ClassicsGuy Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 WWE also famously jumped from the USA Network and signed a five year deal with Viacom in October 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotechnik Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I think 5 years is a bit carried for a wrestling show. WWE only renew contracts for another year or two not FIVE all at once. The channel may not even last that long.How much do you think this has cost the FWA?WWE signed a five year deal with Sky in December 1999. And sky are thinking to NOT renew it, why? Ratings have dropped, PPV buy rates have fallen and are getting more costly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members MoChatra Posted March 10, 2004 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2004 Let me ask a hypothetical 'what if' question, that I'm curious to read the feedback for.What if three other promotions (e.g. WZW, SCW, ICW) have their products together to a sufficient standard in twelve months time, both from an in-ring and production point of view, that TWC gives them weekly TV.What will the implications be for such promotions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLostScot Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I think 5 years is a bit carried for a wrestling show. WWE only renew contracts for another year or two not FIVE all at once. The channel may not even last that long.How much do you think this has cost the FWA?WWE signed a five year deal with Sky in December 1999. And sky are thinking to NOT renew it, why? Ratings have dropped, PPV buy rates have fallen and are getting more costly. I thought it was 2000, early 2001 they signed a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClassicsGuy Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 (edited) And sky are thinking to NOT renew it, why? Ratings have dropped, PPV buy rates have fallen and are getting more costly.Who told you that? And ratings aren't going down, stop making stuff up. A quick glance at the BARB ratings would show you that WWE is just as popular as ever on Sky. Edited March 10, 2004 by ClassicsGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClassicsGuy Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I thought it was 2000, early 2001 they signed a contract. No. December 1999, starting in January 2000.As a result of the 5 year deal, we started receiving WWF Smackdown and WWF Classics.It expires at the end of this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotechnik Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 And sky are thinking to NOT renew it, why? Ratings have dropped, PPV buy rates have fallen and are getting more costly.Who told you that? And ratings aren't going down, stop making stuff up. A quick glance at the BARB ratings would show you that WWE is just as popular as ever on Sky. Obviously you never read the press release after they decided not to air armageddon last year on box office.Sky have been keeping a close eye on the wwe ratings since, hoping things will pick up soon, the contract is due to run out this year or is it 2005? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members MoChatra Posted March 10, 2004 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2004 Sure, the PPV numbers were poor, but ratings are up around 75-80% compared to this time last year.I posted a thread about it a couple of weeks back, so you can find it via the search function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClassicsGuy Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 (edited) Obviously you never read the press release after they decided not to air armageddon last year on box office.Sky have been keeping a close eye on the wwe ratings since, hoping things will pick up soon, the contract is due to run out this year or is it 2005?They never aired Armageddon because WWE was asking for too much money.It was nothing to do with lack of fan interest.Vince has had money disputes with tv companies the world over in the past 18 months, from companies in Australia, to Direc-tv in his own country. Edited March 10, 2004 by ClassicsGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Freedom Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Congratulations to the FWA....I'll applaud them for attempting to take "the next step" in expanding into a truly national promotion. If this means more FWA shows, and more importantly shows north of Bolton I'll be happy. While this isn't a complete advertisement for British Wrestling, it's a start. I actually posted on the TWC about the possibility of a "upcoming events" segment, and was worried that i didnt get any sort of response on it, or any promotion of other events(some replies about other promotions, but not the core issue).However, I can't help but feel short-changed by this "exclusive-unless-you're-better-than-us" agreement. This automatically puts EVERY promotion, be it startup or established at a disadvantage to what is the biggest medium for advertising wrestling ever. I have read the arguments about the FWA and TWC don't need and don't have any responsibility to british wrestling. But it works both ways. What happens if the FWA shows don't take off, attendances drop, and as the only outlet for wrestling is being held by a company who is drawing less and less people to their shows, where does that leave everyone else?I am saddened by the comments of some people with the old "50 people and Doink wrestling" comments. I was hoping this new millenium would bring more informed statements. The days of tribute wrestling on dead or dying. As far as I know in Scotland they