|
|
Post by Arthur Digby Stamp on Jun 27, 2007 11:27:55 GMT -5
I was listening to the radio today, and during the course of a discussion about Benoit, the subject of how often these guys are on the road for came up and how wore down they get, and it got me to thinking. Would an offseason in wrestling work? (And by no means am I saying that his work schedule was responsible for what happened, it just got me to thinking).
The idea that popped into my head was that each brand would get two months off. May-June, July-August, September-October. That way two of the three brands are still performing at all times, and are still able to bring in revenue for pay-per-views and house shows. Meanwhile, all three brands being back on in time for Survivor Series gives them plenty of time to build for Wrestlemania.
Obviously it'd be a big cut in profit, and there's sponsoring and television deals to consider, but I just figured it was an interesting concept and would throw it out there. If it helps to alleviate some of the stress, while also cutting down on injuries, I think it'd be worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by WHATAMANOOOVER on Jun 27, 2007 11:34:39 GMT -5
Keller at the Torch had a seemingly good idea that WWE hires more talent and gives the talent anywhere from 6-8 weeks off on a rotating basis. So for example a certain amount of guys would have off from September to October while other guys work.
The obvious problem would be in determining who works when. Some guys may not want to work during certain months when they know business may be down (in the spring for example) and then does everyone become available for the Rumble through Mania?
|
|
|
|
Post by honsou on Jun 27, 2007 11:44:30 GMT -5
I think what you(and i am pretty sure this came up in some other post) is introduce new guys after Wrestlemania and let the main eventer's rest for a period of a month/ month and half
|
|
|
|
Post by freddiejoefloydfan on Jun 27, 2007 11:46:34 GMT -5
I have been saying this for a long time now. They NEED an offseason. If wrestlemania is "The Super Bowl or World Series" of wrestling. Perhaps it should also serve as the de facto end of the "season". Give these guys some time to recharge their batteries and start again say around right about now when the NBA is over. That's probably not even a long enough break. I know for me personally I would not miss wrestling if it went off the air for a little while, and when it would come back a couple of months later, I think people's interest would be surging just like at the start of the NFL season.
|
|
Mr. Mediocre
Hank Scorpio
Bert Early?... sorry, that's a typo. Butt. Ugly.
Much better since I was last here.
Posts: 6,249
|
Post by Mr. Mediocre on Jun 27, 2007 11:48:07 GMT -5
I think what you(and i am pretty sure this came up in some other post) is introduce new guys after Wrestlemania and let the main eventer's rest for a period of a month/ month and half I'm more in favor of a rotating schedule...it's not like you can give the WWE Champ 2 months off after Mania. |
|
jobber2thestars
Hank Scorpio
Buy the Simon System. You'll thank yourself.
Posts: 7,097
|
Post by jobber2thestars on Jun 27, 2007 11:48:25 GMT -5
Giving guys off wouldn't be a bad idea. It gives wrestlers a chance to rehab injuries/spend time with their families, create opportunities for new guys to step up, and allow characters a chance of freshening up.
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Jun 27, 2007 11:52:09 GMT -5
Yes an offseason would work.
2 months off for everyone after Wrestlemania. It will give WM more prestige, it would probably improve buyrates because it is the last show of the season.
Wrestlers can heal, which will improve their longativity. It will also reduce the need for pain killers and working trough injuries.
Writers can take time to think of fresh and good angles. That will draw in viewers, a good angle is what helped WCW win the ratings war and saved WWE.
The only so called down side is the money issue. WWE would lose money because they are not on the road. Sure they will miss money, but then again, being on the road also costs a lot of money. So they could still make a profit by for example releasing more special dvd's in the offseason for example. They could also keep being on tv, by showing compilations of the tv shows. For example, an entire show dedicated to one big angle, with all the matches and promos.
So there are enough alternatives for the WWE to make money in the offseason.
There really is no good reason not to have an offseason. And WWE really needs it.
|
|
|
|
Post by WHATAMANOOOVER on Jun 27, 2007 11:55:49 GMT -5
Stamp...just a FYI, WWE doesn't make any money for their TV besides whatever house they draw and merchandise they sell.
