I agree, the tape library is the valuable element of the business but I don't think $40m is a fair valuation of that either.

Maybe I'm being unfair but I just don't think that number is a fair reflection of TNA's worth personally. If it was me, you're looking at between $4m at the lowest to $9-10m highest.

More interesting is the Sinclair broadcasting bid which i believe is the more likely bid.

According to today's Wrestling Observer Radio, the going rate for tape libraries that WWE purchased was $500 per hour, so would probably be similar if they tried to get a deal with TNA.

Millions of fans who tuned out of WCW when they closed down would of said otherwise that opted not to be tirned into a WWE fan would say other wise.

Its a shame that WWE bought it because alough we can see it on the network I really wanted to see WCW come back. Something thats always bugged me I think originally Vince wanted to do a Nitro show each week but USA Network said no.

Out of the hundreds of TV channels and not one would air it?

Seth is dangerous given how many people hes legimately injured.

Del Rio DID NOT deserve to win the first ever 40 man Rumble. Id rather it had been John Cena.

Still I wonder if Turner did even want another company to buy it knowing they would have weekly TV and probably mention TNT by name so sell it as low as you can to WWE so they bury it.

All Vince cares is about conquering the competition.

I like Vince for all hes helped to Wrestling but also hate how no one stands a chance near competing against him.

No not one and if any did they would have paid so little for it they would have ran at a even bigger loss.

Plus as most of the top guys were under contract to Turner they still wouldn't have gone with it so tbe top 2 names would always have been Booker T and DDP without the big names (Hogan Flair NWO ) it was worthless.

Vince was always the best chance it had.

How has Daniel Bryan been recieved as GM of Smackdown? I havent been that impressed with him walking out twice of two scripted fights. If the court case hadent been going on with all that publicity I far more would have enjoyed this WHAT IF scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4-x6VT1sNc

He was scrpited to walk out.

It's a on going storyline which may end with him having a match rumours are WWE may now allow it.

Should of made Bret Hart general manage of Raw...now that would of been laugh a minute

WCW Saturday Night from late 1991 until mid 1994 ranks, in my opinion, as one of the best wrestling shows of all time. Vader, Foley, Sting, Austin, Steamboat, Pillman, Rude etc put on some quality matches and the storytelling was decent too.

On Bret.

According to Jericho's (first) book when he told Bret he was traning at the Dungeon Bret had no idea it was still running or who any of the trainers were also according to Y2J one of the brothers came the first day took the money showed them a headlock and buggered off never to be seen again

So how does Bret know nobody was ever hurt and he was just never told.

And as much as I liked Owen (in fact he's my favourite Hart family member) he's the one who broke Stone Colds neck by botching a move.

That was probably a good thing regarding guys being under Turner contract for a revamped WCW. Those guys were very stale. One or two of them involved is fair enough, but a fresh approach was needed.

Given Bischoff's track record after WCW, I don't know if he would have made it work, especially if he was still focusing the TV around Hogan.

For WCW or a combined WCW/ECW to succeed it needed to be run independetely as a business and product. You can understand why the McMahons wouldn't give control of a business to outsiders. Finding bookers was easy - Heyman could have done that. Board of directors, but still need a Chairman. Then comes the problem of convinving/Spike TV, who had the contract for TV, to show a WWE sub-brand.

The talent was there, however. RVD, Rhyno, DDP, Booker, Kanyon, Kidman, Credible, Storm, Awesome, Lynn etc. Imagine how good they would have come across if booked under somebody else and under the spotlight of quality production values in 2001.

I was more talking about if Bischoff and Fusient media had bought WCW.

I think he was actually GM already for a while - until the Nexus attacked him IIRC. I think that was the cause of the Anonymous Raw GM.

Bret and the other Harts entirely blame Seth Rollins for that Nexus attack.


Think there's quite a bit of truth in this. Good ratings are nice - and of course you want as many people to be watching live as possible - but TV ratings in general are declining and there are so many different ways to watch so it's not the be all and end all. Some people may not watch live but instead watch the best bits on Youtube or stream the shows or Hulu or watch a few days later on Tivo/Sky+ etc. They wouldn't be watching live and would still be engaging in the product.

The big number for WWE is probably the Network numbers. And if around half of all weekly Raw viewers are subscribing to the Network I'd say they're doing OK.

There was a stat too that came out a few days ago that more children in the UK recognise WWE superstars than the English cricket captain - so cricket frankly appears in a worse state.


Nobody said the ratings are great. Saying ratings aren't the be all and end all on the other hand is what people are saying.

It's an indicator of interest no doubt but I'd say WWE also equally care about the Network numbers, Youtube views and social media interest.


Bret will have you know no Harts have ever injured anyone ever. They genetically can't - they're Harts.

The Hart family vs. Seth Rollins. In addition to the Titus O' Neil suspension earlier in the year, Paige and Del Rio, Nikki and John Cena, Michael Hayes and Hulk Hogan being said to be racists, calls for Samoa Joe's finishing move to be banned etc etc. I can't help but feel if they brought nearly all backstage stuff to television in a big way and turned them into storylines the show(s) would be far more compelling and relevant.

How many adults would recognise modern day WWE stars compared to the English cricket captain I wonder?

Nobody is saying ratings are the be-all-and-end-all, and it is widely recognised that TV viewing figures are falling, and consumption patterns have changed...but the fact remains that ratings are an excellent way of gauging public interest in a show.

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/05/mos...ll-1201682396/

The Walking Dead is getting a 9.6 rating in the 18-49 demographic - even higher than the NFL. Game of Thrones - behind a huge paywall, remember - is getting 5.0 ratings. American Horror Story is over 3.0. Even The Simpsons, a show many consider to be well past its best, is drawing 2.1.

WWE fanboys would have you believe that nobody watches live anymore. That nobody watches TV. And that, somehow, Network subscriptions from hardcore fans - which don't even show WWE's weekly programming live - are a better indicator of popularity than the millions of casual viewers who have abandoned the product over the last 15 years.

Ratings across the board have been falling. That's a fact. But WWE's ratings have been tanking recently and have been in slow, steady decline for 15 years. Yes some of that can be explained by the internet, different ways of watching TV, more entertainment options etc. But it's more than that. WWE has demonstrated a remarkable ability to turn fans away from their product. It's happened to me more than once in recent years. The way they book shows, push wrestlers, script their god-awful corporate verbiage and produce mountains of television just grinds you down until you can't be bothered any more and end up just following online.

So YouTube numbers might be ok but that's because their existing fans can't be arsed to watch 3 hours of shit when they could see the main bits reduced to 3 minutes. Money is still being made because WWE has boiled their fanbase down to the hardcores and has opened up new revenue streams to bleed the most determined ones dry.

Ratings are a good way to judge the interest in the product no doubt - as you've acknowledged though they're not the only way.

I'd love to know who these 'WWE fanboys' are saying that 'nobody watches live TV anymore'. Everybody I've read would probably acknowledge ratings have gone down and the fall is down to more than just changing viewing habits.

I'm pretty sure more of the adults in the UK would know Alastair Cook than a WWE superstar but I don't think it's a particularly good comparison as one has been one of the big 3 or 4 national sports for years while even in the past for many the only memory they'd have of wrestling is 'Giant Haystacks and Big Daddy' or 'WWE selling out Wembley'.
That's why I was so surprised at the kids finding.

I don't think anybody is suggesting the overall interest picture is great but not going down the hazy melodramatic route isn't a bad thing.

Anyway what I'm concerned about more than anything is whether I enjoy the shows or not end of the day.

Edit: I assumed hazy would show up any second - and I wasn't disappointed.

Exactly. When Walking Dead and Game Of Thrones and many other shows are getting high ratings. Can people watch all of those shows online or later on in the week? Yes. What does it show? It shows the fans of those shows can't wait till later on, they NEED to watch the first run of the episodes. They're excited to watch it the first time on TV. So while ratings may be going down across the board what these shows do is they show you that if you have good programs with good stories and characters....it is possible to get people in the millions to sit and watch it on TV.

It can be done with talent, hard work, the right people doing the right jobs, no politicing, no stubborness from higher ups, it can be done and it can work.


Of course there is nothing wrong with watching online or watching the best bits on Youtube. I do it myself but I'm only talking about this from a business side of things. The WWE might look at their Youtube numbers and Hulu numbers and what they get for the Network and be happy, but if USA Network is paying $100 million a year for Raw and Smackdown....they wont care about those numbers, all they're gonna care about is who is watching on Monday night on TV. The WWE charging $10 a month for the Network doesn't put money in their pocket, the WWE having millions of Youtube views does them no favours so that's why I think a lot of people talk about the ratings because the WWE isn't gonna change their way of working and doing things while it's making them money but if you look at the numbers, which obviously USA Network care about, I'm sure Sky Sports do too, it means a lot to them because they don't get any money from the Network or Youtube, they're gonna try their best to get people to watch WWE on their TV channels. They really hold the key to change IMO, they're the ones that can really make a change and that's why I always said, I wonder what the limit is, I wonder if there is a specific number where if WWE hits it, the USA Network HAS to step in and say something. Maybe a 1.88 isn't it. The highest rating TNA got was a 1.45. The WWE's not too far from TNA's highest ratings.

WCW Saturday Night was a amazing show. I loved how they were putting out high quality matches on that show, my favourite one had to be when Sting & Steamboat tagged up and wrestled Austin & Flair. I think coming up with a top 10 matches on that show would be difficult, but 100 best matches of that show would be easier.

I can remember one show when Rude was in the ring where Bulldog no showed and they said Rude will wrestle a mystery opponent and out strolled The Big Boss man complete in a similar WWF ring styled attire. While shortly after this he just wore black it was quite interesting to see a WWF themed ring gear.

The storyline is now going on Twitter where Miz is saying Bryan is good as a wrestler but sucks as a GM. Hes moaning about not being liked and as his contract is up soon if Bryan doesnt want him there to let him go but Bryan is countering with SD needs the IC Champion.

What they should do is have Bryan screw Miz out of the IC Title so they keep the belt on Smackdown and then Fire Miz so he can piss off to Raw. I honestly wouldnt miss him at all but it would make good TV.

I like it when feuds go to Twitter or FB it makes it more believable (In that they don't just wait to be on TV to argue) and can carry a feud on even if they are not on TV.