BHB
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,778
|
Post by BHB on Jun 27, 2007 14:00:12 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. Exactly.
|
|
Jackaveli
AC Slater
You'rrrrre...WOOOO...fired
Posts: 232
|
Post by Jackaveli on Jun 27, 2007 14:40:46 GMT -5
I have a few ideas.
-Instead of shutting down for two months....build Wrestlemania to be like a "Finals" and following that, just shut down the house shows for a month or two but keep the TV events going so that no one loses momentum.
-Give each brand a break (1-2 months) following a major PPV. For example, Raw could take a break (house show break, TV is a must in order to keep momentum for faces and not kill heel heat) after SummerSlam. They'd come back right in time for Survivor Series. After Survivor Series, Smackdown can take a 1-2 month (house show) break. They'd be back right in time for Royal Rumble. ECW tapes with Smackdown but since Smackdown would be taking a house show break, ECW could do smaller venues during Smackdown's break. ECW can take house show breaks after Wrestlemania and still do TV tapings with Smackdown
-Eliminate the brand extension for HOUSE SHOWS ONLY. The main reason for the split was so that they could do multiple house shows in different markets on the same day. You could still have brand specific wrestlers for television purposes but for house shows just mesh some together. That way it would be easier to rotate wrestlers in and out without any major quality drop-off. Heck, you could even give a wrestler one full week off per month, to go along with the days off they get during the week. It's the most sensible (money wise) They can still promote their "no off-season" mentality. All the while, wrestlers get approx. 3 months off per year. The general wrestling public wouldn't know because they'd be at every televised event.
|
|
|
Post by leemir on Jun 27, 2007 14:42:21 GMT -5
All this would make the WWE cut down on talent leaving a lot of guys without a job.
|
|
Jackaveli
AC Slater
You'rrrrre...WOOOO...fired
Posts: 232
|
Post by Jackaveli on Jun 27, 2007 14:48:23 GMT -5
Oh, and to add one more thing to that 3rd thought, people would be more motivated to go to house shows if they got to see "interpromotional matches" that they wouldn't normally see on television. I know lately people have been wrestling whomever but it's about to calm down now since the draft is over. Some house shows will give you cards that could have matches from Cena & Batista tagging against RKO, all the way down to CM Punk against MVP.
|
|
Stevie J
Samurai Cop
RING OF HONOR DEE-VEE-DEEZ~!
Posts: 2,130
|
Post by Stevie J on Jun 27, 2007 14:53:20 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. Keller's cribbing from Alvarez, who himself is cribbing from an idea they already do in Mexico with lucha stars. Guys rotate up, and then they rotate down and are off TV for a while. Nobody stays up on top forever, except maybe Mistico (and they're paying for that decision because he's hurt now).
|
|
Libertine
Unicron
Cerebral Caustic
Posts: 3,082
|
Post by Libertine on Jun 27, 2007 14:54:05 GMT -5
You could cut house shows down and amalgamate the brands, and thus making the matches of no consequence.
If you were guaranteed 8-10 matches per house show with all three brands competing, you could get some very interesting matches. Advertise heavily, and soon the format would spread and appeal creating more audiences.
|
|
|
Post by AwkwardSilence on Jun 27, 2007 15:34:29 GMT -5
An offseason could work, but WWE would risk losing a lot of money. The idea of rotating stars seems like an interesting idea, but when you take big stars off of t.v. you risk losing some of your audience.
|
|
|
Post by Palatial Regalia on Jun 27, 2007 15:35:33 GMT -5
No offseason per say, just push new talent in the offtimes in feuds of their own. Use that time to develop the future.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Jun 27, 2007 15:38:32 GMT -5
I have a few ideas. -Instead of shutting down for two months....build Wrestlemania to be like a "Finals" and following that, just shut down the house shows for a month or two but keep the TV events going so that no one loses momentum. -Give each brand a break (1-2 months) following a major PPV. For example, Raw could take a break (house show break, TV is a must in order to keep momentum for faces and not kill heel heat) after SummerSlam. They'd come back right in time for Survivor Series. After Survivor Series, Smackdown can take a 1-2 month (house show) break. They'd be back right in time for Royal Rumble. ECW tapes with Smackdown but since Smackdown would be taking a house show break, ECW could do smaller venues during Smackdown's break. ECW can take house show breaks after Wrestlemania and still do TV tapings with Smackdown -Eliminate the brand extension for HOUSE SHOWS ONLY. The main reason for the split was so that they could do multiple house shows in different markets on the same day. You could still have brand specific wrestlers for television purposes but for house shows just mesh some together. That way it would be easier to rotate wrestlers in and out without any major quality drop-off. Heck, you could even give a wrestler one full week off per month, to go along with the days off they get during the week. It's the most sensible (money wise) They can still promote their "no off-season" mentality. All the while, wrestlers get approx. 3 months off per year. The general wrestling public wouldn't know because they'd be at every televised event. You sir, are smart.
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Jun 27, 2007 15:45:24 GMT -5
Don't think they'd ever stop doing tv/ppv. Perhaps a couple months they could not do house shows? Or maybe like May/June is only Raw house shows, July/August is only Smackdown/ECW house shows. That way everyone gets 2 months off and WWE keeps a fairly regular schedule.
Only problem would be people who jump brands during this time, they'd have to keep track of that so those specific people get time off from house shows too.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Jun 27, 2007 17:51:48 GMT -5
I made a thread similar to this and I believe it was right after Eddie's passing. The popular consensus is that it would never happen. I believe it's possible to make it work, as long as you make time off mandatory.
|
|
nisi
Vegeta
Da Bears
Posts: 9,868
|
Post by nisi on Jun 27, 2007 18:53:12 GMT -5
Because the tv contracts run continuously and house shows/PPVs can make money yearound, I don't see an off-season working. But I really think a rotation is necessary. I don't think that filling out a few matches on each card with indy stars (call them jobbers if you must) is going to affect attendance. If you calculate how many superstars have had to take time off because of injury and substance issues, we have an unfortunate and dysfunctional rotation system already right now. We need to make it functional.
|
|
|
Post by Chucklehead,baby!!! on Jun 27, 2007 18:58:44 GMT -5
they really need to take all of december off every year except for tv tapings and those can all be done ine one day. gives everyone a chance to heal.
|
|
|
Post by Stab Sword on Jun 27, 2007 19:51:38 GMT -5
They do need an offseason and I have a good idea how to do it. You get 3-4 big main event sized storylines and you incorporate a lot of guys into it and you have 2-4 minor storylines and all during the year (Let's say it starts around June) you keep building and building the storylines and have a lot of swerves and turns during the course. The "season finale" would take place at Wrestlemania where all the storylines/feuds end. After Mania ends, the big guys who were involved in those feuds and some minor characters get time off except the champions but are used once a month for a PPV. During this time, you introduce your guys from OVW and get them over from veteran talent. When June comes around again you get new storylines ready and those guys who took time off come back full time.
As for curtain jerkers and non used midcarders, they should do what WCW did, if they're not scheduled for the show, they should just stay home for the week and not attend house shows, which would be cut in half.
|
|
nisi
Vegeta
Da Bears
Posts: 9,868
|
Post by nisi on Jun 27, 2007 19:53:04 GMT -5
^All of this radically reduces profit and therefore is not realistic.
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on Jun 27, 2007 20:06:04 GMT -5
The biggest issue is that you're talking a major restructuring of the financial plan of WWE. It's not as simple as just doing it. You have lots of money that has to be made up in some form.
I would say do it like most other jobs. You gain X number of days off a year (like one month per year or something like that) where you can take it off as you need (maybe a week here, week there, or just do it all at once) and can accumulate (like let's say you wrestle for 5 years straight not counting injurys, you could take 5 months off if you wanted). That way, if people need time off they can take it, or if they really don't, they can save it up for when they need to.
Also, taking off after WM is stupid, IMO. That's when WWE's popularity is at its peak, why take off? If anything, make it during the summer when Baseball does hell on their ratings for SD or maybe the fall when MNF kills the ratings on RAW. That way they could either use like GAB (move it to early june) as an end and Summerslam as a beginning or make Summerslam the end and kick off with Survivor Series in early November. That is, if you want to go that route.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,370
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jun 27, 2007 20:10:34 GMT -5
Here is my thoughts on the subject.
First, a union will never happen. The reason isn't even Vince; It's the fact that there is such a radical difference between the main eventers and the others. Would Cena, Undertaker, Batista, HHH, or Edge be interested in being part of a union? No, they would not. The reason why is because their needs are already being met, and a union would reduce their influence and pay. Without the top stars, a union would be doomed to fail. Therefore, no union in wrestling.