No matter which way you slice it, if they were to ever adopt some sort of off-season where they wouldn't be on the road for a given amount of time, they'd be losing a lot of money. Is it worth it? Only the Board at WWE can decide if it's right for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Digby Stamp on Jun 27, 2007 12:07:44 GMT -5
...not even from FRUITY, DELICIOUS, FRUITY FRUITY BAH GAWD SKITTLES?
|
|
Erik Majorwitz
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
I don't have a PS3.
Longest Crapper- Laying it across the table
Posts: 18,051
|
Post by Erik Majorwitz on Jun 27, 2007 12:10:00 GMT -5
There should be less PPVs, make them special again. I'd rather buy 4-5 PPVs a year at $60 a pop than 12-16 PPVs at $49.99 a piece.
Why not run a Cape Cod (baseball) type promotion in the Summer?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonstone on Jun 27, 2007 12:37:55 GMT -5
Maybe work guys two weeks on, one week off. Seriously, even if the World Champ was off for a week, would anyone really notice. that would give them 1/3rd of the year off, to relax and spend time with their families. That would really help with the home lives for a lot of these guys, and it would keep guys from getting burned out. It would also let small injuries heal, and not add up and turn into big ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ðynamowolf: For Victoria! on Jun 27, 2007 12:45:30 GMT -5
2 months off for everyone after Wrestlemania. It will give WM more prestige, it would probably improve buyrates because it is the last show of the season. Definitely. The only possible negative about that is the fact that anyone can get hurt during the offseason...and the positives far outweigh the negatives. The only question I have, is what's taking so long? |
|
|
|
Post by bindergang on Jun 27, 2007 12:47:10 GMT -5
I like the idea of rotating schedules. A wrestler gets these two weeks off, while another goes back on the road. That wrestler gets the next 2 weeks off, the one who had off goes back on the road.
I mean, there's plenty of guys who show up for their show and don't even wrestler on TV, anyway.
|
|
derekd
Mike the Goon
Posts: 33 
|
Post by derekd on Jun 27, 2007 12:55:19 GMT -5
Definitely. The only possible negative about that is the fact that anyone can get hurt during the offseason That's the thing. Working them less would mean paying them less, and how many would take indy bookings to make up for the loss? Not many would go for a non-compete clause for a 2-3 month period. There is ample opportunity for injury there. |
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jun 27, 2007 12:56:51 GMT -5
An off-season isn't practical, there's too many roadblocks (contracts with tv, performers, venues, etc.). They'd also be leaving a ton of money on table, and since they're publically trade now, that doesn't isn't something you can do.
Why does everyone need time off at the same time anyway? Rotating time off is a great idea. The veterans and the main eventers get their preference. You'd have to make it mandatory, because a lot of guys wouldn't what the paycut, and once a few don't take time off, there will be pressure for everyone not to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cypress on Jun 27, 2007 13:02:30 GMT -5
just cut back on house shows, maybe from 8 a month to 4
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Jun 27, 2007 13:17:49 GMT -5
Stamp...just a FYI, WWE doesn't make any money for their TV besides whatever house they draw and merchandise they sell. No matter which way you slice it, if they were to ever adopt some sort of off-season where they wouldn't be on the road for a given amount of time, they'd be losing a lot of money. Is it worth it? Only the Board at WWE can decide if it's right for them. Commercials (banners, sponsorship), (free) promoting WWE products on their own show. And lets not forget that being on the road costs a lot of money. When wrestlers get injured on the road, WWE loses money. Travelling, advertising, and losing money because of small crowds, it all costs money. I don't have any numbers, but I wonder how much WWE earns by doing house shows and I wonder how much money they lose everytime they don't sell out an arena. But it is very simple to think that being on the road always means they are making money. They only make money when they have a profit, even if they break even they don't earn anything. And the best way, to make a profit and to be succesful. Is the quality of the storylines and keeping wrestlers in good health. And that is why the offseason will also keep the WWE from losing money in the long run. |
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,717
|
Post by Glitch on Jun 27, 2007 13:30:22 GMT -5
I like the rotation idea aswell. It would make alot easier to follow angles.
|
|
|
|
Post by leemir on Jun 27, 2007 13:32:02 GMT -5
The mid-card & lower-card guys could never afford to.
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Jun 27, 2007 13:33:49 GMT -5
The mid-card & lower-card guys could never afford to. Which is why wrestling needs an union. And then WWE would lose money on health care, better contracts and silly things that would improve someone's working condition. |
|
