PeterHilton
-
Posts
4,281 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by PeterHilton
-
-
.But if I'm given the choice of where to debut Sting, Raw or Wrestlemania, I don't really see how you can have it anywhere but Wrestlemania. The chance to debut a genuine icon of wrestling in WWE on the biggest stage of them all is one that will never happen again. I'd take the chance in a heartbeat.
From strictly a fan's perspective? Sure.
BUt again - I'm just pointing out that from a business perspective -where you're trying to generate as much revenue as possible from this signing, before the impact (no pun intended) of Sting wears off - TV wouldn't be a bad thing.
I'm just sayin...totally see your point though
-
Everyone talks about Sting/Taker and even I admit that would be iconic. However, how about if Shawn Michaels takes one last step out of retirement and we have the face of WCW versus arguably the face of the WWF/E? Sting was the one performer that never left WCW for WWF/E. Shawn Michaels is the rare long-time performer that never left WWF/E for WCW. I think that could have some great build-up.
yeah..lots of fantasy booking scenarios out there. I'd love Sting/HBK and I'm sure Sting/HHH or Sting /Cena (especially) would be on a PPV in short order.
-
You're giving them a reason. A moment they've all been waiting years to see. Sting stepping foot into a WWE ring and not only that, Sting facing The Undertaker. You don't need to do any more than promise the fans that that is exactly what they'll see at Wrestlemania. As for what it can add a Wrestlemania number, I think it will add a good size number. Maybe not huge numbers, but I think there are a good many people who would buy Wrestlemania solely because they know they'll see Sting debut and face off against The Undertaker. And I wouldn't want Sting's debut in WWE to be on TV. Frankly, I think it would cheapen the whole notion of Sting coming to WWE if he made his first apperance for WWE on TV. Sting's WWE debut is a Wrestlemania Moment if ever there was one.
Meh. Agree to disagree. I see your point but I don't think it cheapens anything.
You're right that there'd be a lot of people who'd buy WM just to see Sting (myself included) but I still think weeks of build up and live appearances would be better than the video/SE approach.
And - by the same token - would probably result in some good numbers for Raw & SD which never hurts.
Just MO
-
The big 'wow' moment is when Sting finally appears on WWE TV and steps foot in a WWE ring. Fans have been wanting this for years. Why waste that on TV when you can, quite easily, build towards it happening at Wrestlemania and get them increasingly hyped up for something they have to pay to see. It would make a big deal, the debut of Sting in WWE, so much bigger and possibly even iconic if it happens on the biggest stage of them all.
I don't disagree. I just think it's a gamble. You're trying to drive up PPV numbers. Even when they had celebrities involved (Trump, Mayweather) or the return of an iconic name (Bret Hart) they still spent weeks and weeks using live appearances to promote them. And those WMs ended up doing huge numbers.
I just don't see the E doing something different for Sting.
Wow moment aside, you need to give consumers a reason to pay the exorbiatant amount the WM charges. IMO a Sting/Taker staredown on live TV does more than video promos and special effects.
-
Let's presume it's Sting. I wouldn't even have him appear on TV before Wrestlemania. Undertaker can be doing a promo in the ring and the lights can go out. Cue flashing white light (it has to be white) and some eerie music, something violin-esque which suddenly stops and a scorpion symbol is projected onto the ring. You get a taste of the supernatural stuff that plays into the Undertaker gimmick without it being too hokey that it strays from the sort of thing they used to with Sting, and it ends with Undertaker being 'covered' in the symbol of Sting.
So you would have the WWE promote the biggest PPV of the year - a PPV they desperately need to be a huge financial success based on their recent quarterly numbers - by having what might be the top draw NOT appear on TV???
Thats a pretty huge gamble
c'mon man...you're posting another news site referencing the same original report.
Until someone besides the Daily News is sourced this is just blind internet news repetition
-
that doesn't exactly answer the question. zone is just re-reporting the same report from the Daily News.
To juggalo: the Daily News is considered the most tabloid of the papers in NY. It doesn't mean they haven't scooped people before, but they have also made tons of errors and printed tons of stories that ended up being nothing but gossip (esp when it comes to sports)
So I'd take it with a grain of salt for now.
if its true TNA is screwed who is gonna be in the MEM now Kurt, Steiner, Joe and Morgan it will teach them a lesson to not book storylines before signing peopleIf you read the recent spoilers, it's a non-issue. Because the THEY/THEM/MEM story has gone sideways
-
Well I think Sting is a lock
http://cdn.springboard.gorillanation.com/storage/wrestlezone.com/upl_images/IMAG0083.jpg
Ny Daily News is reporting that he has signed a 1 year deal. I think this is really epic.