have all but been exterminated, I don't know about England but I've not heard anyone complaining about local tribute shows for quite a while now. Wrestling in Britain, by British wrestlers is back, and it's standing is improving by the day. Will this deal change all that? No, promotions will live on, continue to draw fans, and put on quality shows. But with an outlet, or at least a goal to strive for, it gives these promotions a rainbow to shoot for. I would hate to see it taken away for the sake of a promotional issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 (edited) Mo, in response to your question, it would be a major boon for all companies involved (including the FWA and TWC) if that many companies got deals with the channel. With multiple alternatives, fans would be more likely to give any and all British wrestling a chance, and arena fans would be more likely to tune in and watch all the stuff on TWC - not just "their" company. Also, competition would force all the wrestling offices to constantly drive their standards higher, and by extension, drive the standards of wrestling in this country higher. As it is, companies are going to feel, rightly or wrongly, that it doesn't matter what they do, as the FWA seems to have a lock on the station. Alternatively, they may (mistakenly) view TWC as the holy grail, and they may see massive investment as the only way to get on the channel, and bankrupt themselves in the process. Edited March 10, 2004 by Kenny McBride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest overbooked Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I never said Wrestling was more popular than Extreme Sports, I said it had a larger audience. Er...what the fuck? That sentence makes no sense at all. Extreme sports are more popular, with a smaller audience? Plus, I think you are getting "wrestling" mixed up with "WWE".99% of wrestling fans in the UK think the WWE is wrestling, and aren't even aware of any other promotions. So, using WWE viewing figures when talking about TWC isn't really much use. Sure, a percentage of those people watching Raw might try TWC, but I bet most will be turned off by the production values, and its not like every Raw viewer is suddenly going to watch another 20 hours of wrestling a week just because a new channel started.Saying that, TWC in broadcasting prepared footage isn't going to have massive production costs to worry about, and so doesn't need millions of viewers. This is also why a UK magazine show is highly unlikely, unless the other UK groups club together to make it and finance it themselves for TWC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex shane's selling ability Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Alternatively, they may (mistakenly) view TWC as the holy grail, and they may see massive investment as the only way to get on the channel, and bankrupt themselves in the process.To be honest it wouldn't take massive investment to better the FWA production values. Their previous video releases have been no better or worse than any US Indie and commentary is decidedly ropey. It all depends on whether the view the worth of a company by the amount of indoor fireworks they can buy.For me the only way to stand a chance of succeeding on the channel is to concentrate on the in-ring product. If you start going the route of low-budget WWE which a lot of FWA angles/promos do it looks amateurish, if you concentrate on booking and using the best in-ring talent in the UK, it could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPC Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I bet most will be turned off by the production valuesI dont think that would turn some off. I think the FWA's picture and sound quality would but NOAH's is brilliant. The picture quality equals that of WWE. The commentating on NOAh is far better than RAW two. I'd rather listen to gibberish for two hours than listen to RAW's announcing team of J.R and King. If the FWA stopped using a smoke machine for every bloody entrance until you can no longer see the ring it may help them. They also need to up the lighting on the ring and the crowd otherwise you cannot see the corners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest overbooked Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I bet most will be turned off by the production valuesI dont think that would turn some off. I think the FWA's picture and sound quality would but NOAH's is brilliant. The picture quality equals that of WWE. The commentating on NOAh is far better than RAW two. And there's the problem...the shows with the great picture quality won't have English commentary, while those with English commentary (which is on the whole poor), has rubbish production values, although to be fair it seems like RoH have stepped up a degree.While the above won't bother die-hard fans, its going to look and sound pretty second-rate to your standard Raw viewer. And a bad first impression won't bode well.If the FWA stopped using a smoke machine for every bloody entrance until you can no longer see the ring it may help them. They also need to up the lighting on the ring and the crowd otherwise you cannot see the corners.All that and more makes it even more of a joke that the FWA is the yardstick for production values. I think the problem is that people see what they want to see with wrestling shows, rather than taking a step back and comparing it to WWE broadcasts and other sporting or entertainment shows. The production values of FWA, CZW etc etc would never make it onto Eurosport or even Bravo IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts