Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Tell it to the world!!
User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 15th, '20, 06:14

Two interesting and possibly related points made on one of Wade Keller's podcasts around the following:

Despite the fact that WWE has a PPV this Sunday, they have booked Riddle vs. AJ for the IC Title for this Friday and Orton vs. Big Show in an unsanctioned match for Raw on Monday. Both of these are PPV quality matches that have received a lot of build on TV (and I myself with throw in that last Friday's New Day vs. Cesaro & Nakamura tag title match could also have been put off until the PPV and it would have fit in perfectly with previous WWE booking patterns). They actually did something similar last month by putting the AJ vs. Bryan IC Title tournament finals on free TV. So, does this mean that:

1. They are getting more worried about the ratings drop and saving these things for TV?
or (and more interestingly):
2. We know that George Barrios and Michelle Wilson were big advocates for the Network. One of the big "WWE serves Wall Street, not the fans" talking points was the extra-long PPVs which did nothing but drain fans, but allowed WWE to tout this supposedly-important number of "hours of engagement" on the Network, which would become inflated by the longer PPVs. Since Barrios and Wilson left (supposedly over a big disagreement with Vince about the Network), the PPVs have been a lot shorter (and this started in February, which was before the lockdown). Is this actually a change in philosophy to something that will be a little more fan-friendly?


(Of course, there is no reason why it can't be both at the same time. I just thought the points were interesting.)
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 17th, '20, 11:57

Meltzer in this week's Observer wrote:The one thing is that a lot of people say and do a lot of things and people forget in time. This being the one year anniversary of Fight for the Fallen, if you recall, WWE Network put on an Evolve show head-to-head. Granted, WWE had talked for years about putting indie shows on the network and has the rights to a number of libraries that it has done nothing with. There were the complaints of WWE counter booking, which is fine, although it also was a charity show. But WWE portrayed the timing as a coincidence, but any study of WWE history would tell you it wasn’t, since in the 80s they did the same thing and also claimed these arenas and dates were booked a year plus ahead and it was a coincidence. But the Evolve show got almost all positive responses, and did well in viewership, and here we are a year later, and WWE never did another show like it again. ..
I find this whole thing so curious. If WWE wanted to hurt AEW by going head-to-head and the EVOLVE show did well in viewership, but they didn't do it again? That might almost indicate that it really was a coincidence, except that- as Dave points out- WWE has a history of doing this... but then why would they abandon a strategy that they've liked in the past and that worked well this time? It's baffling.

Is it possible that the not putting other things on the Network was a Wilson/Barrios thing and that might change now that they're gone? Just speculation, but given Dave's note about Evolve 100 doing well, it's the only explanation I can come up with.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by cero2k » Jul 18th, '20, 08:56

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 17th, '20, 11:57
Meltzer in this week's Observer wrote:The one thing is that a lot of people say and do a lot of things and people forget in time. This being the one year anniversary of Fight for the Fallen, if you recall, WWE Network put on an Evolve show head-to-head. Granted, WWE had talked for years about putting indie shows on the network and has the rights to a number of libraries that it has done nothing with. There were the complaints of WWE counter booking, which is fine, although it also was a charity show. But WWE portrayed the timing as a coincidence, but any study of WWE history would tell you it wasn’t, since in the 80s they did the same thing and also claimed these arenas and dates were booked a year plus ahead and it was a coincidence. But the Evolve show got almost all positive responses, and did well in viewership, and here we are a year later, and WWE never did another show like it again. ..
I find this whole thing so curious. If WWE wanted to hurt AEW by going head-to-head and the EVOLVE show did well in viewership, but they didn't do it again? That might almost indicate that it really was a coincidence, except that- as Dave points out- WWE has a history of doing this... but then why would they abandon a strategy that they've liked in the past and that worked well this time? It's baffling.

