Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Financial Screw UP's


Guest Kenta Batista

Recommended Posts

Contracts were half of it. The other half of it was a massive decline in revenue. House shows, PPV and merch all went in the tank.

 

Let's say the swing is this:

 

1998: $135M revenue on $80M expenses/cost = $55M profit

1999: $94M revenue on $110M expenses/cost = -$16M loss

2000: $58M revenue on $120M expenses/cost = -$62M loss

 

I'm pulling numbers completely out of my ass, but here's the thought:

 

High on the hog in 1998 and expecting not only to continue the ride (remember their ego at that point), ATM Eric is more than willing to hand out contract increases left and right while also spending other money left and right to go first class. Except revenue dips strongly. WCW isn't cutting off those big contracts because they don't want folks to go to the WWF... unless they're head cases say like Waltman.

 

Let's say expenses increase again in 2000 as they desperately throw things at the wall while also having loads of fat, increasing contracts. At the same time revenue falls off the cliff.

 

When they signed those deals, they were expecting revenue to continue to grow like it had from 1996 to 1997 to 1998... which was tremendous growth. They thought the would be able to cover them.

 

Tons of companies and people go bankrupt this way. They have a certain revenue stream, they see it growing in the past and project continuing growth (or even conservatively simply sustaining the growth), and budget their businesses/live to be supported by the revenue. When the revenue goes south, or even something as simple as fails to hit the projected growth, that budget takes a hit. If that was done by running up a debt, they're in trouble. In a sense, contracts are a form of debt for a company: just another payable they're obligated to hand over cash on.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know how much more they could have got from Goldberg. Yeah, it was stupid to beat him so cheaply like the did, but if that didn't happen what else would they do with him? It always seemed to me that once he beat Hogan, there wasn't anything left for him to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though it gets exaggerated these days, making your announcers tell the viewers that Mankind was winning the title that night certainly didn't help. I think the Fingerpoke of Doom wouldn't have been so bad if it had ended with Goldberg getting his revenge but of course they couldn't do that. It was fucking irritating to watch the company slide back by about two years when that happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goldberg for most of his run was also second or third from the top after whatever Hogan and Nash were doing. He had the title, yes, but the title became less important when he had it than it was when Hogan had it.

 

Of course, I also think Goldberg won the title too quickly. Goldberg/Hogan should have been a way bigger deal when it finally happened than it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest and with the benefit of hindsight, how do you think Goldberg should have lost for the first time? Obviously he would have had to lose some time but his aura and charisma was so linked in to his streak and 'invincibility' so it seems like a real booking dilemma. Since his first loss was a delicate situation it would be interesting to hear peoples thoughts on how it could have been done (and it would have to be done at some point) without damaging the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that they should have even had it on their mind until two things happened:

 

(1) Goldberg started to lose steam

(2) Someone else was coming along that would be better in that role than him, or was catching on as a top heel in a big way

 

If the streak would have continued 2-3 years, so be it.

 

I also agree with tomk that ending the streak, pinning him, and taking the title off of him could have been broken up into three separate moments where you get max benefit out of all three.

 

From 1984-1987, I don't think the WWF was asking themselves "How can we ever get the title off of Hogan without killing him?", they just ran it as long as they could, and when a good time and scenario came up for him to drop the title, they did it. I think the same should have happened with Goldberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hotshoting Goldberg vs Hogan to pop a TV rating was the stupidest thing they could do.

I mean, apart from ending Goldberg stroke so soon and give the title to Nash, which was even worse.

And apart from the fingerpoke of doom, which reset the entire company one year back and made Goldberg look like an ass.

 

I agree that they could have run for a long time with Goldie before even thinking of ending the streak. He was the hottest thing they had, they just had to feed him hot heels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In just completing the Death of WCW set, I have a couple of thoughts.

 

Killing off Sting at Starrcade 97 and later at Superbrawl 8 was fucking insane. Sting could have carried the damn company for an entire year WITHOUT Goldberg. So in 1998, Goldberg comes out and mauls everyone, they should have been building to the Sting-Goldberg match-up at Starrcade with Goldberg carrying it through 1999. Face vs. Face but that is who Sting should have lost the title to. I can't even remember if Sting was on Starrcade 1998. Hell, for the 1998 Starrcade, with politics not reraring their ugly head, you could have had a double main event of something like Sting vs. Goldberg + Hogan vs. Bret Hart or any other old guy match-up and kept rolling along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 1984-1987, I don't think the WWF was asking themselves "How can we ever get the title off of Hogan without killing him?", they just ran it as long as they could, and when a good time and scenario came up for him to drop the title, they did it. I think the same should have happened with Goldberg.

The problem with that comparison is that the Goldberg era was totally different from the Hogan era as far as the TV and PPV format. Hogan would wrestle on TV maybe 4 or 5 times a year at most on SNME against mid-level heels and just seeing a Hogan match on TV was a rare novelty (ignoring the televised house show stuff like MSG which was for local markets and wasn't a part of the TV universe continuity). As far as PPV he had 4 singles matches on PPV in the 80s and never wrestled on the weekly TV aside from a very rare exception, if ever. So he could have a long reign without having to kill off all the viable heels and was never overexposed in the ring. Whereas in the late 90s Goldberg would have been expected to wrestle on TV pretty much every week as well as 10+ PPVs a year and there's only so long he could have stayed squashing scrubs every week, and after becoming champion he couldn't continue going through Jerry Flynn level jobbers, he'd have to mix it up with the top guys every week and there's only a finite number of heels he could plough through.

