How far do you feel Vince should be allowed to go as boss?

[segaz]

Reading that story about Sami Zayn being told not to be too enthusiastic or it'll make the boss mad and he'll fire you, or Bruce saying that everyone thought Katie Vick angle was too far but even though they told him, no one actually took Vince aside and spoke strongly and directly about how terrible the idea was, and even rumours about Vince asking female staff to sleep with him....

It makes me think that the WWE sounds like a dictatorship. Literally that Vince can come in and fire or demand anything, and as long as it's not totally rape or murder or physical abuse, it's fine.

I understand that. Walk on eggshells around him (unless he likes you and you can be affirmative once or twice about your character), generally never say no or 'tattletale' if your treated wrongly by others.....

I wonder, should he really be allowed to do this though?
I feel that here, despite constant complaining about Vince, there is always a little bit of a culture that you do whatever your boss tells you to do. And thinks it's OK for Vince to do these things because he's the boss and if he walks in and tells you to work all year with no holidays or fires you because he doesn't like your name, or makes fun of you on tv, it sucks if it hurts the company but still can't really argue with him because he's the boss and can do whatever he wants, and that's the most important thing.


I am not using extreme examples like murder here. I'm just wondering, how far should Vince be allowed to go, as the owner of the company? Ultimately I suppose he does have final say, but should he really be allowed to just disregard disciplinary policies for no good reason because he built the company up? Does his accomplishments afford him total justification as boss to make any decision he wants, in the eyes of the fans?

[Final Countdown Jones]

Nobody should have immunity from editors or even just a second voice to talk through ideas with. It doesn't matter if he's the boss; when his vision is uncompromised the product suffers for it, and it being his company doesn't necessarily making it his company to run into the ground

[Sparkybob]

Well he is the boss....and while someone is willing to take his paychecks he can get away with a lot.

[Deleted]

Once it starts impacting the product (which it has) there should be some type of quality control. Like there needs to be someone to tell him to chill on the micro managing and buzzwords.

[Deleted]

he's too Mad Men for 21st century business

[Hit Girl]

If I worked for him, I'd just play the role of the sycophant and collect my pay.

[fw91]

Nov 24, 2017 21:02:23 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

Nobody should have immunity from editors or even just a second voice to talk through ideas with. It doesn't matter if he's the boss; when his vision is uncompromised the product suffers for it, and it being his company doesn't necessarily making it his company to run into the ground

but as much as we may hate things and say the product is suffering and is running into the ground, is it really?

[OVO 40 hunched over like he 80]

Normally when the boss of a publicly traded company is such a f***ing psycho, the board would just remove him, the problem here is that the board is pretty much Vince's family.

[Final Countdown Jones]

Nov 24, 2017 21:49:22 GMT -5 fw91 said:

Nov 24, 2017 21:02:23 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

Nobody should have immunity from editors or even just a second voice to talk through ideas with. It doesn't matter if he's the boss; when his vision is uncompromised the product suffers for it, and it being his company doesn't necessarily making it his company to run into the ground

but as much as we may hate things and say the product is suffering and is running into the ground, is it really?

[fw91]

Nov 24, 2017 22:00:19 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

Nov 24, 2017 21:49:22 GMT -5 fw91 said:

but as much as we may hate things and say the product is suffering and is running into the ground, is it really?

but it's not the monday night wars anymore. they're making money even if ratings aren't attidue era levels of high.

[Final Countdown Jones]

Nov 24, 2017 22:01:55 GMT -5 fw91 said:

Nov 24, 2017 22:00:19 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

but it's not the monday night wars anymore. they're making money even if ratings aren't attidue era levels of high.

You asked if the product was suffering, I showed you a graph that shows the steady decline in ratings. You're right, it's not the Monday Night Wars; they were popular during the Monday Night Wars. Now they bleed viewers year on year and the old lows become the new norms and the cycle continues. By what possible measure in a market demanding constant growth is a dwindling consumer base not a problem? WWE is spending as hard as they can to wring blood from a stone and squeeze every dime they can out of the audience they have left, and every year a few hundred thousand more people walk away.

[nisidhe]

Nov 24, 2017 21:49:22 GMT -5 fw91 said:

Nov 24, 2017 21:02:23 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

Nobody should have immunity from editors or even just a second voice to talk through ideas with. It doesn't matter if he's the boss; when his vision is uncompromised the product suffers for it, and it being his company doesn't necessarily making it his company to run into the ground

but as much as we may hate things and say the product is suffering and is running into the ground, is it really?

Ratings are down: live events ticket sales are down; Network subscriptions are flat. Labour costs are going up; production costs are rising; talent contracts are forcing him to dig deeper and deeper to compete with the logistic and creative freedom of life in the indies. All that is slowly draining the company. Vince has had a history of his way or the highway when it comes to both, with Kevin Dunn not helping matters at all. WWE will be hosting Raw back at the Manhattan Center regularly within five years if things don't change and contract negotiations with his indie darlings go south.

[Doctor Of Style]

As long as he wants, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal. He has control of enough voting stock he doesn't need to ask anyone's permission.

