AndiRush

2 hours ago, mim731 said:

This is posted in the Newz thread too, but surely this is thread worthy?!?

I think this deserves its own thread as there's a few plot twists and hole to be discussed.

Even before recent events, I’ve always believed that age to start wrestling training should be somewhere between 16-18. This has nothing to do with safeguarding or potential dangers, but at 13 he’s still a fan who reacts in a fan like fashion to what he sees. The emotional rollercoaster of it all can never be replaced or replicated once you ‘know’ things. But that rollercoaster I believe is the first and most important part of training, understanding the emotional connection between a wrestler and a fan, something you can draw on later as a professional wrestler. Let him be a fan enjoying it all for as long as possible, because when those days are gone, they’re gone forever.

17 hours ago, Your Fight Site said:

I think it’s an America thing where you sue someone for what both sides know is a stupid amount, and then settle for a lower amount.

If it’s say, 20%, then 20% of $10 million is a lot more than 20% of a “realistic” sum of, let’s say $50,000.

Like the time Sable sued the WWF for $50 billion and 50% mineral rights on the next 5 planets terraformed by any Earth based consortium. They settled out of court for a ‘undisclosed sum’. 

1 hour ago, tiger_rick said:

You don't judge the work of The Mountie like you're fucking Meltzer. He wasn't there to have bangers, he was there to be an annoying tit, get faces over and get crowds to hate him and he aced all three. Plus, the Rougeaus were a cracking team.

That's where Bret's system falls on its arse, because his system only values things he believes he was good at. He doesn't take into account people's presence or ability to get over through unsaid things, which I would call working, hence my scoring for Hogan's workrate, but in Bret's mind, I think 'work' means pure wrestling ability

I'd love to visit a parallel universe where Bret never left the WWF in 1997 and see what his views are on; The Rock's people's elbow, Val Venis, Rikishi/Too Cool and stuff like that which got over like hell, yet I'd imagine Bret making some snide comments about them if his position on the card suffered because the punters wanted the stinkface over his sharpshooter in 1999.

2 minutes ago, IronSheik said:

Mountie - look 7, promos 6, work 5 (18)

Mate, he got bummed in prison and sold it like a pro, surely deserves an extra point on the promo and work scale for that alone?

14 hours ago, Weezenal said:

Who would be the most high profile with the worst of all three categories?

Based on those in the title picture or up against the company's top face in the main-event;

Andre 'The Giant' - 16/30 (Look: 9/10 - Promo: 4/10 - Wrestling: 3/10)

King Kong Bundy - 19/30 (Look: 8/10 - Promo: 5/10 - Wrestling: 6/10)

Zeus - 13/30 (Look: 8/10 - Promo: 3/10 - Wrestling: 2/10)

Vince McMahon - 18/30 (Look: 6/10 - Promo: 9/10 - Wrestling: 3/10)

Ludvig Borga - 15/30 (Look: 6/10 - Promo: 4/10 - Wrestling: 5/10)

The three with my scores based on the timeframe and comparisons to others of the era.

 1988-1992

Bret Hart: 18/30 (Look: 6/10 - Promo: 5/10 - Wrestling: 7/10)

Shawn Michaels: 20/30 (Look: 7/10 - Promo: 6/10 - Wrestling: 7/10)

Hulk Hogan: 28/30 (Look: 10/10 - Promo: 10/10 - Wrestling: 8/10)

1992-1997

Bret Hart: 24/30 (Look: 8/10 - Promo: 7/10 - Wrestling: 9/10)

Shawn Michaels: 25/30 (Look: 7/10 - Promo: 9/10 - Wrestling 9/10)

Hulk Hogan: 23/30 (Look: 9/10 - Promo: 8/10 - Wrestling: 6/10)

1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said:

The way he portrayed himself as the good guy is sickening. “This isn’t about me, it’s about the brave women who spoke out”. Well shut the fuck up then. 

Keep speaking out girls, please do, especially about other people and then my name will disappear into a sea of names that most people will forget because I'm involved in a niche industry full of sycophant fans with hardly any national press or proper scrutiny, so yeah, carry on and I'll be back in no time!

Some of the people defending him answers something I've long sought answers on; What kind of people offer their kids to the likes of Ian Watkins and voila, the replies to this tweet offered clarity on that.  It's like rape means nothing to them, just a minor fuck up.

The content of the statement was rather calculated especially the "I don't recollect what happened" line.

• You don't recollect what happened, but recollect enough to acknowledge your behaviour was inappropriate.
• You're not sorry for what you've done, but you're sorry for the upset caused.
• If you don't recollect things under the influence of drink, then how can you be so sure it was an isolated incident? Surely you wouldn't remember.
• You 'proactively' sought out HR to take responsibility for your actions, the said actions you don't remember, I'm confused here? They said that this WOULD be a breach, not that this WAS a breach, but WOULD be a breach of your contract and thus led to your release. So for them to say would, wouldn't that mean you've enquired about this as a hypothetical scenario that could potentially happen rather than an admittance of guilt of a situation that did actually happen?

