|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 16, 2010 13:01:33 GMT -5
The off-season idea is great if you're an optimist. Wrestlers have time to heal up and freshen up their characters. I'm not that optimistic. I would expect more overdoses, a more stagnant than ever main event scene, an undercard with zero heat, and even more backstage politics than we have now. Go back to the 80's and early 90's, back when 90% of what you saw on television was little more than jobber matches and midcard matches from house shows. A wrestler could show up on Superstars or Wrestling challenge one week and not be seen again for a month. Champions showing up on TV? Outside of maybe a pre-taped promo or a skit on the Brother Love show or something, the champs actually being on TV were a rarity. The closest that you saw to Hulk Hogan actually wrestling on TV was Saturday Night's Main Event. Yet they still all maintained their heat. In fact, I think it would actually be better for the wrestlers if we went back in that direction because it would make their appearances feel a bit more special. And seeing the champ wrestle would actually become something worth paying for again. Be careful; just because those guys weren't working every TV show back in the day didn't mean they weren't working insane schedules. Hulk Hogan, for example, rarely wrestled on free TV, but he wrestled tons and tons of house show dates, which meant not only the bump taking, but also the insanity that has always been the WWF/E road schedule. That schedule, more than anything else, has been what's destroyed a lot of these guys, as it cuts into not only their paychecks, but also possible time to take care of themselves and their injuries. If the wrestling industry can't operate in a way that takes care of it's wrestlers, then it shouldn't operate at all, period. For all the talk of "this could really hurt the industry", I say who cares? Enough of wrestlers who die before they hit 50. Enough of wrestlers who wind up strung out on some kind of addiction to deal with their physical and separation pains (make no mistake: WWE drug tests now, but prescription meds are going to be the new wrestler-killers in the next ten years). Enough pretending that this is still 1900, and wrestlers are still a carnival act. Beyond all that, enough tax evasion. If you want to ignore all of the moral questions involved in this issue, then focus on the legal. By slapping this ridiculous "IC" label on people they blatantly treat like employees, all the while not providing any benefits for them, WWE gets away with what is, if we're being brutally honest, tax fraud. If the wrestling industry can't grow and adapt to a 21st century world where you can't just treat your workers (who are given all the responsibilities, but none of the perks, of being a full time employee) like human beings, then the wrestling industry deserves to shrivel up and die.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Socko's Brother on Sept 16, 2010 13:39:30 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just a cynic but if you give wrestlers an "off-season" they're just going to get into more trouble. Look how much trouble a lot of them get into while on the road. Now take those addictive personalities and get rid of them having commitments too? If someone is a drug abuser on the road, they won't just stop abusing drugs when they're off. Also, look how many wrestlers will work through injuries in wrestling just because they don't want to lose their spot. They want to keep being pushed and be looked at as tough. If you take a wrestler and force him to have an off-season, it's going to be really hard for new people to be elevated. They might get over for a season, but as soon as they're off, they'll be forgotten about. When they come back, unless they were a main eventer, all of their heat will be gone. You would also have wrestlers that would try their best to work full-year long simply because they would want to look favorable in the eyes of the top dogs so that they could get a push. You think Vince wouldn't push a full-season wrestler over one that takes the paid vacation? The off-season idea is great if you're an optimist. Wrestlers have time to heal up and freshen up their characters. I'm not that optimistic. I would expect more overdoses, a more stagnant than ever main event scene, an undercard with zero heat, and even more backstage politics than we have now. Two things. First of all, whether or not people would OD if they didn't have something to occupy their time depends on whether they're using painkillers recreationally or because they are actually in pain all the time. If they're addicts, then you're probably right. If they aren't, then they'll probably stop popping pills once the pain goes away as a result of them being allowed to rest up. Second, this idea that being off tv for a while will do something to diminish somebody's heat. Not necessarily true. HBK could come back today and everybody would mark out. But HBK is a legend, you might be thinking. All right, how about Edge being gone for several months and returning at the Rumble to a huge crowd reaction. How about Jericho being gone for years and returning to legions of WWE fans who loved him and were happy he was back. But those guys, while perhaps not legends on the level of HBK, are big stars, you might be thinking. It would be different for somebody who was still trying to make a name for himself in the biggest wrestling promotion going. Okay then, right now I can think of a guy who didn't make a name for himself in WWE, who was taken off television right as he was beginning to get a real push, and who still made the crowd pop big when he returned. I am referring, of course, to a certain American Dragon. The point is that if you make an impression, you can afford to take a few months off. The memories of wrestling fans aren't as short as you seem to think.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Sept 16, 2010 13:42:23 GMT -5
Go back to the 80's and early 90's, back when 90% of what you saw on television was little more than jobber matches and midcard matches from house shows. A wrestler could show up on Superstars or Wrestling challenge one week and not be seen again for a month. Champions showing up on TV? Outside of maybe a pre-taped promo or a skit on the Brother Love show or something, the champs actually being on TV were a rarity. The closest that you saw to Hulk Hogan actually wrestling on TV was Saturday Night's Main Event. Yet they still all maintained their heat. In fact, I think it would actually be better for the wrestlers if we went back in that direction because it would make their appearances feel a bit more special. And seeing the champ wrestle would actually become something worth paying for again. Be careful; just because those guys weren't working every TV show back in the day didn't mean they weren't working insane schedules. Hulk Hogan, for example, rarely wrestled on free TV, but he wrestled tons and tons of house show dates, which meant not only the bump taking, but also the insanity that has always been the WWF/E road schedule. That schedule, more than anything else, has been what's destroyed a lot of these guys, as it cuts into not only their paychecks, but also possible time to take care of themselves and their injuries. I don't disagree with this, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. My main (and in fact, only) point was that back then, a properly booked wrestler could go weeks and even months without appearing on TV and still maintain their heat.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,276
|
Post by Paul on Sept 16, 2010 14:39:57 GMT -5
This will end up being great for the wrestlers, but not in the short term.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Sept 16, 2010 14:47:36 GMT -5
Go back to the 80's and early 90's, back when 90% of what you saw on television was little more than jobber matches and midcard matches from house shows. A wrestler could show up on Superstars or Wrestling challenge one week and not be seen again for a month. Champions showing up on TV? Outside of maybe a pre-taped promo or a skit on the Brother Love show or something, the champs actually being on TV were a rarity. The closest that you saw to Hulk Hogan actually wrestling on TV was Saturday Night's Main Event. Yet they still all maintained their heat. In fact, I think it would actually be better for the wrestlers if we went back in that direction because it would make their appearances feel a bit more special. And seeing the champ wrestle would actually become something worth paying for again. Be careful; just because those guys weren't working every TV show back in the day didn't mean they weren't working insane schedules. Hulk Hogan, for example, rarely wrestled on free TV, but he wrestled tons and tons of house show dates, which meant not only the bump taking, but also the insanity that has always been the WWF/E road schedule. That schedule, more than anything else, has been what's destroyed a lot of these guys, as it cuts into not only their paychecks, but also possible time to take care of themselves and their injuries. If the wrestling industry can't operate in a way that takes care of it's wrestlers, then it shouldn't operate at all, period. For all the talk of "this could really hurt the industry", I say who cares? Enough of wrestlers who die before they hit 50. Enough of wrestlers who wind up strung out on some kind of addiction to deal with their physical and separation pains (make no mistake: WWE drug tests now, but prescription meds are going to be the new wrestler-killers in the next ten years). Enough pretending that this is still 1900, and wrestlers are still a carnival act. Beyond all that, enough tax evasion. If you want to ignore all of the moral questions involved in this issue, then focus on the legal. By slapping this ridiculous "IC" label on people they blatantly treat like employees, all the while not providing any benefits for them, WWE gets away with what is, if we're being brutally honest, tax fraud. If the wrestling industry can't grow and adapt to a 21st century world where you can't just treat your workers (who are given all the responsibilities, but none of the perks, of being a full time employee) like human beings, then the wrestling industry deserves to shrivel up and die. Couldn't have said it better myself. The WWE's employment practices regarding their talent are ethically dubious at best and outright criminal at worst. They need to get with the times. Either they let their "independent contractors" actually BE independent contractors or they need to suck it up and acknowledge them as employees. Yes, people are likely going to lose their jobs if they go through with the changes. And that sucks. But someone can always get another job. You can't get another life.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Sept 16, 2010 14:48:49 GMT -5
I agree that short term there might be issues that make things harder for wrestlers, but over time it will be hugely beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Sept 16, 2010 14:53:16 GMT -5
Though FWIW, I don't think a wrestling union would work. The guys at the top don't want it and it'd probably end up being as ineffective as the NFL players' union.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Sept 16, 2010 14:59:22 GMT -5
I agree that short term there might be issues that make things harder for wrestlers, but over time it will be hugely beneficial. Unless, ya know, it kills the business, then what?
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,276
|
Post by Paul on Sept 16, 2010 15:11:22 GMT -5
I agree that short term there might be issues that make things harder for wrestlers, but over time it will be hugely beneficial. Unless, ya know, it kills the business, then what? It won't "kill the business". It will force the WWE to downsize, and benefit the workers to a much higher degree.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,371
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Sept 16, 2010 15:53:28 GMT -5
I agree that short term there might be issues that make things harder for wrestlers, but over time it will be hugely beneficial. Unless, ya know, it kills the business, then what? Why in the hell do people think that raising costs to the WWE will remotely damage it? They have quarterly profits in the 9 digits. Even if they had to pay an additional $25 K per wrestler for benefits and an additional 1 million in taxes because of this it will be like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. That is ignoring the fact that they will pass on at least some of those new costs onto their employees. They will be fine. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 16:16:42 GMT -5
Be careful; just because those guys weren't working every TV show back in the day didn't mean they weren't working insane schedules. Hulk Hogan, for example, rarely wrestled on free TV, but he wrestled tons and tons of house show dates, which meant not only the bump taking, but also the insanity that has always been the WWF/E road schedule. That schedule, more than anything else, has been what's destroyed a lot of these guys, as it cuts into not only their paychecks, but also possible time to take care of themselves and their injuries. If the wrestling industry can't operate in a way that takes care of it's wrestlers, then it shouldn't operate at all, period. For all the talk of "this could really hurt the industry", I say who cares? Enough of wrestlers who die before they hit 50. Enough of wrestlers who wind up strung out on some kind of addiction to deal with their physical and separation pains (make no mistake: WWE drug tests now, but prescription meds are going to be the new wrestler-killers in the next ten years). Enough pretending that this is still 1900, and wrestlers are still a carnival act. Beyond all that, enough tax evasion. If you want to ignore all of the moral questions involved in this issue, then focus on the legal. By slapping this ridiculous "IC" label on people they blatantly treat like employees, all the while not providing any benefits for them, WWE gets away with what is, if we're being brutally honest, tax fraud. If the wrestling industry can't grow and adapt to a 21st century world where you can't just treat your workers (who are given all the responsibilities, but none of the perks, of being a full time employee) like human beings, then the wrestling industry deserves to shrivel up and die. Agreed completely. I don't know how WWE got away with this for so long. Whether anything will come out of this is another story, but I'm glad it is at least being brought up.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Sept 16, 2010 16:28:55 GMT -5
I agree that short term there might be issues that make things harder for wrestlers, but over time it will be hugely beneficial. Unless, ya know, it kills the business, then what? If it somehow kills the business, please see HMark's response to this thread.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,276
|
Post by Paul on Sept 16, 2010 16:40:40 GMT -5
the WWE needs the talent as much as the talent needs the WWE. Where will the WWE be without a decent roster? Remember the lean years like 1995? The WWE knows they have to give more to the wrestlers to keep them there or they're up the creek without a paddle.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 16, 2010 16:52:09 GMT -5
Unless, ya know, it kills the business, then what? Why in the hell do people think that raising costs to the WWE will remotely damage it? They have quarterly profits in the 9 digits. Even if they had to pay an additional $25 K per wrestler for benefits and an additional 1 million in taxes because of this it will be like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. That is ignoring the fact that they will pass on at least some of those new costs onto their employees. They will be fine. Actually, they have quarterly revenue in the 9 digits. Profits are in the six digits (and going down). That doesn't mean you're not right on principle and they could easily eat the costs of the benefits (which likely wouldn't be that expensive), just that they're not making as much as you say. the WWE needs the talent as much as the talent needs the WWE. Where will the WWE be without a decent roster? Remember the lean years like 1995? The WWE knows they have to give more to the wrestlers to keep them there or they're up the creek without a paddle. They've more or less built it to where most of the talent is interchangeable now. Aside from people at the very top, they could swap just about everyone with someone cheaper and not break a sweat.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Sept 16, 2010 16:57:22 GMT -5