Is it possible that the not putting other things on the Network was a Wilson/Barrios thing and that might change now that they're gone? Just speculation, but given Dave's note about Evolve 100 doing well, it's the only explanation I can come up with.
Fight of the Fallen last year wasn't on a Wednesday, they haven't had to do these stunts with other than NXT since it's all been Wednesdays. GAB was 1000% obviously a counter for FF. When WWE realized that they didn't have a GAB for FotF this year, they made two impromptu big matches, one on the very same show. I know you hate to accept it, but WWE counter-books AEW, it's what NXT has been since they went on USA. There is zero coincidence, and if they drop strategies, it's because they tend to get killed when trying.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 18th, '20, 19:28

cero2k wrote:
Jul 18th, '20, 08:56
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 17th, '20, 11:57
Meltzer in this week's Observer wrote:The one thing is that a lot of people say and do a lot of things and people forget in time. This being the one year anniversary of Fight for the Fallen, if you recall, WWE Network put on an Evolve show head-to-head. Granted, WWE had talked for years about putting indie shows on the network and has the rights to a number of libraries that it has done nothing with. There were the complaints of WWE counter booking, which is fine, although it also was a charity show. But WWE portrayed the timing as a coincidence, but any study of WWE history would tell you it wasn’t, since in the 80s they did the same thing and also claimed these arenas and dates were booked a year plus ahead and it was a coincidence. But the Evolve show got almost all positive responses, and did well in viewership, and here we are a year later, and WWE never did another show like it again. ..
I find this whole thing so curious. If WWE wanted to hurt AEW by going head-to-head and the EVOLVE show did well in viewership, but they didn't do it again? That might almost indicate that it really was a coincidence, except that- as Dave points out- WWE has a history of doing this... but then why would they abandon a strategy that they've liked in the past and that worked well this time? It's baffling.

Is it possible that the not putting other things on the Network was a Wilson/Barrios thing and that might change now that they're gone? Just speculation, but given Dave's note about Evolve 100 doing well, it's the only explanation I can come up with.
Fight of the Fallen last year wasn't on a Wednesday, they haven't had to do these stunts with other than NXT since it's all been Wednesdays. GAB was 1000% obviously a counter for FF. When WWE realized that they didn't have a GAB for FotF this year, they made two impromptu big matches, one on the very same show. I know you hate to accept it, but WWE counter-books AEW, it's what NXT has been since they went on USA. There is zero coincidence, and if they drop strategies, it's because they tend to get killed when trying.
I'm not saying WWE doesn't use NXT to counter-program AEW (although, again, Wednesday was NXT's night long before there was an AEW. My guess is that they didn't have their choice of day I'm not blaming AEW... but I can easily argue that NXT going to USA is merely defending themselves). What I am saying is that if EVOLVE did so well against AEW and WWE's intention was to counterprogram their PPV, why didn't WWE run EVOLVE on the Network against any of AEW's other PPVs?
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by cero2k » Jul 20th, '20, 13:17

Per WOL, Today is Kairi Sane's last day with WWE and being written off to get someone over with a 'career ending injury' that hopefully is not Nia Jax and turns into a shoot career ending injury
Image

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by cero2k » Jul 20th, '20, 13:19

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 18th, '20, 19:28

I'm not saying WWE doesn't use NXT to counter-program AEW (although, again, Wednesday was NXT's night long before there was an AEW. My guess is that they didn't have their choice of day I'm not blaming AEW... but I can easily argue that NXT going to USA is merely defending themselves). What I am saying is that if EVOLVE did so well against AEW and WWE's intention was to counterprogram their PPV, why didn't WWE run EVOLVE on the Network against any of AEW's other PPVs?
I don't think EVOLVE did THAT great for WWE to care, and well...WWE doesn't care about EVOLVE either. I feel like WWE thought they could counter FftF that time because it was a smaller show, but WWE can't use them to compete against a legit PPV.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 20th, '20, 17:21

cero2k wrote:
Jul 20th, '20, 13:17
Per WOL, Today is Kairi Sane's last day with WWE and being written off to get someone over with a 'career ending injury' that hopefully is not Nia Jax and turns into a shoot career ending injury
It's going to be Bayley.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 2466
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Serujuunin » Jul 20th, '20, 18:46

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 20th, '20, 17:21
cero2k wrote:
Jul 20th, '20, 13:17
Per WOL, Today is Kairi Sane's last day with WWE and being written off to get someone over with a 'career ending injury' that hopefully is not Nia Jax and turns into a shoot career ending injury
It's going to be Bayley.
I realized last night that I haven’t seen Nia in a while and I was very happy about it. I hope it’s not her.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 26th, '20, 08:51





This confirms it. Cody has no understanding of how characters work and should not be booking a wrestling promotion.

