Loki Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Thing is, they would have to do this sort of a thing if they actually acknowledged that their "contractors" were in fact employees. This way it's at their discretion and can be withdrawn, a bit like their medical care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Apparently the international and domestic buyrate for Wrestlemania 30 came out a few days ago:  690,000 buys in total international and domestic. That's roughly 300,000 international buys, about 25% less than last year. Ow.  Obviously this 690,000 buys is off set by the Network which had 667,287 subscribers the day after Mania.  So total viewers of up to 1,357,287.  http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_New...ml#.U5E_XfmSzhI  Edit: Interesting the Torch makes mention of the theory that a lot of the US network buyers are from abroad:  "We knew that launching the WWE Network would mean that traditional PPV buys for Wrestlemania would be significantly down this year. However, the two surprises have been that the domestic PPV buys were so strong and that international PPV buys were so weak. It’s a very curious situation....  For me, the most compelling scenario is the third option – large numbers of international WWE fans found a way to get a WWE Network subscription and watched the PPV using the over-the-top service. Yet, this implies that a significant portion (125,000 or more!) of the WWE Network current subscribers are non-domestic households."  Read more at http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-wrestlemani...lolBoTjhUk4I.99  Thoughts? Edited June 6, 2014 by andrew "the ref" coyne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Just based on the amount of interest on this forum, that seems more than possible. If their estimates for success are based on a certain number of US PLUS an influx of international subs when the Network is launched overseas, they could have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshC Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 It's interesting, I was listening to a podcast the other day, and all these big (US-based) fans were calling in... but very few of them had subscribed to the Network. I'm thinking is this a technology thing? Are wrestling fans in the States generally a different breed to those overseas, in terms of having the wherewithall to get this set up? Have they had it on a plate for too long? Have WWE over-estimated how many of their fanbase even have access to the latest technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 As anyone who has seen C-Rock's posts can attest, there are wrestling fans who are pure morons. There are a lot of them, as it attracts complete trash. That's why wrestling has little value to advertisers, and thus why WWE didn't get the US TV deal increase they were pretending they were getting. A significant portion of the Raw audience is forty or fifty year old hick idiots, who just don't have the access or the wherewithal to connect to a paid streaming service. The cable companies in the US get calls daily from people asking to sign up for the WWE Network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted June 6, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 Doesn't this weaken the argument that the wrestlers were contractors rather than employees? Â I'm amazed that the big wrestling companies are still getting away with this to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) And Channel 4. Edited June 6, 2014 by King Pitcos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members unfitfinlay Posted June 6, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 Thing is, they would have to do this sort of a thing if they actually acknowledged that their "contractors" were in fact employees. This way it's at their discretion and can be withdrawn, a bit like their medical care. Â Plus they'd have to pay decades of back taxes, fines and likely a few civil lawsuits from wrestlers and/or their families as well. Â Doesn't this weaken the argument that the wrestlers were contractors rather than employees? Â I'm amazed that the big wrestling companies are still getting away with this to be honest. Â Why? The wrestlers that it would benefit don't have a pot to piss in and the one's that have the cash to challenge it don't give a fuck. The U.S Government don't seem particularly arsed about it either, judging by the results of their Post-Benoit investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted June 6, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 Thing is, they would have to do this sort of a thing if they actually acknowledged that their "contractors" were in fact employees. This way it's at their discretion and can be withdrawn, a bit like their medical care. Â Plus they'd have to pay decades of back taxes, fines and likely a few civil lawsuits from wrestlers and/or their families as well. Â Doesn't this weaken the argument that the wrestlers were contractors rather than employees? Â I'm amazed that the big wrestling companies are still getting away with this to be honest. Â Why? The wrestlers that it would benefit don't have a pot to piss in and the one's that have the cash to challenge it don't give a fuck. The U.S Government don't seem particularly arsed about it either, judging by the results of their Post-Benoit investigation. Â Because they're blatantly employees that's why. There's a reason why John Cena can't turn up on Impact on his (rare) days off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Not really, of I was a contractor at Rbs, I couldn't simultaneously work for HSBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClassicsGuy Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 TNA viewership fell below 1 million last night, doing just 993,000. They were going head to head with a big NBA game (12.6m), but even so. The same happened last year and they did 1.1m viewers, against an NBA game watched by more people (14.2m). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members unfitfinlay Posted June 7, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Because they're blatantly employees that's why. There's a reason why John Cena can't turn up on Impact on his (rare) days off. Â Well, yes, but it means nothing until it's proved in court and that'll never ever happen. The only people who have even tried were Raven, Kanyon and Mike Sanders and it got dismissed almost immediately. They'd held onto the belief that WWE might bring them back for so long that the Statute of Limitations ran out and WWE didn't even have to acknowledge the real issue. Â It would take someone in the prime of their career, with enough cash to fight a long legal battle AND enough social responsibility to see it through to the end and not take an out of court settlement. Can you think of anybody in the entire industry like that? Edited June 7, 2014 by unfitfinlay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 It would take someone in the prime of their career, with enough cash to fight a long legal battle AND enough social responsibility to see it through to the end and not take an out of court settlement. Can you think of anybody in the entire industry like that? Â I'd say the window has closed for this even. It's just not imaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Whenever I've seen suggestions of how a union would actually improve wrestling for anyone, it just seems nonsensical and self-defeating anyway. I remember someone (I think Carbomb) suggesting that wrestlers would be contracted to specific spots on the card and could never be demoted from them after returning from injury etc. So Rey Mysterio taking six months off would give John Morrison six months at the top of the card, but then after Rey came back, Morrison's fucked back down to the middle. Like a maternity leave temp. That makes the glass ceiling contractual, and obligates the company to not rotate talent in top spots. Â Yoshi Tatsu's been sacked. Brodus Clay and Evan Bourne as well. Edited June 12, 2014 by King Pitcos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted June 12, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 12, 2014 Shame for Bourne, his own fault though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts