Vince McMahon is back. "I hear ya a racist now, father?"

[Keith Houchen]

4 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

It’s interesting. I’m amazed no one outside the WWE has taken a look yet, and gone ‘we might need to stop this’.

The NFL/MLB/MLS/NBA etc etc would never be allowed to sell to a foreign government, so I’ll be amazed if the WWE get a completely free pass. 
 

In this country there’d at least be restrictions on sale.

Such a shame if it does go Saudi.

Are they comparable though? WWE is an entertainment company and the rest are national sporting governing bodies 

[Cannibal Man]

yeah it's more like Total Wipeout being sold to the Mugabe regime than anything else

[Keith Houchen]

5 minutes ago, Cannibal Man said:

yeah it's more like Total Wipeout being sold to the Mugabe regime than anything else

He would’ve rebranded it as “Final Solution” or something similar. 

[garynysmon]

In all seriousness this move can't be a positive for the company's long term future in any way can it? 

This isn't like Newcastle being bought by the Saudis, thus giving them a massive financial injection and helping them compete in a highly competitive sporting environment. Newcastle don't have to negotiate their own TV rights and there are more than enough sponsorship opportunities etc in the Middle East for any negative press over here to bypass their bottom line.

 What WWE is doing is making itself more unattractive to sponsors and TV rights holders in the western world. Its not going to bring them any more fans is it, and they were already in a dominant position when it came to offering the highest salaries and the biggest platform to any wrestlers.

The prestige of owning a fake fighting company is also nothing compared to a top European Football club so though they could sustain losses year after year, is it going to come out in a better position the other side? I doubt it.

[Rockbus2]

I can't quite bring myself to "like" the above two posts but please be aware I appreciate them

[SuperBacon]

15 minutes ago, Cannibal Man said:

yeah it's more like Total Wipeout being sold to the Mugabe regime than anything else

Mugabe loved those big red balls.

[seph]

Ariel Helwani is now reporting that it *isn't* a done deal and the OP stating thus is gone.

 

[The Gaffer]

I can't say I feel anything at all at the possibility of it happening (stressing the possibility here, as the above post flew in when I was writing this!) 

Even when it's been occasionally good over the last few years, WWE has represented to me my past fandom. They've even largely booked themselves and delivered their content that way for years now. A sort of interactive museum of your memories of when it was great. So I really don't feel like I'm losing out on anything. It's also not the same as the takeover of a football club, where you actually develop loyalties directly to the badge. 

Outside of the weird tribalists on Twitter and that sickly looking bloke with the spray painted jacket who always sits front row, do that many people really actually have an allegiance to the company itself? Even when they were shit hot, it was always to me a case of this bumbling, goofy company striking gold in the moment. They almost always felt like they were being successful in spite of themselves. Even when admitting you're a wrestling fan to others, you've always got to say "I'm into wrestling". Nobody really says "I'm into WWE" despite them working for decades to try and make that the norm.

Really all my fandom wants these days is a two hour show on TV each week that's in a decent enough looking arena and feels like a big deal. Even when the booking is shite, at least there's that. And...well...AEW have that one sorted. 

I do sort of regret selling all my Tagged Classics. They'd be a nice thing still to have, to relive the good ol' times.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Gay as FOOK

[garynysmon]

9 minutes ago, Gay as FOOK said:

Even when it's been occasionally good over the last few years, WWE has represented to me my past fandom. They've even largely booked themselves and delivered their content that way for years now. A sort of interactive museum of your memories of when it was great. So I really don't feel like I'm losing out on anything. It's also not the same as the takeover of a football club, where you actually develop loyalties directly to the badge. 

I'd agree with that really.

Whenever I watch a few minutes of WWE these days it just represents sterile nothingness, I'm too far lapsed to have any attachment to (or usually awareness of) the current roster and the whole production is overproduced to the point of being unwatchable to me.

That said, a glimpse of the block 80's/90's (pre-attitude) WWF logo never fails to stir a massive and overwhelming pang of nostalgia and gravitas.   

Edited January 11, 2023 by garynysmon

[RedRooster]

If there's a storm of negative publicity, that in itself could discourage some of their media partners from continuing their current relationships with WWE; even if that decision is tinged with hypocrisy based on other companies they're dealing with. (assuming the deal actually happens)

I'm curious to what it would mean for WWE wrestlers, though - not from a contractual perspective; but would it potentially cause people to leave, or refuse to appear on their shows? Would John Cena or The Rock want to risk tarnishing their images want to appear on a Saudi-owned WWE show? What about Sami Zayn, or Kevin Owens? If Roman Reigns becomes a crossover star, would he feel comfortable being part of this organisation? What about the female wrestlers? What happens if there's another Saudi-related controversy?

Then - from a mainstream news perspective - you have the angle of a disgraced chairman, facing multiple allegations of sexual harassment, swooping in to sell the company to a shadowy regime. 

And if the deal does go ahead, and McMahon stays on as Chairman - hoo boy. 