Yes, the circumstances of the match can dictate who we cheer for on any given night, but that doesn't mean you should be jumping back and forth across the moral line that separates the two. You shouldn't be cheating just because you're in a match against someone fans might want to cheer more than you.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Thelone
Posts: 168
Joined: Jul 9th, '19, 16:22

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Thelone » Jul 27th, '20, 04:35

Unsurprisingly, he deleted the tweet since then. For all this talk about how the Elite guys are so social media savvy or whatever you wanna call it, they sure are doing a piss poor job ignoring trolls and not answering every single bit of criticism/question.

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by cero2k » Jul 30th, '20, 16:01



thank the gods they fired all those people months back, imagine if the profit had been only $42M instead of $43.8M, they'd be devastated!

The greedy gotta greed.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 31st, '20, 09:09

cero2k wrote:
Jul 30th, '20, 16:01


thank the gods they fired all those people months back, imagine if the profit had been only $42M instead of $43.8M, they'd be devastated!

The greedy gotta greed.
Dude... do you have any idea how much talent was making?


I'm not saying you can't criticize them for this, but if you're going to criticize them for being greedy by cutting talent to save a bunch of money, will you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin that this company spent YEARS paying a whole bunch of people A LOT more than they were worth to do very little work comparatively to what a lot of others on the roster were doing? I'll bet you that EC III and Eric Young are in a MUCH better financial place now, having worked for WWE two three years and gotten cut than they would have been if they had stayed in TNA, and with a lot less stress on their bodies because they didn't do much of anything, and that's not even talking about guys like Heath Slater and the other modern-day JTGs.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by cero2k » Aug 3rd, '20, 09:08

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 31st, '20, 09:09

Dude... do you have any idea how much talent was making?


I'm not saying you can't criticize them for this, but if you're going to criticize them for being greedy by cutting talent to save a bunch of money, will you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin that this company spent YEARS paying a whole bunch of people A LOT more than they were worth to do very little work comparatively to what a lot of others on the roster were doing? I'll bet you that EC III and Eric Young are in a MUCH better financial place now, having worked for WWE two three years and gotten cut than they would have been if they had stayed in TNA, and with a lot less stress on their bodies because they didn't do much of anything, and that's not even talking about guys like Heath Slater and the other modern-day JTGs.
Their incompetence to use talent has nothing to do with this, don't hire people if you're not gonna use them, and if you don't use them, don't make it an excuse for 'wasting' money. I'd say altogether, they saved about MAX $4M for firing them. They made $43.8M in profit, the biggest in their history, they surpassed their projection by $30M!. Seriously Red, don't defend the rich, this ain't the hill to die on.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Aug 3rd, '20, 11:07

cero2k wrote:
Aug 3rd, '20, 09:08
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 31st, '20, 09:09

Dude... do you have any idea how much talent was making?


I'm not saying you can't criticize them for this, but if you're going to criticize them for being greedy by cutting talent to save a bunch of money, will you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin that this company spent YEARS paying a whole bunch of people A LOT more than they were worth to do very little work comparatively to what a lot of others on the roster were doing? I'll bet you that EC III and Eric Young are in a MUCH better financial place now, having worked for WWE two three years and gotten cut than they would have been if they had stayed in TNA, and with a lot less stress on their bodies because they didn't do much of anything, and that's not even talking about guys like Heath Slater and the other modern-day JTGs.
Their incompetence to use talent has nothing to do with this, don't hire people if you're not gonna use them, and if you don't use them, don't make it an excuse for 'wasting' money. I'd say altogether, they saved about MAX $4M for firing them. They made $43.8M in profit, the biggest in their history, they surpassed their projection by $30M!. Seriously Red, don't defend the rich, this ain't the hill to die on.
1. I agree that you shouldn't hire people if you're not going to use them. Funny how you don't have a problem with AEW's super-bloated roster.
You're always complaining about WWE hiring so many people. I'm asking you to acknowledge that the net result of that was those people making A LOT more money than they would have otherwise made, and in many cases, for doing a lot less work.

