18 years ago today....... 29th August 1992

[King Pitcos]

Yeah I know, TheCrisis. I should've just said "because if someone tried to look up the SummerSlam '92 results online, they wouldn't have been able to find out who won until about 1996."

 

They have also done decent buy rates with shit main events in The UK & Germany, such as Matt Hughes Vs Thiago Alves and Rich Franklin Vs Wanderlei Silva, which is basically having Christian main event a PPV.

...If John Cena only wrestled three times a year.

 

You seem to have completely forgotten that WWE and UFC aren't the same thing and don't work the same way or have the same status as pay-per-view entities.

 

Bragging Rights did 77,000 less buys than Hell in a Cell and more than that with Survivor Series, those two were on Sky Box office and Bragging Rights was "free" on Sky Sports maybe that had a part to play on the much lower buyrate.

Yeah, maybe. But it's still irrelevant, or even damaging, to your point. If Bragging Rights is contracted to be shown on Sky Sports rather than Box Office, how does it become any more beneficial to hold the event in London?

 

You also forget to mention that ESPN and other sports sites covered the UFC results and I guarantee they would'nt mention the WWE because it's not a sport.

What point are you making there?

[brett]

If it was summerslam I think wembley could be pretty close to selling out. NFL gets a lot of fans from different countries for the international series from all over Europe so why wouldn't 1 of the big 4 PPV's.

 

With seating on the pitch the WWE could advertise it as the biggest crowd, the tickets would be more expensive as we pay a lot more then north american crowds.

 

WWE has its only ring and equipment stored in England now so no extra cost.

 

90,000 people buying Merchandise too, I still think this would get a better buy rate then bragging rights even at a delay.

[Vamp]

So you start off by talking about the big four and then say it'd still do better than a B-level PPV? That's not an argument. Of course it would. That doesn't mean they should do it. Its the same as comparing a UFC PPV to a WWE one, they're not the same. UFC PPV's are far more protected than WWE ones because they're far more reliant on PPV where as the WWE's more reliant on TV. Same way as what worked in 1992 doesn't always work now.

 

In a note not really related to this argument, since there's a big difference between watching something for free and paying for something, how do UK RAWS and SmackDowns do in the US? Similar kind of numbers or lower?

[the_mole]

Yeah I know, TheCrisis. I should've just said "because if someone tried to look up the SummerSlam '92 results online, they wouldn't have been able to find out who won until about 1996."

 

They have also done decent buy rates with shit main events in The UK & Germany, such as Matt Hughes Vs Thiago Alves and Rich Franklin Vs Wanderlei Silva, which is basically having Christian main event a PPV.

...If John Cena only wrestled three times a year.

 

You seem to have completely forgotten that WWE and UFC aren't the same thing and don't work the same way or have the same status as pay-per-view entities.

 

Bragging Rights did 77,000 less buys than Hell in a Cell and more than that with Survivor Series, those two were on Sky Box office and Bragging Rights was "free" on Sky Sports maybe that had a part to play on the much lower buyrate.

Yeah, maybe. But it's still irrelevant, or even damaging, to your point. If Bragging Rights is contracted to be shown on Sky Sports rather than Box Office, how does it become any more beneficial to hold the event in London?

It does'nt but if a UK PPV was held over here at a decent time, maybe it might do more than 77,000 buys and the WWE could sell the "PPV" Clash of the Champions style to USA Network.

You also forget to mention that ESPN and other sports sites covered the UFC results and I guarantee they would'nt mention the WWE because it's not a sport.

What point are you making there?

That if someone wishes, they can avoid the internet results, ESPN does'nt give a shit and gave the UFC results away, potentially putting off customers, that would'nt happen with the WWE because they would'nt mention it.

[the_original]

plus around 1992 it was around $2.10 to

[Van Dammer]

plus around 1992 it was around $2.10 to

[air_raid]

All this talk about what UFC does/did is irrelevant, isn't it? One of the more respected specials told me UFC isn't WWEs competition, so we should disregard their numbers straight away.

 

Yes but that's completely irrelevant to anything. They COULD have John Cena sit in the ring on Raw blowing raspberries for two hours if they wanted.

 

I'm pretty sure I saw that episode.

[King Pitcos]

That if someone wishes, they can avoid the internet results, ESPN does'nt give a shit and gave the UFC results away, potentially putting off customers, that would'nt happen with the WWE because they would'nt mention it.

Again -- UFC is in a position where they are hot enough that lots of people want to buy the pay-per-views and watch the events. WWE isn't, and even if they were, you've yet to explain what would be gained from such a move anyway.

[the_mole]

That if someone wishes, they can avoid the internet results, ESPN does'nt give a shit and gave the UFC results away, potentially putting off customers, that would'nt happen with the WWE because they would'nt mention it.

Again -- UFC is in a position where they are hot enough that lots of people want to buy the pay-per-views and watch the events. WWE isn't, and even if they were, you've yet to explain what would be gained from such a move anyway.

Firstly it would be a nice gesture to the UK fans that have been giving WWE money for years, not a B Show that is no better than a glorified houseshow that the old PPVs were.

 

They could also see how much more buys they could get from the UK/European fans and it might help them over here, David Haye apparently did nearly a million buys (Amir Khan's US PPVs would never get near that number because of the time difference) on SBO, obviously the WWE would never reach that mark but they might add a good 80,000 which would be in line with what Bragging Rights 2010 got.

[King Pitcos]

Firstly it would be a nice gesture to the UK fans that have been giving WWE money for years

So it's ultimately down to the same old sense of entitlement. UK fans have been giving WWE money for years in exchange for entertainment, not making fucking donations to get a Bragging Rights pay-per-view at some point in the future.

 

They could also see how much more buys they could get from the UK/European fans and it might help them over here, David Haye apparently did nearly a million buys (Amir Khan's US PPVs would never get near that number because of the time difference) on SBO, obviously the WWE would never reach that mark but they might add a good 80,000 which would be in line with what Bragging Rights 2010 got.

Based on what?

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

Firstly it would be a nice gesture to the UK fans that have been giving WWE money for years, not a B Show that is no better than a glorified houseshow that the old PPVs were.

 

That is a bit of an exaggeration something like Extreme Rules-MITB or any other B PPV is still way better than the old UK PPV's or a house show they may not be a big as the big 4 but to say that is just silly

[the_mole]

Firstly it would be a nice gesture to the UK fans that have been giving WWE money for years

So it's ultimately down to the same old sense of entitlement. UK fans have been giving WWE money for years in exchange for entertainment, not making fucking donations to get a Bragging Rights pay-per-view at some point in the future.

 

They could also see how much more buys they could get from the UK/European fans and it might help them over here, David Haye apparently did nearly a million buys (Amir Khan's US PPVs would never get near that number because of the time difference) on SBO, obviously the WWE would never reach that mark but they might add a good 80,000 which would be in line with what Bragging Rights 2010 got.

Based on what?

Based on not relying on a bunch of fans to stay up to 4am, David Haye's Pay Per Views do well because they are geared to the UK/European market and Amir Khan's don't do as well because they are geared to the US market and start at 3AM.

 

I am not talking about a few PPVs just one a year, they are obviously trying to grow the global brand, so why not take a risk, if it flops it flops, just don't do it next year but I guarantee it would cost them less money than the XFL or whatever other shit Vince has lost millions on.

[the_mole]

Firstly it would be a nice gesture to the UK fans that have been giving WWE money for years, not a B Show that is no better than a glorified houseshow that the old PPVs were.

 

That is a bit of an exaggeration something like Extreme Rules-MITB or any other B PPV is still way better than the old UK PPV's or a house show they may not be a big as the big 4 but to say that is just silly

That's what I was saying, we don't get shit like Austin Vs Triple H when Hunter was a nobody as a main event.

[King Pitcos]

Based on not relying on a bunch of fans to stay up to 4am, David Haye's Pay Per Views do well because they are geared to the UK/European market and Amir Khan's don't do as well because they are geared to the US market and start at 3AM.

But the market for a UK wrestling pay-per-view is never going to get anywhere near the market for a US wrestling pay-per-view, so WWE would have to be mental to dick over the latter for the former. Especially since they're struggling to hold onto that bigger market as it is. Holding a pay-per-view internationally not only runs the risk of buyrates dropping like prolapse, it's also more expensive to stage.

 

I am not talking about a few PPVs just one a year, they are obviously trying to grow the global brand

Yes but not by shitting on the domestic business.

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

Firstly it would be a nice gesture to the UK fans that have been giving WWE money for years, not a B Show that is no better than a glorified houseshow that the old PPVs were.

 

That is a bit of an exaggeration something like Extreme Rules-MITB or any other B PPV is still way better than the old UK PPV's or a house show they may not be a big as the big 4 but to say that is just silly

That's what I was saying, we don't get shit like Austin Vs Triple H when Hunter was a nobody as a main event.

 

Ok then when you said B Show I thought you mean the other PPV's

 

 

If they were ever to do a PPV in the UK it would be best to do it when they were on their UK tour anyway the week before Extreme Rules they were in the UK so travel expense wise if they did that at the same time it wouldn't cost that much.

 

But they would still lose to much money from ppl in the US not buying the PPV as much as we would all like to see one it just won't happen unless buy rates in the US really go down the pan and they have nothing to lose.