Clearly, at this point, there's a big "if" surrounding this; but if the deal goes through the ripple effect could be very significant. 

[Nick James]

I've seen a lot over on that there Twitter suggesting that WWE going under or networks walking away from WWE as a huge positive for Tony Khan and AEW, whilst I'm sure talent wise, thats possible, would it not actually have a negative effect in that, networks could just think fuck it and walk away from wrestling? As has been said for what seems like decades now, the brand of WWE seems to be the main draw, not the wrestling. As I mentioned earlier, I know absolute fuck all about business or how networks work, so thats a genuine question. 

[BomberPat]

8 minutes ago, Nick James said:

would it not actually have a negative effect in that, networks could just think fuck it and walk away from wrestling? 

very possible. And not just networks but audiences.

The biggest disaster of the collapse of WCW was that Vince McMahon assumed that WCW's audience would migrate to the WWF, and they didn't - they almost all just stopped watching wrestling altogether. If WWE get fucked over TV deal-wise, or lose a significant chunk of their audience (which I don't think will happen on moral grounds around this proposed deal, but significant changes to the nature of the company or the product could do the trick), I don't think that audience migrates to AEW, they just stop watching wrestling.

AEW, and WCW before them, have always had an uphill battle - no matter how successful they are, "WWE" or "WWF" is still the byword for professional wrestling. Eric Bischoff has talked of how, even on Turner-owned networks, when WCW was beating the WWF in the ratings, sports commentators would describe a fight between players as "like something out of the WWF". Sting would do public appearances, and be introduced as a "WWF wrestler". It's the equivalent of every news story about this country needing to open with a quip about Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks.

21 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

Then - from a mainstream news perspective - you have the angle of a disgraced chairman, facing multiple allegations of sexual harassment, swooping in to sell the company to a shadowy regime.

I don't think it means anything from a mainstream news perspective. When stories about Vince broke, outside of the WSJ it was treated as a bit of an "and finally" about the mad old bastard from the wrestling, rather than the massive financial scandal it would have been treated as if it had been a company of comparable size dealing with more "respectable" fare.

[Hannibal Scorch]

14 minutes ago, Nick James said:

I've seen a lot over on that there Twitter suggesting that WWE going under or networks walking away from WWE as a huge positive for Tony Khan and AEW, whilst I'm sure talent wise, thats possible, would it not actually have a negative effect in that, networks could just think fuck it and walk away from wrestling? As has been said for what seems like decades now, the brand of WWE seems to be the main draw, not the wrestling. As I mentioned earlier, I know absolute fuck all about business or how networks work, so thats a genuine question. 

Wrestling is cheap content that sells advertising and gets decent ratings. As an example the original TNT deal for AEW was $50m a year. 52 weeks of content. Stranger Things season for cost $10m per episode! Now, WWE's last TV deals were worth far more then AEW, but its why should WWE go under, wrestling wouldn't die, but it leaves room for a new number 1.

[Infinity Land]

21 minutes ago, Nick James said:

I've seen a lot over on that there Twitter suggesting that WWE going under or networks walking away from WWE as a huge positive for Tony Khan and AEW, whilst I'm sure talent wise, thats possible, would it not actually have a negative effect in that, networks could just think fuck it and walk away from wrestling? As has been said for what seems like decades now, the brand of WWE seems to be the main draw, not the wrestling. As I mentioned earlier, I know absolute fuck all about business or how networks work, so thats a genuine question. 

People are taking the example of LIV Golf's difficulty getting a TV and trying to make it a 1 for 1 with WWE. The big 3 networks over there are in existing deals with PGA and specific tours already. The conflict between the PGA and LIV is as much to do with the problems LIV have had establishing itself.

It's in the same sort of position AEW, XFL mk2, XFL mk3, USFL mk2 have all been in being an upstart trying to find a paying TV deal. The rumour was that LIV might pay FOX to carry their content (FOX previously cancelling their golf coverage as it clashed with sports they actually cared about). Now it seems some deal maybe arranged with The CW.

WWE is an established brand with deals still locked in for multiple years. Raw/Smackdown ends in 2024. Network sold to Peacock until 2025 or 26. No is getting blackballed due to the ownership.

Talent for the most part have been happy enough working Saudi shows for years now. There could be ripples but not wholesale changes.

[RedRooster]

18 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I don't think it means anything from a mainstream news perspective. When stories about Vince broke, outside of the WSJ it was treated as a bit of an "and finally" about the mad old bastard from the wrestling, rather than the massive financial scandal it would have been treated as if it had been a company of comparable size dealing with more "respectable" fare.

I don't know if that's completely correct - while it may not have led to front page stories in major US newspapers, the pressure built to the point that he was persuaded to step down. That's a pretty major step to take. Individual allegations certainly did not get the attention they deserved, however. 

With that said; a similar ripple of stories could be seriously damaging, for example, when it comes to negotiating television deals - particularly if McMahon were to stick around. And if he were to stick around, it might push the balance of power back to AEW when it comes to fan perception, and where certain wrestlers want to be.