2.You have to ask yourself WHY they beat their projections by so much. My guess is that it's because they made those projections assuming they'd have to be going live every week, which we know is a huge cost. They switched to taping two weeks at a time, and doing most (if not all) shows pre-recorded, which saves a SH*T-LOAD of money. They also might have been assuming that they would be back on the road by June. In that period when everything first started shutting down, I was expecting to be back in the office in three weeks. I'm finally going back for the first time TOMORROW, almost five months later.

3. It's not about "defending the rich." The whole point is that their wealth has nothing to do with their moral rightness. No one's does. It's about defending the legal business decision of people who panicked- rightfully or wrongly- about the future health of their business. You ascribe these actions all to greed. I ascribe them to human panic. I don't think the greed narrative fits as well as you'd like it to, because if they were really such evil, greedy corporate bastards like you want them to be, they wouldn't have hired half of these people in the first place, or would have cut them long before their deals were up when they realized they weren't going to make a difference. And there are plenty of other things that WWE does for their talent (and even former talent) that they are under no obligation to do, and if they were the greedy corporate machine you like to make them out to be, they wouldn't do.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 2466
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Serujuunin » Aug 4th, '20, 12:55

Big Red Machine wrote:
Aug 3rd, '20, 11:07
cero2k wrote:
Aug 3rd, '20, 09:08
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 31st, '20, 09:09

Dude... do you have any idea how much talent was making?


I'm not saying you can't criticize them for this, but if you're going to criticize them for being greedy by cutting talent to save a bunch of money, will you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin that this company spent YEARS paying a whole bunch of people A LOT more than they were worth to do very little work comparatively to what a lot of others on the roster were doing? I'll bet you that EC III and Eric Young are in a MUCH better financial place now, having worked for WWE two three years and gotten cut than they would have been if they had stayed in TNA, and with a lot less stress on their bodies because they didn't do much of anything, and that's not even talking about guys like Heath Slater and the other modern-day JTGs.
Their incompetence to use talent has nothing to do with this, don't hire people if you're not gonna use them, and if you don't use them, don't make it an excuse for 'wasting' money. I'd say altogether, they saved about MAX $4M for firing them. They made $43.8M in profit, the biggest in their history, they surpassed their projection by $30M!. Seriously Red, don't defend the rich, this ain't the hill to die on.
1. I agree that you shouldn't hire people if you're not going to use them. Funny how you don't have a problem with AEW's super-bloated roster.
You're always complaining about WWE hiring so many people. I'm asking you to acknowledge that the net result of that was those people making A LOT more money than they would have otherwise made, and in many cases, for doing a lot less work.

2.You have to ask yourself WHY they beat their projections by so much. My guess is that it's because they made those projections assuming they'd have to be going live every week, which we know is a huge cost. They switched to taping two weeks at a time, and doing most (if not all) shows pre-recorded, which saves a SH*T-LOAD of money. They also might have been assuming that they would be back on the road by June. In that period when everything first started shutting down, I was expecting to be back in the office in three weeks. I'm finally going back for the first time TOMORROW, almost five months later.

3. It's not about "defending the rich." The whole point is that their wealth has nothing to do with their moral rightness. No one's does. It's about defending the legal business decision of people who panicked- rightfully or wrongly- about the future health of their business. You ascribe these actions all to greed. I ascribe them to human panic. I don't think the greed narrative fits as well as you'd like it to, because if they were really such evil, greedy corporate bastards like you want them to be, they wouldn't have hired half of these people in the first place, or would have cut them long before their deals were up when they realized they weren't going to make a difference. And there are plenty of other things that WWE does for their talent (and even former talent) that they are under no obligation to do, and if they were the greedy corporate machine you like to make them out to be, they wouldn't do.
I agree with all of this except one small thing. Greed isn't just about money. I feel like WWE has been greedy by snapping people up just to keep their competition from hiring them, while at the same time trying to maintain their monopoly over the wrestling business in North America (which I will say has been slipping away from them for years).

