Moderators PowerButchi Posted February 6, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2011 Although she is no creative genius I can guarantee that after several years running TNA she understands it perfectly; certainly more than a wrestling fan on a message board. Â No, we've all read The Death Of WCW. Â Â Â And most people with sense have laughed off half the biased bollocks that fills half the fucking book. Â It's basic message is quite simple. Â That you can fill a book with inaccurate dates, facts which aren't facts, blame Easy E for the AWA Team Challenge despite Greg Gagne putting his hand up for that before the book was published, being written in a way that sounds like Alverez shouting at you on an MP3 of a Figure Four Daily, and complain about Sturgis crowds booing Benoit vs Malenko, instead of criticising them for booing every Black Wrestler who wrestled at Road/Hog Wild including the faces? Â That's the message I got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted February 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 The book definitely has an agenda and isn't completely factually correct, laughable in some places. The message is right though. Anyone who tries to use the bias and some inaccuracies to defend Bischoff, Hogan and Russo (or the shitty execs who let them fuck the company up) is a fucking moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 The book definitely has an agenda and isn't completely factually correct, laughable in some places. The message is right though. Anyone who tries to use the bias and some inaccuracies to defend Bischoff, Hogan and Russo (or the shitty execs who let them fuck the company up) is a fucking moron. Â As is anyone who tries to use the book or Russo, Bischoff or Hogan's presence as evidence that the end is night for TNA, ignoring the perfect storm of corporate mismanagement and wresting-hating network execs that did for WCW in the end. If poor writers and on-screen figureheads were all it took to kill a wrestling company, then the WWE would have gone out of business a couple of years after Vince put his idiot daughter in charge of creative and made Bischoff the RAW GM. The TNA haters have been making the same tired predictions about them going out of business for years now, and it's still no closer to fruition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted February 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 TNA have a sensible business model. Had they not wasted an awful lot of money on Hogan and his mates in the last 14 months, they'd be doing pretty well. I think Dixie is a good business woman. I think her bank account confirms that. I said before that she's naive. She seems too easily turned on by names and star power and is willing to lose money because of it. She's like Bischoff in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurs 4 life Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 The book definitely has an agenda and isn't completely factually correct, laughable in some places. The message is right though. Anyone who tries to use the bias and some inaccuracies to defend Bischoff, Hogan and Russo (or the shitty execs who let them fuck the company up) is a fucking moron. Â As is anyone who tries to use the book or Russo, Bischoff or Hogan's presence as evidence that the end is night for TNA, ignoring the perfect storm of corporate mismanagement and wresting-hating network execs that did for WCW in the end. If poor writers and on-screen figureheads were all it took to kill a wrestling company, then the WWE would have gone out of business a couple of years after Vince put his idiot daughter in charge of creative and made Bischoff the RAW GM. The TNA haters have been making the same tired predictions about them going out of business for years now, and it's still no closer to fruition. I've never read the book but obviously read plenty elsewhere on the death of WCW and I've never got the impression that corporate mismanagement apart from Bischoff or network execs were responsible for it's downfall. Â What are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted February 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 The book definitely has an agenda and isn't completely factually correct, laughable in some places. The message is right though. Anyone who tries to use the bias and some inaccuracies to defend Bischoff, Hogan and Russo (or the shitty execs who let them fuck the company up) is a fucking moron. Â As is anyone who tries to use the book or Russo, Bischoff or Hogan's presence as evidence that the end is night for TNA, ignoring the perfect storm of corporate mismanagement and wresting-hating network execs that did for WCW in the end. If poor writers and on-screen figureheads were all it took to kill a wrestling company, then the WWE would have gone out of business a couple of years after Vince put his idiot daughter in charge of creative and made Bischoff the RAW GM. The TNA haters have been making the same tired predictions about them going out of business for years now, and it's still no closer to fruition. I've never read the book but obviously read plenty elsewhere on the death of WCW and I've never got the impression that corporate mismanagement apart from Bischoff or network execs were responsible for it's downfall. Â What are you referring to? Well technically, it was a wrestling-hating network exec who pulled the plug on WCW but had the product been strong, that would never have happened so silly to blame anyone except those responsible for taking a profitable, well supported company and turning it into a money hemorrhaging mess in less than 3 years. Â There was always corporate mis-management in WCW, it's well explained in the book. The people who hired Rhodes, Watts and Russo for starters. The people who put together dire writing squads before and after Russo. Also in corporate WCW was the man who started the fall, Eric Bischoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurs 4 life Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 The book definitely has an agenda and isn't completely factually correct, laughable in some places. The message is right though. Anyone who tries to use the bias and some inaccuracies to defend Bischoff, Hogan and Russo (or the shitty execs who let them fuck the company up) is a fucking moron. Â As is anyone who tries to use the book or Russo, Bischoff or Hogan's presence as evidence that the end is night for TNA, ignoring the perfect storm of corporate mismanagement and wresting-hating network execs that did for WCW in the end. If poor writers and on-screen figureheads were all it took to kill a wrestling company, then the WWE would have gone out of business a couple of years after Vince put his idiot daughter in charge of creative and made Bischoff the RAW GM. The TNA haters have been making the same tired predictions about them going out of business for years now, and it's still no closer to fruition. I've never read the book but obviously read plenty elsewhere on the death of WCW and I've never got the impression that corporate mismanagement apart from Bischoff or network execs were responsible for it's downfall. Â What are you referring to? Well technically, it was a wrestling-hating network exec who pulled the plug on WCW but had the product been strong, that would never have happened so silly to blame anyone except those responsible for taking a profitable, well supported company and turning it into a money hemorrhaging mess in less than 3 years. Â There was always corporate mis-management in WCW, it's well explained in the book. The people who hired Rhodes, Watts and Russo for starters. The people who put together dire writing squads before and after Russo. Also in corporate WCW was the man who started the fall, Eric Bischoff. Â Cheers Rick. Â See I've always felt Bischoff was mainly to blame and then the people who hired Russo were obviously out of the depth and as is being proven now Russo is great at selling himself to those in power so I can understand why thy thought he was the man behind WWE's success. Â Â Pre Bischoff though, yeah it was corporate mismanagement the whole way. Although I used to love watching WCW Saturday night when Watts was in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted February 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 Which show did you attend, out of interest?  08(?)(It was just before or after ace NOAH any way) was Coventry which was an ace meet and greet and very enjoyable show.  Next tour was Birmingham, shit meet and greet but a good show but it felt like it was over with a bit quick. I didn't realize the main was the main which was odd and didn't have the atmosphere  Next we were back In Coventry. I don't know if they did a meet and greet as I didn't have any interest to go after Birmingham but the show was good. A bit hit and miss in places (looking at the results I now recall Amazing Red Vs Hamada which was shit and a womens tag I didn't care about and had forgot totally) but overall very enjoyable.  As you can probably guess I live some where around the Coventry-Birmingham area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 6, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 There was always corporate mis-management in WCW, it's well explained in the book. The people who hired Rhodes, Watts and Russo for starters. The people who put together dire writing squads before and after Russo. Also in corporate WCW was the man who started the fall, Eric Bischoff. But the man who started its incredible rise was Eric Bischoff. When Bischoff was removed from his post, it was in 10 times the healthier state than it was when he came in. The facts are in September of 1999, the buyrates, house show attendance and television ratings were higher than the current WWE business. Bischoff made a lot of mistakes out of desperation because WWF's business was so strong, but when Bischoff got fired (and nobody is denying it was the correct decision, because he had lost direction), WCW was still a healthy promotion. It had a core audience and still had plenty of casual followers who bought their PPVs. SuperBrawl, Uncensored, Spring Stampede and Halloween Havoc that year did very good buyrates. Bischoff started to bring business down, and WCW's heads acted. It was what happened after that finished WCW off. The facts they ran away their core audience and nobody was turning up to their house shows or the fact FMW was outselling their videos in the shops. WCW was completely destroyed in 2000. It wasnt a case of Bischoff being removed and whoever taking over couldnt do anything with it. Far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurs 4 life Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 There was always corporate mis-management in WCW, it's well explained in the book. The people who hired Rhodes, Watts and Russo for starters. The people who put together dire writing squads before and after Russo. Also in corporate WCW was the man who started the fall, Eric Bischoff. But the man who started its incredible rise was Eric Bischoff. When Bischoff was removed from his post, it was in 10 times the healthier state than it was when he came in. The facts are in September of 1999, the buyrates, house show attendance and television ratings were higher than the current WWE business. Bischoff made a lot of mistakes out of desperation because WWF's business was so strong, but when Bischoff got fired (and nobody is denying it was the correct decision, because he had lost direction), WCW was still a healthy promotion. It had a core audience and still had plenty of casual followers who bought their PPVs. SuperBrawl, Uncensored, Spring Stampede and Halloween Havoc that year did very good buyrates. Bischoff started to bring business down, and WCW's heads acted. It was what happened after that finished WCW off. The facts they ran away their core audience and nobody was turning up to their house shows or the fact FMW was outselling their videos in the shops. WCW was completely destroyed in 2000. It wasnt a case of Bischoff being removed and whoever taking over couldnt do anything with it. Far from it. Wasn't it Russo who came after Bischoff? Â I'm not even disagreeing with you but wanted to throw the point that between Bischoff losing direction and also having to give so many guys far too much power and then Russo coming in and being Russo the place had no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 6, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 I'm not even disagreeing with you but wanted to throw the point that between Bischoff losing direction and also having to give so many guys far too much power and then Russo coming in and being Russo the place had no chance. Only one person had written power, and that was Hulk Hogan. And when Bischoff left, so did he. Hogan wasnt going to come to work for anyone he didnt trust. Russo had a incredible roster to use. He had all the cruiserweights that were so popular, he had the likes of Benoit, Guerrero and Mysterio. And Bret Hart and Goldberg had been off TV for months, so they were fresh and had plenty of star quality, which could have been exploited. Goldberg was still their biggest star by late 1999. My point was that, when Bischoff got fired it should have been like Christmas day for whoever took over next with the money backing and the talent roster they had and the fact they were still doing very, very good business. But ... it wasnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted February 6, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2011 There was always corporate mis-management in WCW, it's well explained in the book. The people who hired Rhodes, Watts and Russo for starters. The people who put together dire writing squads before and after Russo. Also in corporate WCW was the man who started the fall, Eric Bischoff. Â Bill Watts actually saved the company a fucking shitload. It never turned a profit when he was there, but he was brought in to cut costs and save money, and he did. They lost far, far less money under him than they did Herd and Frye, I thought you would have known that. Â "The man who started the fall, Eric Bischoff" is a sentence which lacks the prefix "The man who started the fucking huge rise". If Bischoff wasn't in, it probably would have been dead by 1995 anyway. Remember, they were originally only going to hit black ink due to an Asian distribution deal brokered by Bischoff anyway. Â RD Reynolds is a fucking idiot and all his books are shit. He has a huge agenda, his books are about as funny as watching a parent die in a fire, and all he does is whine and snivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapnut Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 The facts are in September of 1999, the buyrates, house show attendance and television ratings were higher than the current WWE business. Â Can you explain this? I don't really know a lot about the buyrates and house show attendance, but I'm positive Nitro didn't beat Raw in the ratings from November 1998 onwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monday_N...ars_Ratings.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 6, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 The facts are in September of 1999, the buyrates, house show attendance and television ratings were higher than the current WWE business. Â Can you explain this? I don't really know a lot about the buyrates and house show attendance, but I'm positive Nitro didn't beat Raw in the ratings from November 1998 onwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monday_N...ars_Ratings.JPG I never said they did. Thats why I said WWE's CURRENT (i.e. 2011) business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapnut Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 The facts are in September of 1999, the buyrates, house show attendance and television ratings were higher than the current WWE business. Â Can you explain this? I don't really know a lot about the buyrates and house show attendance, but I'm positive Nitro didn't beat Raw in the ratings from November 1998 onwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monday_N...ars_Ratings.JPG I never said they did. Thats why I said WWE's CURRENT (i.e. 2011) business. Â My mistake, thought you meant the business at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.