At no point does he actually admit to what he's done, he skims the surface with buzz words and bullshit PR jargon, but at no point admits guilt. What a cunt!

1 hour ago, Nostalgia Nonce said:

but lost my enthusiasm for them probably after 9/11 due to the sheer stupidity of some of the claims ("The towers are still there! They're hidden by holograms!", "No! The towers were never there! They've always been holograms!").

One conspiracy around 9/11 that's never gone away is why the UKFF crashed in the days prior and it wasn't until around the 17th September that the new site was up and running. 

He'll be out and about within 2 weeks spouting his usual shite like; "You know, China had this disease, big disease, powerful disease, very powerful, very disease. It couldn't kill me, it won't kill America. Maybe you die because you're weak, very weak, very Chinesey...can you say Chinesey? Who cares this is America!" and then all of his supporters will think he's Johnny Big Bollocks and rally around to support him.

Hate to say it but his PR team must've be loving this, keeps them in control of the narrative and keeps him away from opening his mouth. I think this could boost his poll ratings if I'm honest.

1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Except some aren't. If you are using Paige or Xavier Woods rather than their real name, that is their IP. But Asuka for example doesn't use that name for her Youtube channel. AJ Styles owns that name, so surely they could argue that one as well 

Are they breaking a exclusivity clause on their 'likeness'? Was the brand (twitch account) built using or taking advantage of WWE IP? these are things they'll have them by the balls on.

3 minutes ago, AVM said:

if talent want to continue building their brand

 

The talent's brand is licensed to WWE via their contract. Twitch is a broadcaster and brand itself. Whilst I do think Vince could handle this better, I'd have thought it was given that you don't appear on unauthorised broadcasts or generate revenue streams based on WWE IP or your own likeness during the contract. 

1 hour ago, Pogue said:

Why's it just Twitch? And can they take over the account if it's in the wrestlers real name? 

They are trading off their 'likeness' which contractually is licensed to WWE throughout the duration of the contract and a limited time beyond in some cases. Could be argued in court that WWE have exclusivity through the contract to this and thus limits the performer. Also a lot of contracts even on civvy street have the inventions clause which gives ownership to the employer of anything invented or published by the employee during their employment or on company time. This could be used here if the Twitch account has built itself up through the prior use of company assets.

On 9/30/2020 at 1:24 PM, neil said:

The worst for me are the Sandy Hook false flag/crisis actors lot - claiming that the parents who lost their children to a fucking nut job shooting them up are "in on it" and the kids are alive and well. Overall the people who buy into those "theories" are a sick lot, but it takes a whole other level to goad parents with shit like that.

I seen this unfold the other day on twitter in regards to covid-19. Some 'covid is a hoax' people started telling someone that nobody dies from covid because it doesn't exist, the person said their mother had just died. The covid hoax gang then said she died of something else and the hospital are in on it framing it as a covid death. I think wrestling suffers from this with fans and performers alike in that the 'everything is a work' mindset can just spiral out of hand because the person is scared to admit they're wrong or can't face the reality of the situation being real so this becomes a coping mechanism for them.

My reaction at the time was "What a fucking waste!" in terms of a storyline. They'd built it up to mythical proportions that whenever Austin comes back and finds who knocked him over, the blow off will be tremendous. Then Rikishi said it was him and I just thought "Wasted a good angle there lads". 

Football magazine wise I always liked World Soccer because it gave an overview of what was happening in parts of the world I couldn't access through live/highlighted games. I liked the analysis of that months talking points and results/stats section. If I was still into football today, I'd probably still buy it for the overviews and analysis because for the most part, the internet doesn't offer that in a single place to a high enough standard.

In terms of wrestling magazines, it's a bit different because the WWE is really the only mass worldwide appealing brand in the industry. The more you offer away from the WWE, the more niche you become and that's been the issue for years. Those who want magazines want niche content and there just isn't enough people left to make it viable because they source their information from the same places the magazine writers do. Twitter doesn't help matters because in 1998 if I wanted to know Curt Hennig's opinion of the Montreal Screwjob I'd have to wait for an interview with him and hope the question was asked. Today (if still alive obviously) I could either tweet him and ask or he'd probably have made his opinion known within days if twitter was a thing then. Waiting 30+ days for second hand info is a worry for magazines. I do think they have a future but it's more along the lines of in-depth analysis and investigative journalism, something worth paying for and something the internet wouldn't be arsed doing.

The 'trainer in a relationship with a student' angle everybody is covering forgets the main issue surrounding it, what constitutes a trainer?

I've seen places advertise 'ALL TRAINERS DBS CHECKED' and that on paper sounds nice but what about Jeff, the top trainee who has been there 2 years? Jeff is often asked to take the beginners aside and show them certain stuff whilst the head trainer takes the rest off for something else. Jeff is both trainee and trainer, but isn't classed as a trainer.

Now if Jeff has a relationship with Susan under the proposed law for pro-wrestling of forbidding teacher/student relationships, Jeff's role is a grey area.

27 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said:

It's also if they issue wrong advice. I wouldn't attempt to approach stuff like safeguarding standards etc w a mile long barge pole, it's a minefield. Esp with under 16s.

Unless you are very confident, legally I think this is on rocky ground. It's not a bit of fun when it comes to governance/being the association that represents thhe industry. It's why when stuff goes tits up the governing bodies normally cop it. As much as I appreciate what they are trying to do, it comes w huge risks if we get (amongst other things) childhood exploitation. Which in this industry wouldnt be all surprising.

This is the problem we have in this day and age, because safeguarding is in vogue for many businesses and organisations, people actually do think they're confident on 'safeguarding' because work once sent them on a weeks course in Shrewsbury. I once done the end of day report and balanced the tills at Blockbuster when I was 18, but I'd never call myself an accountant but in todays world; the fantasy and LinkedIn style bullshit speak, everyone thinks they're an expert on these things.

The concept of the PWA on paper is in good spirit, but the conflicts of interests involved leave a checkmate scenario at the every turn. So if I become a member as a trainer, they promise to defend me against accusations. Girl X joins as a wrestler and they promise the same. Girl X accuses me of sexual harassment in the training school. The PWA now has to both attack and defend each of us. Same goes for all the other scenarios you can imagine. 

I think the Association/Governing Body gimmick is 50/50 in the sense of half want a genuine thing to succeed and the other half just want power and control. The one problem all 100% of attempts fail to understand is that it's quite a big responsibility to be 'the' association of a national industry. If things go wrong under your watch, you're held accountable for not enforcing or issuing guidance/rules etc. 

43 minutes ago, DEF said:

RevPro Equity Code of Conduct

Thought this might be of interest. RevPro have come to to terms with Equity. There are 3 .pdfs within the link that go into detail. I'm glad they have stepped up but I'm not sure how enforceable it will all be.

I really wouldn't get too excited by these things, many multinational energy companies have these and far more gimmicks up their sleeve, yet still are involved in human slavery, coup d'etat plots and all kinds.

@BomberPatI was thinking of posting this as a separate thread considering the scope, what's everyone's thoughts?

On 9/22/2020 at 9:27 PM, air_raid said:

Toast On Toast and I Partridge as audiobooks, I consider gifts from God. Not ones for “serious book people” but for fans of the appropriate telly, unbelievable entertainment.

Toyah Willcox, Barry McGuigan, Christopher Reeve, Steve Cram, Tessa Sanderson, Sarah Hardcastle, John Cleese, Nicholas Lyndhurst, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Duncan Goodhew, Sharon McPeake, Debbie Flintoff, Cliff Richard, Emlyn Hughes, Jenny Agutter, Kevin Kline, Jackie Stewart, Peter Blake, Walter Payton, Virginia Leng, Sunil Gavaskar, Anthony Andrews, Tom Jones, Sheena Easton, Judy Simpson, Anneka Rice, Fiona Fullerton, Gary Lineker, George Lazenby, Michael Palin, Nigel Mansell, John Travolta, Griff Rhys Jones, Margot Kidder, Steve Podborski, Tamara McKinney, Meat Loaf, Pamela Stephenson, Brian Cooper, Mel Smith, Jane Seymour, Chris de Burgh, Viv Richards, Gail Greenough, Michael Brandon, Ben Cross and Steve Cauthen

All took part in the show!

Seriously, Toast on Toast is the greatest audio book of all time. I played it on a 3 hours car journey for work and my workmate listened to it like it was a straight up biography, about an hour in he turned to me and said "Is this a wind-up?". 

1 hour ago, LEGIT said:

That's how I remember them, genuine Superstars, stand-outs even for their time. When I think about the initial UK buzz with wrestling, first I'd think Bulldog, then maybe LOD. They were that memorable.

There's a belief in pro-wrestling that your stars should never look like they've just walked in off the street. Give the fans something unique, something they'll never see in their day to day lives. Legion of Doom fitted that description perfectly.

7 minutes ago, ElCece said:

Frankly I'm livid the Undertaker wine isn't shaped like an urn. 

Could be awkward coming home from the pub and accidentally knocking back half a bottle of the recently deceased family pet.