It definitely does leave a bad taste in my mouth that they released a bunch of people in really uncertain times and then boast about their profits, but that's business.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Aug 4th, '20, 13:54

Serujuunin wrote:
Aug 4th, '20, 12:55
Big Red Machine wrote:
Aug 3rd, '20, 11:07
cero2k wrote:
Aug 3rd, '20, 09:08


Their incompetence to use talent has nothing to do with this, don't hire people if you're not gonna use them, and if you don't use them, don't make it an excuse for 'wasting' money. I'd say altogether, they saved about MAX $4M for firing them. They made $43.8M in profit, the biggest in their history, they surpassed their projection by $30M!. Seriously Red, don't defend the rich, this ain't the hill to die on.
1. I agree that you shouldn't hire people if you're not going to use them. Funny how you don't have a problem with AEW's super-bloated roster.
You're always complaining about WWE hiring so many people. I'm asking you to acknowledge that the net result of that was those people making A LOT more money than they would have otherwise made, and in many cases, for doing a lot less work.

2.You have to ask yourself WHY they beat their projections by so much. My guess is that it's because they made those projections assuming they'd have to be going live every week, which we know is a huge cost. They switched to taping two weeks at a time, and doing most (if not all) shows pre-recorded, which saves a SH*T-LOAD of money. They also might have been assuming that they would be back on the road by June. In that period when everything first started shutting down, I was expecting to be back in the office in three weeks. I'm finally going back for the first time TOMORROW, almost five months later.

3. It's not about "defending the rich." The whole point is that their wealth has nothing to do with their moral rightness. No one's does. It's about defending the legal business decision of people who panicked- rightfully or wrongly- about the future health of their business. You ascribe these actions all to greed. I ascribe them to human panic. I don't think the greed narrative fits as well as you'd like it to, because if they were really such evil, greedy corporate bastards like you want them to be, they wouldn't have hired half of these people in the first place, or would have cut them long before their deals were up when they realized they weren't going to make a difference. And there are plenty of other things that WWE does for their talent (and even former talent) that they are under no obligation to do, and if they were the greedy corporate machine you like to make them out to be, they wouldn't do.
I agree with all of this except one small thing. Greed isn't just about money. I feel like WWE has been greedy by snapping people up just to keep their competition from hiring them, while at the same time trying to maintain their monopoly over the wrestling business in North America (which I will say has been slipping away from them for years).

I've always been wary of the "monopoly" argument, simply because it has proven itself to never be true. When one competitor falls, it creates room in the market for another, and that's true even more so now that the internet has allowed fast and easy delivery of product, even from the other side of the globe.

Honestly, in the time between the fall of TNA and the rise of AEW, one of the biggest problem for potential competitors in the US/Canada market was that there were too many of them, diluting the talent pool and attention (New Japan sucked up a chunk of the airspace, too, but New Japan also created some benefits by helping to make a lot of people for these companies- and ROH in particular). Not that there weren't other problems (a competently-booked ROH probably could have had a good shot to rise, especially if it had been done well enough to keep the AEW crew happy enough to stay), but I think that with ROH, TNA, and MLW all at pretty much the same level and competing for the same talent, (and competing for some of that talent with rising British promotions and, to a lesser extent, wXw), made things a lot harder for an alternative to arise without someone throwing the major money into it (i.e. AEW) than if you had a competently-booked ROH clearly above the rest.


And I'm not saying that WWE doesn't snap people up to keep them away from the competition. I'm just saying that when you're talking economics and applying morality to it, you have to admit that while you might find that practice monopolistic, the result of it is those workers being paid a lot more money than they would have working indies (or else they wouldn't have taken the deals in the first place), even if they're not creatively satisfied. they're making the choice to sacrifice art for commerce, and that's their right to make that choice just as much as it is WWE's right to offer it to them.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 2466
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Serujuunin » Aug 4th, '20, 16:57

