|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 30, 2007 22:28:34 GMT -5
Like many on here claim, why did the Rumble only get a 16 000 arena? Sure they sold it out but that's what your average RAW used to get. Actually more like 20 000 a few years ago. This is one of the big four. Arguably the second biggest PPV of the year. It used to get 40 000 to 50 000 sell outs. I'm interested in hearing any WWE apologists' lame excuses. No need for lame excuses. The event sells out every year! I want you to name for me the Royal Rumble that was held in an arena that had 40-50 000 capacity? I want names and dates. Very, very very few arenas hold more than 17 000 people and when WWE has a Raw or a PPV at those they sell them out. Fact is the arena had 16 000 capacity and they sold it out. WHich is oh about 15 500 more than the number 2 wrestling organization draws. End of argument. Stick around in 2 months they'll draw 70 000 for Wrestlemania and you and your little mind will claim they used to draw 1 million to that event. Someone already mentioned it. The Alamo dome in 97 - 60 000.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Jan 30, 2007 22:50:50 GMT -5
No need for lame excuses. The event sells out every year! I want you to name for me the Royal Rumble that was held in an arena that had 40-50 000 capacity? I want names and dates. Very, very very few arenas hold more than 17 000 people and when WWE has a Raw or a PPV at those they sell them out. Fact is the arena had 16 000 capacity and they sold it out. WHich is oh about 15 500 more than the number 2 wrestling organization draws. End of argument. Stick around in 2 months they'll draw 70 000 for Wrestlemania and you and your little mind will claim they used to draw 1 million to that event. Someone already mentioned it. The Alamo dome in 97 - 60 000. So ... once? Are you going to base your whole theory on one instance? I got in a car accident once. I'm never going to get in a car again. Sounds stupid, no?
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 31, 2007 0:14:55 GMT -5
Someone already mentioned it. The Alamo dome in 97 - 60 000. So ... once? Are you going to base your whole theory on one instance? I got in a car accident once. I'm never going to get in a car again. Sounds stupid, no? No it's just lazy on my rate. If you think I'm lying you dig up the stats to prove me wrong. 99 had the biggest buyrate of all time. there. There's another one.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Jan 31, 2007 0:25:13 GMT -5
So ... once? Are you going to base your whole theory on one instance? I got in a car accident once. I'm never going to get in a car again. Sounds stupid, no? No it's just lazy on my rate. If you think I'm lying you dig up the stats to prove me wrong. 99 had the biggest buyrate of all time. there. There's another one. That's not how it works. You can't just make a claim and then have someone else prove you wrong. You should be right and then have the stats to back your own argument up. Besides, the 93,000 attendance mark for WM3 is grossly inflated anyway, according to many reliable sources. It got 60-70k, for sure, but they definitely padded the number. So for them to draw 60,000 regularly, as you claim, is highly unlikely. Especially when you consider the size of the Pontiac Silverdome in relation to other arenas where they regularly ran shows. Don't get pissed off at me just because you want to stick by your outrageous claims. Where are you getting your info about buyrates anyway?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2007 0:33:55 GMT -5
Like many on here claim, why did the Rumble only get a 16 000 arena? Sure they sold it out but that's what your average RAW used to get. Actually more like 20 000 a few years ago. This is one of the big four. Arguably the second biggest PPV of the year. It used to get 40 000 to 50 000 sell outs. Only 16000!? No wonder it was so quiet! All I wanna ask is why does it matter? If you don't like the WWE especially why does how many people they're stacking in an arena bother you? Why does someone who LIKES WWE saying that WWE is doing as good as its ever been bother you? He/she's saying that because he/she still likes it, you're saying otherwise because you don't like it? Does the comment really need to be further dissected?
|
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Jan 31, 2007 1:14:17 GMT -5
Hogan Knows Best.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 31, 2007 2:52:19 GMT -5
Like many on here claim, why did the Rumble only get a 16 000 arena? Sure they sold it out but that's what your average RAW used to get. Actually more like 20 000 a few years ago. This is one of the big four. Arguably the second biggest PPV of the year. It used to get 40 000 to 50 000 sell outs. Only 16000!? No wonder it was so quiet! All I wanna ask is why does it matter? If you don't like the WWE especially why does how many people they're stacking in an arena bother you? Why does someone who LIKES WWE saying that WWE is doing as good as its ever been bother you? He/she's saying that because he/she still likes it, you're saying otherwise because you don't like it? Does the comment really need to be further dissected? Sorry. I won't rain on your parade any longer. Drinks Kool aid "Double double E is greatest! Everyone loves it! Vince is not senile and totally sane. I can't wait to see where the Trump fued goes and who else Cena will destroy! Maybe I'll get to see some potty humor and Divas dancing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2007 3:23:48 GMT -5
Hate the WWE all you want I have absolutely zero problem with it, why should I? Hate TNA, hate ROH, I don't care what you hate, I just want to know why how full a building is when WWE or any wrestling federation for that matter is there actually affects you? Or should affect a kool-aid drinker(basically the new word for wrestling fan nowadays isn't it?) like myself?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Jan 31, 2007 3:56:12 GMT -5
Sorry. I won't rain on your parade any longer. Drinks Kool aid "Double double E is greatest! Everyone loves it! Vince is not senile and totally sane. I can't wait to see where the Trump fued goes and who else Cena will destroy! Maybe I'll get to see some potty humor and Divas dancing! What does that have to do with how the WWE sells tickets? No one is saying that the WWE's product isn't subpar, what they are saying is that 17,000 isn't the atrocious number you make it out to be, and i have to agree with them. Pull out the house show numbers, pull out the buyrates, pull out the ratings. But when it comes to a big event WWE sells.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,347
Member is Online
|
Post by BRV on Jan 31, 2007 8:13:55 GMT -5
Only 16000!? No wonder it was so quiet! All I wanna ask is why does it matter? If you don't like the WWE especially why does how many people they're stacking in an arena bother you? Why does someone who LIKES WWE saying that WWE is doing as good as its ever been bother you? He/she's saying that because he/she still likes it, you're saying otherwise because you don't like it? Does the comment really need to be further dissected? Sorry. I won't rain on your parade any longer. Drinks Kool aid "Double double E is greatest! Everyone loves it! Vince is not senile and totally sane. I can't wait to see where the Trump fued goes and who else Cena will destroy! Maybe I'll get to see some potty humor and Divas dancing! This isn't about who likes WWE or who doesn't like WWE. This isn't about who likes TNA or who doesn't like TNA. This isn't about who likes ROH or who doesn't like ROH. You made a claim, that the WWE held one of its "Big Four" in an arena that pulled just over 16,000. That's a fact. But you went crazy with your claim that WWE should be in an arena that seats 40,000-50,000. BREAKING NEWSThere are very few, if any, indoor arenas that seat 40,000-50,000 in the United States. Sure, there are domed stadiums, but those are reserved for WrestleManias. And back in 1999, during the boom of professional wrestling, the WWE did not host one pay-per-view outside of an arena that seated over 25,000. So I don't know where this claim of yours is going, but its crashing and burning. Just cut your losses, and walk away from this argument, because its going downhill fast for all parties involved.
|
|
|
Post by JoshWoodrumGreaterThanHBK on Jan 31, 2007 9:01:40 GMT -5
Most arena's hold what?
25,000 and under?
Rupp Arena holds 23,000 i think, with the stage cutting off a 1/3rd of the arena, WWE still drew in something like 14,500, or something like that........ i cant remember the exact number..... anyways why does it matter...
WWE sold out the RR, they've pretty much already sold out WM... they SELLOUT big PPVs,, so who cares if its in front of 1,500 fans at the Hammerstien Ballroom or 93,000 at the SilverDome..... a sellOut is a sellout!
|
|
|
Post by akkountent on Jan 31, 2007 9:34:41 GMT -5
Most arena's that house NBA basketball teams and NHL hockey teams average around 16,000 - 19,000 seats; with few arena's holding more than 20,000. The new style of building sports arena's and sports stadiums is luxury boxes because that's where some "big" money comes into play, and the more luxury boxes you have, the less room for regular style seating.
The WWE rarely holds events in arena's or stadiums over 20,000. I would say the WWE's "boldest" year in testing that theory was 1992, when WM was at the Hoosier Dome and SummerSlam was at Wembly Stadium. I think Wembley Stadium sold out and the Hoosier Dome was a near sell-out (you can see some empty seats in the upper deck). Out of the first 22 WM's, only a total of 6 have been held in stadiums that had crowds bigger than 25,000. WM 4 & 5 at the Atlantic City Convention Center only had roughly 20,000.