This WM is haping up to be awesome in ym eyes.
Miz vs Cena
Edge vs Del Rio
Orton vs Punk
Undertaker vs Sting
Sheamus vs HHH
Nash vs Big Show
Corre vs Nexus
MITB with Morrison, Kofi, Ziggler, Mcintyre amongst others
That's great news, but honestly other than Stng/Taker there's nothing on that card I'd pay to see
-
Not a great sign...but it doesn't necessarily kill the Sting possibility. If he's working a program with Taker, then Taker has to be there obviously.
And the E would be pretty foolish to give away their secret in some local hype video. (not that them 'being foolsih' would be a big shock either)
-
Well according to rumor sites:
He's working as Suicide. With the possibility of working as Curry Man again. SO yeah..it won't affect his ROH dates which is great but it also probably won't exactly satisfy any of the longtiime TNA fans who wanted him back
Also...say the tapings and it turns out THEY/THEM was nowhere near as entertaining as I'd hoped.
-
Just kind of catching up on the last few days of news after watching Rumble online etc and had some thoughts along the lines of the current discussion:
--Del Rio was a really good choice to win the Rumble. Tons of talent. I think the only thing that has stopped me from buying into the character is that I feel the name is a little ..bland..unoriginal...flat? I just can't see that name at the top of a PPV. Picking nits mainly
--Nash and Booker's return & the possibility of Sting: like someone else, I didnt really think of Sting until after reading the thread, but after seeing that and re-watching that video I'd be surprised if it wasn't Sting.
Sting DESERVES a big send off. If this is really his last run, he deserves to do it on the biggest stage in the industry with the biggest company. It would be kind of a joke for someone his caliber to really retire by headlining a TNA show in front of a few dozen fans ...
All of his past complaint about the WWE's product no longer make sense because TNA is actually far more 'adult' than the WWE
The Money would probably be fairly spectacular
He'd cement his legacy by reaching a new audience because there are probably quite a few fans in the WWe that have no clue who he is or what he did
And he saw how the E treated Flair; fans who never saw Flair in his prime treated Ric like a god because the E worked so hard to put him over as such. Anything close to that treatment - along with a HOF induction - turns Sting into a 'name' in the business forever. Retiring in TNA makes him a sidenote.
I think it's pretty obvious Sting vs Taker would be epic and could conceivably be part of the WM main event and main event a couple PPVs after that. Why not do it?
Throw in the WCW/Atlanta/WM connection and you could have a very fun theme fr the evening (Diesel/Nash vs Big Show would definitely bring back WCW memories, and Booker could be pushed into a program with Bryan Danielsonthat would evoke memories of Benoit/Booker)
-
I think there's a TON of doubt about Newton. If Andrew Luck had come out and Jake Locker hadan't imnploded, Cam probably wait til the 2nd round to get drafted.
As it is, he's a huge project in the same way Tebow was. And I don't see a coach like Shanahan who wants to 'win now' drafting him.
-
I wouldn't mind the Angle vs Jarrett match due to the build up. Also would like to see the Sting vs AJ match if they gave it a proper build up. Other than that I wouldn't be very interested in a MEM vs Immortal feud.
I literally change the channel every time I see JJ on screen
I think AJ/Sting has been done so often and Sting's character has been turned so often that it would be hard to get most people to care.
-
Nothing personal guys, but how is it a SPOILER to post unverified rumors? SPOILERS are for things like TV tapings where stuff has actualy happened, but maybe hasn't been seen on TV yet. I'm not whiting out possible storyline scenarios and rumors. That's silly. If that was the case every item posted before the Hogan debut would've been whited out.
In any case: from a strictly storyline standpoint, the MEM makes sense. Angle is outnumbered by JJ and Legacy/Fourtune, so he brings back Nash & Sting (who already have beef with Bischoff & Co) and Steiner/Booker (to even things up)
After that though, the problem becomes that you end up with this monster group feud made up of a lot of the much older members of the roster AND in a weird twist the 'good guys' would be the ex WCW and WWE guys that TNA smarks like to complain about
I mean..the pay off PPV line up would be something like Angle v Jarrett, Sting v AJ, Booker/Steiner vs Beer Money (all repeats of extended feuds) and ...Nash v Rob Terry (possibly? who knows?) ...
I suppose you could add RVD, Anderson, Joe (is Pope still alive?) but then why call it the MEM?
