How much is WWE actually losing?

Hey Scott,
So WWE pay-per-views went from $44.95 to $9.99. On the surface that looks like a huge drop and a lot of money lost. However, didn't WWE only see a small percentage of that $44.95 anyway? I seem to remember reading somewhere that inDemand got 50% of that right off the bat and then the cable/satellite company got a percentage of the remaining balance? Maybe they only ended up with $9.99 from that PPV buy? Any info on this?
​They made a large percentage on it, basically a 50/50 split with the cable companies.  They are losing a TON of money by killing off the PPV business model.  If they can get Network subscriptions up to the magic million mark it will level off the losses again, but there's a lot to be said for the way they blindsided cable companies with this whole thing and basically sabotaged any further relationships they might have if the Network doesn't work out.  And really, even just Wrestlemania and the Rumble staying on traditional PPV would probably put them well above break-even again next year and I bet no one would have had a problem buying those shows and getting the rest on the Network.  I think it was just a bad move all around to do it that way.  ​

So what is actually going wrong ?

Hey Scott,

Longtime fan boa bla. I’m listening to JR and Keller review Survivor Series. So much of what they are saying about booking in the company makes so much sense and I just get really confused as to how it doesn’t translate onto TV. Sure these crappy soap writers know nothing about booking and only coming up with subpar tropes we’d see on The CW but if Vince is the be all and end all and rewrites and has final say then why isn’t it the TV better ? Surely Vince knows basic booking 101 from his many many years in the business and the success he has had and I could possibly say the same for HHH coming from the background of being a worker himself. So if Vince and Hunter are the two making the final decisions then why is everything so crappy ?

Has Vince completely lost his mojo and HHH doesn’t have enough influence to get sensible booking by him or are they both just too blinded by the whole PG, corporate, public company landscape they are in that they aren’t willing to try any formulas that have worked so well in the past i.e continuity of storyline, making people actually give a shit about titles and mid card talent as opposed to just Cena, Orton and I’m assuming Reigns once he’s shoved down our throat.


Basically Vince should watch NXT Takeover and do everything like THAT instead of how he's been doing it.  Clearly if Vince oversees the main product and it's so shitty, whereas HHH oversees NXT and it's awesome, then we can tell where the fundamental problem lies.  Last night's show addressed all of your complaints and showed exactly how RAW should have been treated all year.

I Actually Prefer The OTHER Match

I was watching Summerslam '92 the other day and realized that I like that Warrior/Savage match more than I like their Wrestlemania 7 match even though I think most would say that the WM7 match is "better." Got me thinking this could be a good blog topic: times where two guys have a "definitive" match but you prefer a different one. Another example for me is that I prefer not only the Hell in a Cell match, but the Ground Zero match between Shawn and Undertaker more than I their two Wrestlemania matches. And while I disagree, I know there are people that like Bret/Austin at Survivor Series '96 more than they like the historic Wrestlemania 13 match. Hell, I know a guy that prefers Hogan/Warrior at Halloween Havoc over their Wrestlemania 6 match simply for the comedy factor. So are their any times where you prefer a lesser renowned match between two guys that have put on a "better" match elsewhere?

​I used to like that match, but then it got too mainstream and I now prefer another one that's too obscure for anyone else to have heard about.  Sorry, hipster moment there.  
My pick would definitely be the Shawn-Razor ladder rematch at Summerslam 95, which had the benefit of building off the first match and featured two guys who were a year wiser and more over.
Shawn v. Austin at WM14 was historic and pretty good, but King of the Ring 97 is a bonafide lost classic between them. 
That should get you started. ​

Is TNA actually doing the right thing?

So TNA fans are up in arms about AJ Styles possibly leaving the company ( but the strategy behind it makes sense. If they know that the guys in the current spots aren’t going to draw more $$$, doesn’t it make sense to build for the future by signing 4 or 5 younger wrestlers for the price of one salary? Isn’t this exactly what everyone has been saying is the problem with TNA in the first place? 


Yeah, really AJ might as well sow his wild oats while he’s still got value.  He’d be a perfect fit for NJPW right now or as the big fish in the ROH pond.  Probably not WWE.  But yeah, TNA has pretty much told all the stories with him that they can and it’s best for both if he moves on.

10 Dream Matches that Actually Happened

Interesting list. I'd buy it if it were a DVD, especially that Flair/Angle match (which I remember as being very good).

They need to format it Cracked-style and call it "10 Impossible Dream Matches (That Actually Happened!)" for maximum effect, but yeah has been pumping out some nerd-riffic lists recently and I'm liking it.  God bless WCW Saturday Night for producing random weirdness and great matches over the years.

Was Bruno actually any good?

Hey Scott,
So the recent stories about Bruno latest Hall of Fame invitation-slash-rejection has me wondering: was Bruno Sammartino actually any good? Obviously I don't mean in terms of popularity or drawing ability, as he was one of the biggest money makers of all-time. And in terms of actual real life tough guy ability, the stories I've heard is that he could legit hold his own if needbe. But what about match quality? How was his WORKRATE??? Were Bruno matches entertaining in a way that modern wrestling fans could get into, or were they all slow kicky-punchy affairs? Was Bruno more Ric Flair or a slower Hulk Hogan? Just curious if you have any first hand experience having watched his old footage, or if there is any critical consensus (i.e. Dave) out there.

It was obviously a different time and style, but no, Bruno would not be what you'd normally consider a great worker.  He knew the right time to do his comebacks and how much offense to give the heel and all the technical side of things, but he wasn't Bob Backlund out there or anything.  But hey, he was champion for a decade, it's not like he needed to be.