 

Just seems that in the Monday Night Wars era, booking Goldberg's streak and championship reign for a significant length of time while keeping him undefeated would have been near impossible, hence the dilemma of how to end his streak and/or maintain that sense of vulnerability and credible opponents in an era of mass overexposure. Ofcourse WCW fucked it up by killing his aura, turning him heel and eventually he was teaming with Sgt Buddy Lee Parker on PPV but even with great booking it would be a hell of a challenge to keep the streak going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that there was a reason for him to wrestle on TV every week. Keep him special. Steve Austin, even during the height of the wrestling wars, didn't wrestle every week, nor did Flair, Hogan, Undertaker, Nash, or most of the other big names. The people who usually wrestled every week were your second tier big names, guys like Luger, Hall, Foley, and HHH. Goldberg couldn't do interviews, but he could have done staredowns, security pull-aparts, etc. that were well-paced and kept interest in his big PPV matches. If they didn't want attendance to drop because of fear of people catching on Goldberg probably wouldn't be wrestling on Nitro, dark matches could have fixed that. There definitely still would have been challenges, especially with Bischoff's tendency to think nothing is more important than a quarter hour, but I do think it could have been done. A match like Goldberg/Flair, with Flair staying babyface and them treating it as him going into training for the biggest match of his life and doing some really great interviews, would have done a huge number even during '99 when things were really crumbling. Flair/Hogan, with neither guy wrestling that much but Flair doing some amazing interviews every week on TV and that pretty much being the extent of the hype, did a huge number at SuperBrawl.

 

WCW also had enough big name talent that they could have done PPVs without him headlining.

 

Maybe it wouldn't have lasted as long as Hogan's 80s run, but the point does still stand that it could have gone much longer, and the time wasn't right to make a change until the audience started telling them they were sick of Goldberg, which wasn't happening yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about making him seem special and limiting his exposure in the ring, but ever since 97/98 to this day, TV wrestling has shifted to the extent that every weekly show has to be a 'big event' and it seems like we always see the top guys wrestling the same guys every week, or often enough that there is no novelty in seeing them, and every possible match has been exhausted and repeated countless times. But your ideas would certainly be better than what they actually did with Goldberg.

 

On a side note, is Cena v Undertaker the only real big main event match (ie Wrestlemania main event worthy) that hasn't been done yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even remember if Sting was on Starrcade 1998. Hell, for the 1998 Starrcade, with politics not reraring their ugly head, you could have had a double main event of something like Sting vs. Goldberg + Hogan vs. Bret Hart or any other old guy match-up and kept rolling along.

That Starrcade headlined by Godlberg/Nash was truly bizarre. Giant/DDP was on it. But no Hogan, Hall, Savage, Hart, Luger, or Sting, and Flair was in a throwaway with Bischoff (and they didn't even put Flair over). I'm not really a huge fan of most of those guys in the ring, but that show had next to no star power at all. I'm pretty sure Hart was hurt, but most of them just didn't seem to have a program if I recall right. That in itself probably tells you plenty about where the company was at the end of 1998, I suppose.

 

For that matter no Raven, Benoit, Malenko, or Mysterio either if you can believe that list when you put it altogether. Eddie was in the opener in an actually really fun if I remember right three way with Juvi and Kidman, at least. Saturn was on the show saddled with Ernest Miller, because of course he was on Starrcade but Sting and Benoit aren't.

 

EDIT: Neither of the Steiners, or Booker T was on the card either. Think about that list of guys they aren't even using and/or were out (though I think the big majority fall into the first category there). It's about 90% of the guys that were, to one section of the audience or another, the reasons you are coming to a WCW show.

 

It's an unbelievably weak card for something that's supposed to be their Wrestlemania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clean that up and make it a little clearer:

 

Not on Starrcade 98: Hogan, Hart, Hall, Savage, Luger, Sting, Rick Steiner, Scott Steiner, Raven, Benoit, Malenko, Mysterio, Booker T.

 

On Starrcade 98: Ernest Miller, Prince Iukea, Norman Smiley (pre-big comedy gimmick), Jerry Flynn, Bryan Adams, Eric Bischoff wrestling (and being put over Flair).

 

Try and make sense out of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Slickster

How about when Johnny Ace signed the wrong one-legged wrestler to a WWE contract?

 

Or when WCW bought a full-page Monday Nitro ad in USA Today...that ran on the Tuesday after the show?

 

Or TNA buying a billboard in Times Square to hype the 1/4 debacle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end of WCW started with the Sting debacle, then onto the total mishandling of Bret, botching the whole Flair/Bischoff angle, Nash beating Goldberg, Finger Poke of Doom.

 

Even after all that they could've bounced back but the roller coaster was on the fast track downhill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even with the undercard they missed some really obvious stuff.

 

I mean, I don't think Stevie Ray can wrestle really. But you have nWo Black and White Scott Steiner/Stevie Ray vs. WCW Rick Steiner/Booker T right there as a serviceable undercard matchup. I don't remember them doing anything with that, ever. It seems like such an obvious match to throw into the mix at some point, before you try and blow up Scott into a singles star (which was pretty much the only thing they had working at one point).

 

It sure would have been more interesting than the whole "Stevie Ray feuds with Vincent and Horace over leadership of a group of jobbers" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to spoil tonights show but

 

UFC 112 :lol:

????

 

 

It was somewhat WCW-esque in how it featured old dues, top guys mailing it in (Silva), and BJ Penn losing to the MMA equivalent of Rocky Balboa.

 

Teasing then cancelling GSP-Silva

 

Total suckage to a disrespectful degree in front of the new owners in their home arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, is Cena v Undertaker the only real big main event match (ie Wrestlemania main event worthy) that hasn't been done yet?

 

They had a match on PPV in 2003 I think, but that was before Cena became the man.

 

Yeah, it was Vengeance 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...