[Mid-Carder]

Since Vince is ultimately answerable to everything, I feel he should be able to go as far as he wants. He’s not forcing anybody to work for him.

[clifford]

To be perfectly honest, for years I would give Vince a pass on his stupid shit and ridiculous out of touchness with the audience cause of his apparent genius during the Monday Night Wars but by now it's quite clear he should really just f*** off.

[Eunös ✈]

Honestly, if Vince was ever going to retire I think it would have happened by now.

Like it or not I think he is going to be involved in some way shape or form till his dying day.

So if he does live into his 80's/90's he will still be there somewhere calling the shots.

[repomark]

Nov 24, 2017 22:06:29 GMT -5 nisidhe said:

Nov 24, 2017 21:49:22 GMT -5 fw91 said:

but as much as we may hate things and say the product is suffering and is running into the ground, is it really?

Ratings are down: live events ticket sales are down; Network subscriptions are flat. Labour costs are going up; production costs are rising; talent contracts are forcing him to dig deeper and deeper to compete with the logistic and creative freedom of life in the indies. All that is slowly draining the company. Vince has had a history of his way or the highway when it comes to both, with Kevin Dunn not helping matters at all. WWE will be hosting Raw back at the Manhattan Center regularly within five years if things don't change and contract negotiations with his indie darlings go south.

Don’t really pay close attention to WWE’s accounts, but in spite of all of this aren’t their profits at an all time high? Whilst that is the case no one is going to push for any radical change as it appears on the face of it to all within the hierarchy of WWE that things are going well.

I think the product is flawed at the moment and would like to see some changes, but unsure if Vince is the sole reason for all of this however many stories we hear about his erratic behaviour. Whilst I might not enjoy watching as much as I once did, it doesn’t look like the WWE are in bad shape overall financially.

If that changes, then WWE will change.

[nisidhe]

Nov 25, 2017 6:33:10 GMT -5 repomark said:

Nov 24, 2017 22:06:29 GMT -5 nisidhe said:

Ratings are down: live events ticket sales are down; Network subscriptions are flat. Labour costs are going up; production costs are rising; talent contracts are forcing him to dig deeper and deeper to compete with the logistic and creative freedom of life in the indies. All that is slowly draining the company. Vince has had a history of his way or the highway when it comes to both, with Kevin Dunn not helping matters at all. WWE will be hosting Raw back at the Manhattan Center regularly within five years if things don't change and contract negotiations with his indie darlings go south.

Don’t really pay close attention to WWE’s accounts, but in spite of all of this aren’t their profits at an all time high? Whilst that is the case no one is going to push for any radical change as it appears on the face of it to all within the hierarchy of WWE that things are going well.

I think the product is flawed at the moment and would like to see some changes, but unsure if Vince is the sole reason for all of this however many stories we hear about his erratic behaviour. Whilst I might not enjoy watching as much as I once did, it doesn’t look like the WWE are in bad shape overall financially.

If that changes, then WWE will change.

It's a case of fewer fans spending more per capita. The money looks good right now, but Vince has a smaller, more passionate and, most importantly, more knowledgeable base that is already getting their wrestling fix from multiple sources, some of whom are better for their in-ring product, some of whom are more local and reasonably priced; some of whom have created a more imaginative and immersive universe. Right now, Vince has probably the best in-ring workers in the business working for him; but, _but_, fans know about the "WWE Style" and know that, as a result, they're not going to see those talents' best work because of that hobbling. So, the payoff for fans nowadays is seeing those talents put forward as "faces of the company" so that more people get to know them, get to check out their work elsewhere and possibly push for better in-ring work and product so that they can truly shine and help grow the company.

However, as has been said many times, Vince would rather earn a dollar his way than a million someone else's way. He likes what he likes and demands that fans like it, too. When the talents he's signed leave WWE, and there are few to take their place with the same potential, he will learn and do differently - maybe.

[Hit Girl]

After years of mocking "internet fans"' WWE basically accepted that those fans were pretty much all they had left. They signed indie darlings and created an online network which largely appeals only to that same hardcore they previously pissed on. WWE's best work for years has been done in NXT, which is basically their in-house attempt at creating an indie fed, with a niche fanbase.

[Tenshigure]

Nov 25, 2017 6:33:10 GMT -5 repomark said:

Don’t really pay close attention to WWE’s accounts, but in spite of all of this aren’t their profits at an all time high?

Not profits, revenue. There is a very distinct difference, that being they've earned more, but they've also been spending a ton more in maintaining the WWE network and production costs. To quote their own press release:

Live Event revenues increased 10% to $116.5 million from $105.8 million in the prior year period primarily due to the staging of 42 additional global events (41 in North America and 1 International), which was partially offset by an 8% decline in average attendance.

Translation: to offset their cost, they're raising ticket prices and doing more global tours, which of course because they're charging WrestleMania ticket prices for that India show they're doing in a few weeks. Sure, it's smart business to raise prices if people are willing to pay for it to offset expenses, but it masks the unstable issues underneath that they can only sustain for so long.