That is not to say that something cannot be done. The idea of letting people miss every third week of house shows is a damn good one. Filling their spots with development talent would also help ease these new guys into the main roster, better train them, and help them acclimate better (so that we can better avoid watching the growing pains of going from development to main roster talent on our TV, since they will work that out of their system at house shows).
With the roster split, however, missing TV shows will not be an option for many guys. It might be possible to pre-tape some backstage segments the week before, but some guys are just too important to their current shows to miss (think Hardy, Edge, MVP, Punk, Burke, Nitro, Cena, or, and it pains me to list him, Orton).
|
|
nisi
Vegeta
Da Bears
Posts: 9,868
|
Post by nisi on Jun 27, 2007 20:17:12 GMT -5
First, a union will never happen. The reason isn't even Vince; It's the fact that there is such a radical difference between the main eventers and the others. Would Cena, Undertaker, Batista, HHH, or Edge be interested in being part of a union? No, they would not. The reason why is because their needs are already being met, and a union would reduce their influence and pay. Without the top stars, a union would be doomed to fail. Therefore, no union in wrestling. Actually I think a lot of the top guys would be interested in guaranteed time off and regular health insurance. Even the top pro wrestlers are not that different from other 6 figure salary jobs. If they can get MORE benefits, they take them. And time off by far has been the hardest thing to get for the top guys. But the benefit of a closed shop union is that top guys wouldn't be able to opt out even if they didn't want a union. In the NFL you have the Urlacher's and the third stringers, and they are all protected by the union. Being on top in wrestling can be very, very temporary.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,370
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jun 27, 2007 20:40:39 GMT -5
First, a union will never happen. The reason isn't even Vince; It's the fact that there is such a radical difference between the main eventers and the others. Would Cena, Undertaker, Batista, HHH, or Edge be interested in being part of a union? No, they would not. The reason why is because their needs are already being met, and a union would reduce their influence and pay. Without the top stars, a union would be doomed to fail. Therefore, no union in wrestling. Actually I think a lot of the top guys would be interested in guaranteed time off and regular health insurance. Even the top pro wrestlers are not that different from other 6 figure salary jobs. If they can get MORE benefits, they take them. And time off by far has been the hardest thing to get for the top guys. But the benefit of a closed shop union is that top guys wouldn't be able to opt out even if they didn't want a union. In the NFL you have the Urlacher's and the third stringers, and they are all protected by the union. Being on top in wrestling can be very, very temporary. Maybe so, but think of the situation that Paul Orndorff created for himself. He was given the opportunity to do a long program with Hogan at the top. Part the way through, he got hurt and really needed the time off, but did not because the pay at the very top is too good to pass up. He wound up with permanent damage because of it. Not only that, but a closed shop union will not occur without the top stars. The NFL players union came about from a time long before Michael Vick signed a contract worth more than $100 M. The only way a union would happen is if either Vince or all of the top stars joined for the push for a union. I don't see either happening.
|
|
nisi
Vegeta
Da Bears
Posts: 9,868
|
Post by nisi on Jun 27, 2007 20:54:04 GMT -5
Actually I think a lot of the top guys would be interested in guaranteed time off and regular health insurance. Even the top pro wrestlers are not that different from other 6 figure salary jobs. If they can get MORE benefits, they take them. And time off by far has been the hardest thing to get for the top guys. But the benefit of a closed shop union is that top guys wouldn't be able to opt out even if they didn't want a union. In the NFL you have the Urlacher's and the third stringers, and they are all protected by the union. Being on top in wrestling can be very, very temporary. Maybe so, but think of the situation that Paul Orndorff created for himself. He was given the opportunity to do a long program with Hogan at the top. Part the way through, he got hurt and really needed the time off, but did not because the pay at the very top is too good to pass up. He wound up with permanent damage because of it. Not only that, but a closed shop union will not occur without the top stars. The NFL players union came about from a time long before Michael Vick signed a contract worth more than $100 M. The only way a union would happen is if either Vince or all of the top stars joined for the push for a union. I don't see either happening. Not everyone is going to chase money like that though, especially now when even the top guys' compensation is much more salary-like and less of it depends on a "purse." Most of the top guys have a really hard time negotiating time off, and they would be in a much better position if it were guaranteed. I have to think that after this EVEN the top guys are going to be much more conscious of what's really important in life. The biggest problem in WWE though is the whole facade of being "independent contractors." I would love to see THAT take a legal challenge and WWE guys being treated more like NFL guys. Then if the WWE employees voted for a union, they would have a union, whther Vince and the top guys liked it or not.
|
|