Big Red Machine wrote:
Aug 4th, '20, 13:54
And I'm not saying that WWE doesn't snap people up to keep them away from the competition. I'm just saying that when you're talking economics and applying morality to it, you have to admit that while you might find that practice monopolistic, the result of it is those workers being paid a lot more money than they would have working indies (or else they wouldn't have taken the deals in the first place), even if they're not creatively satisfied. they're making the choice to sacrifice art for commerce, and that's their right to make that choice just as much as it is WWE's right to offer it to them.
This is true, 100%. It might be a little distasteful, and you might get people stuck up in contracts doing nothing and waiting away the prime years of their career, but for some people, I'm sure it's worth it to put your kids through college and not be falling apart at the seams lol

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by cero2k » Aug 6th, '20, 10:38

Serujuunin wrote:
Aug 4th, '20, 16:57


This is true, 100%. It might be a little distasteful, and you might get people stuck up in contracts doing nothing and waiting away the prime years of their career, but for some people, I'm sure it's worth it to put your kids through college and not be falling apart at the seams lol
Until you fire them during a pandemic where the industry is stalled. The argument is not if the have people sitting there, the problem is that if you hire people, whether you use them or not, you take care of your employees during hard times, you don't fire them to 'make profit' when you're profit is $40 million dollars.
Image

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 2466
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Serujuunin » Aug 6th, '20, 12:11

cero2k wrote:
Aug 6th, '20, 10:38
Serujuunin wrote:
Aug 4th, '20, 16:57


This is true, 100%. It might be a little distasteful, and you might get people stuck up in contracts doing nothing and waiting away the prime years of their career, but for some people, I'm sure it's worth it to put your kids through college and not be falling apart at the seams lol
Until you fire them during a pandemic where the industry is stalled. The argument is not if the have people sitting there, the problem is that if you hire people, whether you use them or not, you take care of your employees during hard times, you don't fire them to 'make profit' when you're profit is $40 million dollars.
Oh I agree with you. I hate it. But it’s business. And the unfortunate thing about business is that profits > people.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Day-to-Day Quote Topic

Post by Big Red Machine » Aug 6th, '20, 18:59

cero2k wrote:
Aug 6th, '20, 10:38


Until you fire them during a pandemic where the industry is stalled. The argument is not if the have people sitting there, the problem is that if you hire people, whether you use them or not, you take care of your employees during hard times, you don't fire them to 'make profit' when you're profit is $40 million dollars.
1. They had no idea how long this would last or how things would turn out. They (and AEW) are lucky that the Governor of Florida decided not to just shut them down. As a result, they acted in a self-preservationist, conservative manner. That's their right.

2. This idea that these people fired to "make profit" is true, yes, but I think a much better characterization of it is that these people were fired because the company thought firing them was going to be necessary to them staying afloat long-term. Or even if they didn't think it was necessary, they knew their was a possibility that it would be, so they took this safeguarding action. That is not only their right, but it is part of their fiduciary duty to their stockholders.

3. You are assuming that they already had these projections in place when they fired everyone, but that's pretty clearly not true, and here's why. They said the reason they beat these projections by so much was not doing the live tapings and taping in blocks. They started doing that AFTER the massive round of cuts started.


Also, here is a bit from last week's Observer:
Dave Meltzer wrote:
It also should be noted that it was not the cost-cutting of talent salaries that led to the record profits. All main roster talent, and a number of the furloughed and fired employees, were being paid their regular salaries through 7/17. So the $4 million per month savings in that category will likely lead to $12 million more in added profits next quarter.
So not only were these savings NOT due to the talent-cutting, but it turns out the big bad greedy corporation was actually doing MORE than it was required to for some of these people. That should but this debate to rest.

But on that last nonte...

4. They actually aren't under any sort of legal obligation to "take care of your employees during hard times." I know it's shocking to hear, but a lot of the time that people lose their jobs through no fault of their own, it's because of "hard times." Mitt Romney aside, rich really don't like firing people. They're not cartoonish villains who subsist off of exercising a power over others simply for it's own sake.
Noblesse oblige is a great thing, but history has proven that simple human nature means that the majority of people who are in the situation to be able to do that sort of thing aren't going to do it without being coerced. If they would, no one would have ever needed to voice the idea of using the coercive power of the state via taxing them more highly to pay for social safety net programs.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests