT -5
It's not like there isn't any other competition, you got TN.....ah piss on it. There's no real competition.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 26, 2014 7:49:10 GMT -5
It's like i f there was one gas station, one soda company etc--your options as a consumer are limited.
Plus, Vince doesn't pay my bills, what do I care if he gets a stranglehold on American wrestling from that standpoint? Competition benefits the audience by forcing companies to bring their A game.
There's nothing inherently, ethically wrong with obliterating your competitors (besides the often shitty way they treat talent&staff), but as a viewer your choice is limited.
|
|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Jul 26, 2014 9:19:47 GMT -5
Something weird happened with ECW's death. Tommy Dreamer, during the Austin podcast, said that they were offered over a hundred million dollars for the company, but didn't want Heyman in charge of the financial end. Later Heyman no showed the meeting with the potential buyers making Tommy look bad, it was almost as if heyman didn't want to sell it. Nobody knew Vince had been pouring money to ECW over the years, Bischoff called Tommy and proposed an invasion angle in 2000, Tommy proposed the idea to Heyman, he said "Vince would get pissed off". Dreamer thought it was weird but never thought much about it, in 2005 while promoting One Night Stand, he learned Heyman was in bed with Vince the whole time, he finally added two and two together and wanted to kill Heyman.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 9:22:46 GMT -5
WWE basically did what other sports organizations have down before them and still continue to do. The NFL faced off with a number of upstart leagues through the decades with them either absorbing the competition or making life hell for them to the point they shut down. The NFL made ESPN chose between covering XFL or losing the rights to cover the NFL. ESPN choose the bonafide over the upstart. They also told their major advertisers and stadiums the same thing. Same for the NBA who were locked in a WWF/WCW type war with the ABA. The NBA waged war with them until the latter's bad deals, low attendance and ratings, and declining public image ended that. And the NBA absorbed the best from the ABA and tossed the rest in the trash. UFC owns just as many former competitors' intellectual rights as WWE. The closest threat in their field is Bellator who basically is their TNA; not a big enough of a threat to stay up at night worrying about. MLB and NHL have been lucky that no one has attempt to challenge them for the crown and accept they are the leader in their respected fields. All those aforementioned companies are doing gangbusters even with the lack of competition.
WWE suffers from wrestling fans who fondly remember their former competition and haven't accepted them as the leader of their industry. When WCW went out of business, a vast number of their fanbase stopped watching pro wrestling period. They didn't flock to TNA either. They moved on leaving a massive void in their wake. Sure competition brought out the best in WWE and offered different choices for fans, but it's not up to WWE to keep it going. If Coca Cola had the chance to shut down Pepsi once for all, they would do it and not look back. WWE plays it safe because there is no need to take bold risks especially when not necessary. They do take them when it is needed but they aren't doing it every time. Some fans want to the feel of anything can happen and will happen of the Monday Night Wars. But that method desensitized people and scorched the earth in the process.
|
|
Crimson
Hank Scorpio
Thank you DWade
Posts: 6,511
|
Post by Crimson on Jul 26, 2014 9:23:12 GMT -5
Probably because we've had13 years of WWE rewriting History in their favor.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Jul 26, 2014 9:42:38 GMT -5
Both deals were shady, because there were groups that wanted to buy WCW and ECW respectively and they were sold to the WWE for far less than these groups offered to pay. The deal Dreamer was talking about for a hundred million for ECW and whatever amount Bischoff's group was going to pay, yet they were sold to the WWE for pennies on the dollar. While I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, we already know Vince was paying for ECW and Heyman sabotaged Dreamer's opportunity. I find it hard to believe that a company like AOL/Time Warner would sell a property like WCW to the LOWER bidder without there being some fast track/ under the table agreement with the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 26, 2014 9:46:28 GMT -5
As bad as it was for the product at the time (and we still see it today) it was the best thing for the history of wrestling. I mean if it didn't happen no DVDs that were awesome, no WWE archive on the network, and no other WWE buying other video libraries.
|
|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Jul 26, 2014 9:49:22 GMT -5
Both deals were shady, because there were groups that wanted to buy WCW and ECW respectively and they were sold to the WWE for far less than these groups offered to pay. The deal Dreamer was talking about for a hundred million for ECW and whatever amount Bischoff's group was going to pay, yet they were sold to the WWE for pennies on the dollar. While I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, we already know Vince was paying for ECW and Heyman sabotaged Dreamer's opportunity. I find it hard to believe that a company like AOL/Time Warner would sell a property like WCW to the LOWER bidder without there being some fast track/ under the table agreement with the WWE. Yeah...he bought WCW for less than 10 million...how come no one has ever looked up into that?
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Jul 26, 2014 9:56:40 GMT -5
Basically he bought the names and likenesses for 3,000,000. No one else could buy it for such a low price because they would have need a TV spot and a deal with the cable companies for PPV to make it worth while.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 9:59:02 GMT -5
Both deals were shady, because there were groups that wanted to buy WCW and ECW respectively and they were sold to the WWE for far less than these groups offered to pay. The deal Dreamer was talking about for a hundred million for ECW and whatever amount Bischoff's group was going to pay, yet they were sold to the WWE for pennies on the dollar. While I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, we already know Vince was paying for ECW and Heyman sabotaged Dreamer's opportunity. I find it hard to believe that a company like AOL/Time Warner would sell a property like WCW to the LOWER bidder without there being some fast track/ under the table agreement with the WWE. Once WCW programming got cancelled, Fusient Media wanted nothing to do with them. Without tv, WCW served no purpose to them. Time Warner wanted the company off the books as soon as possible and only WWE had the cash on hand to do it. ECW was a weird situation with Jimmy Iovine wanting the company but Heyman acting anti-authority as he does deep-sixed it. Plus with ECW still in debt to Acclaim, any prospective buyer had to make a deal with them before any offers to buy ECW could go through.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Jul 26, 2014 9:59:09 GMT -5
Basically he bought the names and likenesses for 3,000,000. No one else could buy it for such a low price because they would have need a TV spot and a deal with the cable companies for PPV to make it worth while. Bischoff wanted WCW and some group that was dealing with Dreamer wanted ECW.
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Jul 26, 2014 10:06:15 GMT -5
Yeah the WCW deal was pretty cut and dry, Bischoff's group were all set to invest then found out that WCW was losing it's TV deal and they pulled out, he talks about it in his book.
|
|