Again, it makes sense from a storyline perspective but im not sure the pay off would be worth it
-
<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah this is the thing I think the NFL should potentially re-think. Every wild card team is better than the division winner they play this year. The closest thing to an exception is 10-6 Eagles taking on the 10-6 Packers, except for the part where Green Bay already beat Philadelphia in Philadelphia this season. I like how the NBA does it: a division winner is guaranteed at worst a 4 seed, but if the 5 seed has a better record they get the home court advantage. <p> </p><p> You could argue that doing that would take away some of the luster of being divisional champs, but being the best team in the NFC West is not much of an accomplishment. In the AFC West, Kansas City couldn't even win 3 games in their traditionally mediocre division and yet they still get rewarded with a home game while the Jets and Ravens have to travel because they play in the same divisions as the top two teams in the league? Not that winning 10 games is ever easy, but the Chiefs last place schedule meant games against Buffalo and Cleveland, plus the AFC West played the NFC West, so they got 4 out of conference wins against awful teams, and for this they get to host a playoff game?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I agree. I don't even think it would make anything 'lose the luster' because you are STILL getting a playoff spot. </p><p> </p><p> Seattle winning their division is rewarded by getting a berth over two teams with better records. But them getting a home game? against a team that was 4 games better? that's silly.</p>
-
<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The NFL has to do something about their playoffs. The 7-9 Seahawks make the playoffs! Seriously? What a way to reward mediocrity.<p> </p><p> And this is not coming from a bitter Giants fan, because the Giants do not belong in the playoffs. They did what I said they were going to do before the season started, and that is give up. It is the same thing they do every season (with the exception of the Super Bowl season).</p><p> </p><p> In my opinion the Bucs should be there and the Seahawks should be bounced out. The NFL should have stuck with the three divisons format. Now granted this could still have happened if there were three divisions, but it would not have been as likely in my opinion. </p><p> </p><p> I mean it is a moot point because Seattle will be eliminated in the first round anyway. I just think that the Bucs would have probably made for a more competitive game.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This is the only time this has ever happened, so i doubt there's a reason to make any serious changes. I mean, unless you eliminate divisions entirely there's always the possibility.</p><p> </p><p> I do think it creates an argument for eliminating the whole 'division winners get a guaranteed home game' deal</p>
-
<p>LOl women's wrestling....</p><p> </p><p>
"Man just imagine how AMAZING the women's division would be if they signed these wrestlers...overnight I'm sure several dozen people would care!!!"</p>
-
Well, in both cases it might be wrong, but hey. Stennick said it best yesterday - he thinks the pay that has been evidenced for some wrestlers along with the no-benefits sucks and he considers it wrong - but still most indy wrestlers would and should jump at the chance to join TNA (I say most as this is US mainly - there's more money to be made more regualrly in Mexico and Japan).
totally agree with this
-
PS does anyone have the DIRECT link to where Kong said this stuff, I think it could have been on Divadirt? As it could have been all out of context etc stuff as the sheets are want to do.
Of course Hyde refuses to give any acceptance to the "dirt sheets' when it comes to TNA. To his credit I don't see him quoting them against the WWE either. That being said is you can't have your cake and eat it to. YOU can't say "Vince is evil and Trips held everyone down and Vince likes big men" you can't say all that and then turn around and say they are wrong about TNA. The PWtorch is right more than their wrong and since Kong, Taylor Wilde, Gail Kim and SO many others have come out and said this exact same thing I think its pretty fair to lend fact to it.
You do actually do that quite a bit Hyde; it's all good to call out 'the rag-sheets' when it's criticism towards TNA but 'journalistic integrity' could be questioned on every subject, in every industry. So unless we're supposed to limit ourselves to talking about ONLY what appears on the screen, it's pointless to bring it up.
Meltzer has been around for as long as has BECAUSE he's been right quite a bit. We're not talking about his opinions (which can be annoyingly snarky) but the sum total of the reports passed around in regards to pay.
A few pages back I showed a breakdown of what a TNA performer might make on a three day house show swing, i gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed the fee was even higher than reported, and it still showed that the performer would come out making ...well, not that much.
And you guys are picking nits in Stennick's examples and ignoring the over-all point: people in the entertainment industry, who are on national TV on a weekly basis, whether it be as actors or as athletes, even if they are on the lower end of the scale, tend to make a comfortable living.
No one expects them to be set for life.
But the fact that a midcarder on a national level wrestling program takes home less than a midlevel retail management job...to ME is unfair.
-
following this arguement on/off throught the last few weeks with interest. Wondering if there are any ACTUAL salaries and company finances posted anywhere. Otherwise this is all hypothetical heresay (sp?) and lacks much substance to me.
well if you read along then you know that most everyone has cited well known examples (such as Kong stating she made $400 an appearance) and figures given in wrestling site like the Observer or 411mania.com
No one is going to have ACTUAL salaries since TNA has no obligation to give out that info. All you can really do is go off of estimates.
-
I still can't quite fathom how TNA doesn't make money.
