David Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Just now, tiger_rick said: He's running Raw on his own for them. There's clearly a huge level of trust. He is to Lesnar what Beefcake was to Hogan. Except with a more rubbish haircut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Just now, Gay as FOOK said: I don't think your finger's on the pulse quite as well as you think it is. When it comes to modern wrestling? My finger is nowhere near the pulse. I haven't watched WWE in years. I just wanted to get my Beefcake comparison in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Quote He is to Lesnar what Beefcake was to Hogan. Except with a more rubbish haircut. Heyman was responsible for the Goldberg comeback and feud with Brock. He made me interested in fecking Goldberg in 2016. Also he doesn't really have a haircut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeRobertsParoleOfficer Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 40 minutes ago, David said: He didn't have unlimited money. He had a very good budget, and was able to offer deals that WWF at the time refused to match. Also, let's not pretend that WWF couldn't match them, WWF didn't want to match them. We're not talking about a company that was operating on a shoestring budget as Vince would have you believe. David do you really think Vince chose not to not match them and lose x amount of his biggest names overnight by choice? Look at the venues WWF we're playing in back then? Even the talent has said that cheques were plateaud, they were getting luncheon meat at venues and waiting for WM payoffs. Turner was a billionaire then, owned networks, America football teams and all sorts. Him and Vince were at polar opposites financially back then. If you can afford to offer guys like Lanny Poffo $500k to sit and home and never debut in 3 years then your pissing money. Im a massive fan of that period and Eric did hit paydirt however as has been said that 2 year fire period was totally undone in the next 2. When that nWo run culminated at Starcade and they botched the end with Sting that was in effect the death of WCW. After that it was all downhill. Massive roster of superstars on megabucks and not a clue what to do with them, hence the horrific ppvs and shows they started knocking out. Hence the one trick pony. Vince did the same in the 80s for sure (buy talent) however he creates something that's lasted 40 years. Coming back to the Heyman vs Eric argument. Eric was already at a billionaire plaything with huge resources and money. Paul created a wrestling fed from scratch, landed a TV deal, figure deal, game deal and fed wwf with talent. Both wcw and ecw died so that's a tie however 1 was a one man band one wasnt. To achieve what Paul did in itself was huge. Onto places in the industry as I said one has the greater impact and legacy (eric), one has the greater personal achievement (heyman). As for names ( ring in rvd, hogan, Hall etc) not popping crowds and using tna as an example. It was a totally different time, tna had limited broadcast markets, the stars were far older, the product was chronically oversaturated and its been done before.      Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 16, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted October 16, 2019 How does your return key still work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) I don't think Vince was in the shit in 1997 as much as the narrative likes to say. He basically made the deal with Bret, got cold feet on that because it made not one shit of difference and because Michaels moaned about it, and decided to fuck him off. The downsizing to a North East Promotion I don't buy. They extended Raw to two hours in March 97, with financing from USA. In Your House events increased in price in September of that year, so the cashflow was coming. In fact this was right about the time Vince told Bret he couldn't afford him. I think Vince likes to tell the story of him not having a pot to piss in to make the comeback seem even better than it is. As for Bischoff being a One Trick Pony? He might have been, but it was one of the best tricks in wrestling history. Edited October 16, 2019 by Max Power Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 I'm not sure where this Heyman and two years argument is coming from. Heyman bought ECW from Tod Gordon in 1995. According to Gordon in his RF shoot interview he got back every cent he'd invested in ECW. So between 1995 and 2001 Heyman lost approximately $7.5million, but Paul E has never claimed to be a great businessman and neither have many other people. Bischoff lost more than that in one night when he decided to give away Hogan vs Goldberg on free TV on 6th July 1998. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tamura said: I'm not sure where this Heyman and two years argument is coming from. Heyman bought ECW from Tod Gordon in 1995. According to Gordon in his RF shoot interview he got back every cent he'd invested in ECW. So between 1995 and 2001 Heyman lost approximately $7.5million, but Paul E has never claimed to be a great businessman and neither have many other people. Bischoff lost more than that in one night when he decided to give away Hogan vs Goldberg on free TV on 6th July 1998. He also made more than that in one night at Starrcade with Sting and Hogan (as shit as it was). Probably paid his lads that day too. Edited October 16, 2019 by Max Power Can't spell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 16, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Max Power said: He also made more than one night at Starrcade with Sting and Hogan (as shit as it was). Probably paid his lads that day too. Some serious shitarses made a lot of money from being in ECW. Plenty of it off Bischoff. Them lads did alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 The absolute lack of self awareness of just repeating wwe version of history isnt as funny now it’s kept going Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeRobertsParoleOfficer Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Louch said: The absolute lack of self awareness of just repeating wwe version of history isnt as funny now it’s kept going I'm the last person to go with wwe version of events. I'd love to know exactly what I'm wrong about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCW Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 I'd rate Bisch's impact above Heyman's. Eric sparked a boom, got ahead of himself and ultimately gave talent too much control. If that merger didn't happen, WCW might still be knocking about. Paul E was taking a wage from Vince for years, got free plugs on Vince's telly and were allowed use his talent, negotiated a rotten TV deal with TNN and sank with a whimper. Some of his ideas were innovative no doubt, but he never touched the success Bischoff had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe_Knuckleball_Schwartz Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 12 hours ago, scratchdj said: Tell that to the world of professional football. True, sadly another in a long list of sports that has been ruined by SKY's millions - Thats a whole new debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 6 hours ago, Max Power said: He also made more than that in one night at Starrcade with Sting and Hogan (as shit as it was). That only serves to underline the stupidity of the his decision to give away Goldberg vs Hogan for free. Rather than be patient with a long-term plan like with Starrcade 1997, he cost WCW millions just to beat the WWF in the TV ratings. Â 6 hours ago, Max Power said: Probably paid his lads that day too. Â I've already said Heyman wasn't a good businessman, even his staunchest supporters would agree on that point. However, was Bischoff a good businessman? Were WCW wrestlers paid in 1999 because of Bischoff's excellent business skills? Or were they paid, despite the company losing a fortune, because Time Warner were bankrolling the company? Take Time Warner out of the picture and Bischoff wouldn't be able to pay the wrestlers either would he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 4 hours ago, JakeRobertsParoleOfficer said: I'd love to know exactly what I'm wrong about Just in this thread, or in general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.