Moreover, on the point of the talent being basically interchangeable, a union would never work, as one of it's main threats, the ability to strike, would be meaningless in wrestling. For every one guy willing to strike if it came to that, WWE could find ten more guys to come in and scab for cheaper. The wrestling business just won't support a union. The nature of the business is so heavily built in, that it will never change.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 16, 2010 17:01:08 GMT -5
Moreover, on the point of the talent being basically interchangeable, a union would never work, as one of it's main threats, the ability to strike, would be meaningless in wrestling. For every one guy willing to strike if it came to that, WWE could find ten more guys to come in and scab for cheaper. The wrestling business just won't support a union. The nature of the business is so heavily built in, that it will never change. The thing about unions in entertainment is that it really needs to be widespread over multiple companies, like the SAG is. So you wouldn't just need WWE to abide, you'd need TNA, ROH, Chikara and all the indy players as well. Unless everyone got on the same page, then it wouldn't work. One group can't unionize when all the other players in the industry aren't willing too.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Sept 16, 2010 17:02:13 GMT -5
Moreover, on the point of the talent being basically interchangeable, a union would never work, as one of it's main threats, the ability to strike, would be meaningless in wrestling. For every one guy willing to strike if it came to that, WWE could find ten more guys to come in and scab for cheaper. The wrestling business just won't support a union. The nature of the business is so heavily built in, that it will never change. The thing about unions in entertainment is that it really needs to be widespread over multiple companies, like the SAG is. So you wouldn't just need WWE to abide, you'd need TNA, ROH, Chikara and all the indy players as well. Unless everyone got on the same page, then it wouldn't work. One group can't unionize when all the other players in the industry aren't willing too. And there's no way to get everybody to go along.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,276
|
Post by Paul on Sept 16, 2010 17:19:31 GMT -5
Moreover, on the point of the talent being basically interchangeable, a union would never work, as one of it's main threats, the ability to strike, would be meaningless in wrestling. For every one guy willing to strike if it came to that, WWE could find ten more guys to come in and scab for cheaper. The wrestling business just won't support a union. The nature of the business is so heavily built in, that it will never change. But the 1995 post-steroid trial era showed us that talent isn't interchangable. Remember King Mabel?
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Sept 16, 2010 17:37:57 GMT -5
Moreover, on the point of the talent being basically interchangeable, a union would never work, as one of it's main threats, the ability to strike, would be meaningless in wrestling. For every one guy willing to strike if it came to that, WWE could find ten more guys to come in and scab for cheaper. The wrestling business just won't support a union. The nature of the business is so heavily built in, that it will never change. But the 1995 post-steroid trial era showed us that talent isn't interchangable. Remember King Mabel? Ah, but that's outmoded thinking. WWE's conditioned fans now not to react too strongly to any one guy's presence. No one guy in WWE draws tickets anymore. The WWE brand name draws tickets now. As long as that's the case, the body's in the ring don't really matter.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 16, 2010 17:41:50 GMT -5
Moreover, on the point of the talent being basically interchangeable, a union would never work, as one of it's main threats, the ability to strike, would be meaningless in wrestling. For every one guy willing to strike if it came to that, WWE could find ten more guys to come in and scab for cheaper. The wrestling business just won't support a union. The nature of the business is so heavily built in, that it will never change. But the 1995 post-steroid trial era showed us that talent isn't interchangable. Remember King Mabel? It's not 1995 anymore. A lot has changed in 15 years.
|
|