I totally support the rest of the post but this interested me. It's all speculation because no one will ever see their financials, but it seems to me that the biggest possibility is that their pay-outs to the Hogan/Flair/Hardy/RVDs of the world is much MUCH larger than we might believe OR that Panda energy never came in and rescued them so much as they floated them enough money to get them to this point and now TNA is paying that back.
-
Name me one entertainment field that pays 19 K? Oh by the way being an extra on a television show pays anywhere from 100-700 per part. Even if you do one extra spot per week at a hundred bucks you're making 400 a month and over 20,000 dollars in a year. Thats if you DON'T speak, if you have a speaking part then you are not consindered an extra and you will have your pay doubled or tripled. So if you have a speaking part in a television show you're making well more than 20,000 a year. If you are in the background of a t.v show doing nothing and you do that once a week for an entire year you make more than guys do in TNA. NBA D Leaguers make 24,000 a MINIMUM so even THEY make more.
So far I have learned that Punters in the UFL a league who's championship game was seen by 100,000 viewers or 1/16 of TNA's average audience. I have learned that wearing a costume in the background of a television show without uttering one line have a higher yearly minimum, NBA D Leaguer's make more in a minmum salary (with no real television deal in place), the WNBA minmum salary is nearly triple TNA's with an average attendance of 250,000 viewers (1/5 of TNA's average viewers), MLS league minimum is 33,000 (I won't even go into how little viewership and attention soccer gets in the U.S)
So anyway I challenge someone to come up with any sports or entertainment field who has a chance to be on television atleast 52 times a year or in that area that has a LOWER min salary than TNA.
Well when you put it that way...
EDIT: i know this discussion is going to seem like it's unfair or its overkill towards TNA, but when you tell that - for instance - the guys in GenMe could probably make more money by quitting TNA and landing regular gigs standing around in the background of bar scenes on 'How I Met Your Mother' it does have some lulz
-
Really overestimating what the women where drawing here. And I am a fan of the women. One of the main reason their rating averages where so high was the fact they got slotted in quarter hour 5. Which in general is a very high rated slot. Yes they are an attraction and yes I like the women's division but just because their segment has high average ratings mainly due to it being in q5 that is why they deserve a lot more money?
In TNA's case specifically? TBP have been a draw since the group formed and at the very least they (Love, Rayne,Sky ) should be making a lot more. Not "Jeff Hardy" more but more than the Rob Terrys of the world
On the subcontractor thing. The talent who have that clause in their contract get paid a higher base salary. They can get a contract without that clause for a lower salary. As long as the whole independent contractor system is still in play this is normal. Also the cut isn't a huge amount it's like 10 percent or a base amount of administrative costs.Look the whole independent contractor system is BS agreed. But TNA being especially foul? Nope. And as long as we don't have any reel info we are taking shots in the dark here. Even using UFL averages by comparisons doesn't fly because we are talking about the undercard here not the main eventers. For all we know TNA's averages are higher but there is a steeper pay scale. Why? Because that is how wrestling and entertainment (not team sports) work atm.
Ad to that that TNA is exactly in that middle position atm. They can't pay all the surgeries as its too expensive but they do generate a hell of a lot more exposure then any indy which causes their talent to be more over. Plus that talent can then get injured at someone else's show or get booked wrongly etc.
How much is TNA's cut of the booking fee is argued about a lot. Promoters have said that it's exorbitant but who knows?
The steeper pay scale isn't the issue. It's the combination of 'steep pay scale PLUS we don't pay for your surgeries PLUS a clause that makes it less likely you'll be getting booked on your off-days.'
Those things together lead me to feel like TNA takes advantage of its lower end workers. Like I said...it's a shame that the exposure seems to be the only thing TNA offers to unknown workers as a possible benefit of signing up.
I mean..you'd think that going from wrestling in front of dozen fans in a gym to wrestling on national TV would mean a better standard of living.
-
How much do the Magic really need a backup center though? Howard is fit enough to run 35-38 minutes every game and for the 10-13 minutes he's off the floor, you can go with a small lineup with Bass or somebody at the low post and then Turk playing 4 with three guards.
Well, Boston is huge up front. Gortat is a luxury, but he would be nice to have if Howard has foul issues and you have to deal with Shaq, Glen Davis, KG, and a healthy Kendrick Perkins.
I don' think he's a necessity but I can see why you'd want him around
-
I guess it depends on your match up. Against Boston, Gortat would've been awesome to have. Against Miami, another wing defender.
The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*
in The Dog Pound
Posted
Thats EXACTLY the same report as this one..
..which is just re-reporting a blurb from the NY Daily News.
Seriously, most net 'news' sites are filled with such BS