What really baffles my mind is why the WWE is considering holding WM 24 in the Orlando area at their arena. The Orlando Arena can only hold 17,000, and that's coming a year after the WWE is pretty much selling out Ford Field which will have roughly 60,000 - 70,000 fans. I don't know why they don't have WM's in football stadium's more often because the live gate revenue is huge. There are still plenty of wrestilng "hot spots" in the USA that have an indoor football stadium that would easily sell out a WM; the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis, the Georgia Dome in Atlanta and the Superdome in New Orleans. Any of those cities can easily support a WM and would sell it out or nearly sell it out which just baffles me that they decide to hold it in a dumpy arena in Orlando, which isn't going to be around too much longer after the city of Orlando builds their new arena.
Lastly, I think the WWE would actually do better at expanding their fan base and drawing in more people by holding their second-tier PPV's (Vengeance, Backlash, No Way Out, etc) at slightly smaller arena's than the NBA and NHL one's. I loved it back in 1995 when they introduced the IYH PPV's and they had them at smaller arena's and cities that normally wouldn't be considered for a PPV; Syracuse, the Saddledome in Calgary, Rochester NY, Nashville, Omaha, Florence SC, etc.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Jan 31, 2007 9:37:11 GMT -5
RAW/SD never averaged 20,000+ people. '00 Raw was infront of 17,000, arguably when WWE was most popular, soooo.. what are you talking about? Didn't they hold a Raw at the Sky Dome and the Georgia Dome in 1999 and 2000 respectively that drew about 30,000?
|
|
superfoe
Dennis Stamp
Post count: altered. Date: irrelevant. Always being a n00b: priceless.
Free posting for life.
Posts: 4,703
|
Post by superfoe on Jan 31, 2007 9:38:15 GMT -5
I think we need a lesson in using the " ' " (apostrophe)
|
|
|
Post by Avalanche Alvarez on Jan 31, 2007 10:10:15 GMT -5
Like many on here claim, why did the Rumble only get a 16 000 arena? Sure they sold it out but that's what your average RAW used to get. Actually more like 20 000 a few years ago. This is one of the big four. Arguably the second biggest PPV of the year. It used to get 40 000 to 50 000 sell outs. I'm interested in hearing any WWE apologists' lame excuses. We live in a world where being a "negative nancy" is frowned upon generally. "Don't be so negative. The Double E is doin' just fine! Kelly Kelly's hot! Cryme Tyme isn't racially stereotyped! The Double E rocks! You're too negative." My response to this is: (Adjusting my index cards) "Get f-ing real" The Double E ISN'T doing as well as it used to because they're cutting corners, screwing over hard workers, and dumbing it down for a fan base that doesn't need that kind of help. Call me negative if you want, but I want ONE person in this thread to point out to me ONE instance of an original, well thought out storyline, character / gimmick that can carry this wrestling promotion for the next ten years and connect with the rest of the promotion and therefore, make it good. Hulk Hogan. Brett Hart. Shawn Michaels. Stone Cold. ( )? Cena? I don't think so. Who then? We don't know right now, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Ken Kennedy is good wrestler, great on the promos but he's not that person I'm talking about. Kenny Dykstra? Sit down. Khali? Lashley? Batista? Leave now please. This promotion is mired in poor writing, bad decision making, and an owner that's so far out of touch, it's not even funny anymore. Call me negative if you want, but please concede the truth in what I'm saying here.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Jan 31, 2007 11:30:07 GMT -5
Like many on here claim, why did the Rumble only get a 16 000 arena? Sure they sold it out but that's what your average RAW used to get. Actually more like 20 000 a few years ago. This is one of the big four. Arguably the second biggest PPV of the year. It used to get 40 000 to 50 000 sell outs. I'm interested in hearing any WWE apologists' lame excuses. We live in a world where being a "negative nancy" is frowned upon generally. "Don't be so negative. The Double E is doin' just fine! Kelly Kelly's hot! Cryme Tyme isn't racially stereotyped! The Double E rocks! You're too negative." My response to this is: (Adjusting my index cards) "Get f-ing real" The Double E ISN'T doing as well as it used to because they're cutting corners, screwing over hard workers, and dumbing it down for a fan base that doesn't need that kind of help. Call me negative if you want, but I want ONE person in this thread to point out to me ONE instance of an original, well thought out storyline, character / gimmick that can carry this wrestling promotion for the next ten years and connect with the rest of the promotion and therefore, make it good. Hulk Hogan. Brett Hart. Shawn Michaels.Stone Cold. ( )? Cena? I don't think so. Who then? We don't know right now, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Ken Kennedy is good wrestler, great on the promos but he's not that person I'm talking about. Kenny Dykstra? Sit down. Khali? Lashley? Batista? Leave now please. This promotion is mired in poor writing, bad decision making, and an owner that's so far out of touch, it's not even funny anymore. Call me negative if you want, but please concede the truth in what I'm saying here. Shawn Michaels and Bret (with one T) Hart were the top guys during the time when WWE actually wasn't doing the greatest business-wise. I don't have the numbers, and I'm not going to claim to know their finances, but I know that from the end of the "Rock-n-Wrestling" thing till the beginning of the "Attitude Era," their numbers dipped to amazing lows. HBK and Bret helped keep the ship afloat, but they were still selling out arenas and getting 15-17,000 people per show. Attendance =/= buyrates; attendance =/= popularity, and lack of attendance =/= "OMG WWE IZ GUNNA GO OUT OF BIZNIZ!!11!!!" Also, please note: I don't like Kool-Aid. Vince McMahon is not going to let his company go out of business; he'd have a Shane vs. Stephanie main event in front of 12 people if he thought he could market that. Now, I'm not saying that's what you (the thread starter as well as the person I quoted) want to see, but that's sure what it sounds like. I'm not a WWE apologist - in fact, I recall making a similar argument back when Nitro was kicking Raw's ass on a weekly basis - but until ROH, TNA, or any other promotion is regularly drawing anything close to what WWE draws on their worst day, your argument about attendance figures is silly and childish. Also, Avalanche ... I like you, guy, but please, don't try to validate an opinion by quoting that b**** Judge Judy.
|
|
|
Post by Avalanche Alvarez on Jan 31, 2007 12:13:23 GMT -5
We live in a world where being a "negative nancy" is frowned upon generally. "Don't be so negative. The Double E is doin' just fine! Kelly Kelly's hot! Cryme Tyme isn't racially stereotyped! The Double E rocks! You're too negative." My response to this is: (Adjusting my index cards) "Get f-ing real" The Double E ISN'T doing as well as it used to because they're cutting corners, screwing over hard workers, and dumbing it down for a fan base that doesn't need that kind of help. Call me negative if you want, but I want ONE person in this thread to point out to me ONE instance of an original, well thought out storyline, character / gimmick that can carry this wrestling promotion for the next ten years and connect with the rest of the promotion and therefore, make it good. Hulk Hogan. Brett Hart. Shawn Michaels.Stone Cold. ( )? Cena? I don't think so. Who then? We don't know right now, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Ken Kennedy is good wrestler, great on the promos but he's not that person I'm talking about. Kenny Dykstra? Sit down. Khali? Lashley? Batista? Leave now please. This promotion is mired in poor writing, bad decision making, and an owner that's so far out of touch, it's not even funny anymore. Call me negative if you want, but please concede the truth in what I'm saying here. Shawn Michaels and Bret (with one T) Hart were the top guys during the time when WWE actually wasn't doing the greatest business-wise. I don't have the numbers, and I'm not going to claim to know their finances, but I know that from the end of the "Rock-n-Wrestling" thing till the beginning of the "Attitude Era," their numbers dipped to amazing lows. HBK and Bret helped keep the ship afloat, but they were still selling out arenas and getting 15-17,000 people per show. Attendance =/= buyrates; attendance =/= popularity, and lack of attendance =/= "OMG WWE IZ GUNNA GO OUT OF BIZNIZ!!11!!!" Also, please note: I don't like Kool-Aid. Vince McMahon is not going to let his company go out of business; he'd have a Shane vs. Stephanie main event in front of 12 people if he thought he could market that. Now, I'm not saying that's what you (the thread starter as well as the person I quoted) want to see, but that's sure what it sounds like. I'm not a WWE apologist - in fact, I recall making a similar argument back when Nitro was kicking Raw's ass on a weekly basis - but until ROH, TNA, or any other promotion is regularly drawing anything close to what WWE draws on their worst day, your argument about attendance figures is silly and childish. Also, Avalanche ... I like you, guy, but please, don't try to validate an opinion by quoting that b**** Judge Judy. I'm sorry. When I get rolling, I tend to grab stuff out of the recesses of my mind. It'll never happen again. (Are Judge Wopner quotes okay?)
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Jan 31, 2007 12:19:27 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels and Bret (with one T) Hart were the top guys during the time when WWE actually wasn't doing the greatest business-wise. I don't have the numbers, and I'm not going to claim to know their finances, but I know that from the end of the "Rock-n-Wrestling" thing till the beginning of the "Attitude Era," their numbers dipped to amazing lows. HBK and Bret helped keep the ship afloat, but they were still selling out arenas and getting 15-17,000 people per show. Attendance =/= buyrates; attendance =/= popularity, and lack of attendance =/= "OMG WWE IZ GUNNA GO OUT OF BIZNIZ!!11!!!" Also, please note: I don't like Kool-Aid. Vince McMahon is not going to let his company go out of business; he'd have a Shane vs. Stephanie main event in front of 12 people if he thought he could market that. Now, I'm not saying that's what you (the thread starter as well as the person I quoted) want to see, but that's sure what it sounds like. I'm not a WWE apologist - in fact, I recall making a similar argument back when Nitro was kicking Raw's ass on a weekly basis - but until ROH, TNA, or any other promotion is regularly drawing anything close to what WWE draws on their worst day, your argument about attendance figures is silly and childish. Also, Avalanche ... I like you, guy, but please, don't try to validate an opinion by quoting that b**** Judge Judy. I'm sorry. When I get rolling, I tend to grab stuff out of the recesses of my mind. It'll never happen again. (Are Judge Wopner quotes okay?) Wapner >>>> Judge Judy, so yeah, that's fine. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Red 'n' Black Reggie on Jan 31, 2007 12:44:40 GMT -5
Like many on here claim, why did the Rumble only get a 16 000 arena? Sure they sold it out but that's what your average RAW used to get. Actually more like 20 000 a few years ago. This is one of the big four. Arguably the second biggest PPV of the year. It used to get 40 000 to 50 000 sell outs. I'm interested in hearing any WWE apologists' lame excuses. We live in a world where being a "negative nancy" is frowned upon generally. "Don't be so negative. The Double E is doin' just fine! Kelly Kelly's hot! Cryme Tyme isn't racially stereotyped! The Double E rocks! You're too negative." My response to this is: (Adjusting my index cards) "Get f-ing real" The Double E ISN'T doing as well as it used to because they're cutting corners, screwing over hard workers, and dumbing it down for a fan base that doesn't need that kind of help. Call me negative if you want, but I want ONE person in this thread to point out to me ONE instance of an original, well thought out storyline, character / gimmick that can carry this wrestling promotion for the next ten years and connect with the rest of the promotion and therefore, make it good. Hulk Hogan. Brett Hart. Shawn Michaels. Stone Cold. ( )? Cena? I don't think so. Who then? We don't know right now, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Ken Kennedy is good wrestler, great on the promos but he's not that person I'm talking about. Kenny Dykstra? Sit down. Khali? Lashley? Batista? Leave now please. This promotion is mired in poor writing, bad decision making, and an owner that's so far out of touch, it's not even funny anymore. Call me negative if you want, but please concede the truth in what I'm saying here. ... KENNEDAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 31, 2007 13:48:41 GMT -5
My main source of evidence are not hard numbers, although I remember them (the announcers et al) constantly mentioning how great they were doing. Were they inflating these numbers because they were at war with WCW? Maybe. But I've been watching alot of older DVD's - Tombstone, Bret Hart, Flair collection, some older PPV's, because of how stale the current product is, and you can't help but notice how bigger the arenas look. Every episode of Raw looks like a PPV. Remember how many shots you'd see where the camera would scan the crowd? Now they look like they have half or even a third of the capacity.
I'm sure they're doing alright because the have 3 brands now and a million PPV's a year but all this over-exposure is going to hurt them in the long run. They're milking an already stale product for all it's worth. Cena fans will grow up and guys like me (there's alot of us) who only put up with the current crap because they know about down periods will get sick of waiting for it to get good again and give up.
It's what happens when you spend 2 years trying to turn boos into cheers for one guy. No new stars get nurtured. Who's on the horizon? Punk? They'll never let him main event. Who else? There's no one. Why do you think title reigns last so long now? Even now they have no one else to give the belts too.
And like Alverez says they're shortchanging the fans. They're cutting corners and it shows.
|
|