Skip to main content

WWE NOTwork

Sad trombone, the Network was indefinitely delayed in the UK at the literal last minute.  And just before they head there for a big tour!  Love to hear the RAW crowd reaction there when they shill the 9.99 stuff. 

Millionaires who should be billionaires indeed.  

Comments

  1. YankeesHoganTripleHFanNovember 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM

    I think your recaps are pretty good, for what it's worth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You could have just posted this in your RAW recap, which I enjoy reading btw.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tune into the forums after the show for my recap which will actually be entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 4:41 PM

    You don't actually owe anyone here an explanation, nor do you have to defend an absence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're acting like a cross between Meekin and Watry. Don't be a cross between Meekin and Watry.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't Raw in Liverpool next week?

    They should hand out free copies of The Sun as way of an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The good news is maybe by the time they can get the network in the UK they will have uploaded the stuff everyone wants.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was just going to suggest a Meekin/Andy tag team.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

    Will it take longer to read than actually watching the show?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Networ's UK launch has been delayed until 2023?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry UK. The next nine "Marine" sequels don't pay for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anyone know if this is WWE's fault or a third party's (ie SkySports?).

    ReplyDelete
  13. WWE creative couldn't come up with this stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay, okay, I get it. I'll just post. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nah. I plan an innovative streamlined approach. Get in have fun get out. I can also guarantee 100% less crying in my recap.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think a lot of people here who really want the Network probably already have it by now, so I think the UK fanbase is generally laughing at WWE as opposed to expressing genuine anger.

    It will be interesting to find out what the hold-up is here. I know there were reports that Sky (who broadcast all WWE programming, and who charge PPVs at £14.95 each) weren't happy with the launch of the Network as they thought it may conflict with the new TV/PPV deal they recently signed (pre-Network announcement, I think) through to 2019. If the infrastructure is clearly in place and working in almost every country on the planet, it implies there's something else going on here, potentially of a contractual nature...?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Regardless of the reasoning it's still WWE's fault that they have once again reneged on a promise and let down loyal fans/customers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Be like John Cena. Find yourself a big titted woman and become 15 times the worlds champion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 4:48 PM

    I'm not a fan of AndyPG, but comparing him to Watry is going a bit too far.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You're just going to call us all cocksuckers aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. What is the cocksucker quotient?

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...that's gotta be their darkest fear at this point. That the locked in hardcore fans already subscribed through circumvention and the 700 and change is their high water mark for the time being

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 4:49 PM

    Fake tits are nasty.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Given that the UK Raw is taped they'll somehow pipe in cheering to cover the Network chance. The whole situation is a complete farce.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rare Helpful Edwards appearance!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Glad everything's okay. Just don't do the self pity thing. I kinda like your recaps.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Absolutely.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm guessing it's going to be quite high.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 4:52 PM

    Before I start sad tromboning, I'd love to know what the reasoning was behind the indefinite delay. Still, it's a pretty crappy situation for WWE, considering they should have had an idea of what the situation was before they announced a start date for the service.


    Also, the headline of this blog post really screams out for an "AMIRITE?!?" at the end.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Virgil's Gimmick TableNovember 3, 2014 at 4:52 PM

    This is like when WCW put out that magazine ad without saying what it was for. Maybe not exactly the same, but the same level of stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eh, if it were a Meekin move, he would have gone on for 2500 words, saying basically nothing. I get your point, though.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM

    Surprisingly, WWE stock still closed 69 cents higher than it opened. I'm guessing they strategically waited until near the end of the day to announce the issues so stock wouldn't plummet before the close of business.


    Tomorrow should be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see things drop significantly.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks for noticing! I can be quite helpful when not being attacked or having to respond to incessant obsessive trolling from certain posters over and over. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of being a jackass most of the time,just saying that it's discouraging when I do attempt to contribute or offer an opinion then spend the rest of the day being attacked by the same group of posters.

    ReplyDelete
  34. On the topic of the length of the recaps, as someone who tends to be long winded and rambling, I have no issue with the length. I basically skip the match recaps and instead go to the star rating and post match analysis because that's what I'm more interested in. Not what moves happened but what you thought of it.

    Personally, I wouldn't be against getting rid of play-by-play altogether in reviews and have it be strictly analysis about what happened. But most like play-by-play

    ReplyDelete
  35. You've read my mind. Tune in to the forums later tonight for my streamlined take on the show.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Even if I don't always agree with Andy's views he still comes across as a real person who watches and formulates his honest opinion and looks for a positive outlook.

    Watery legitimately feels like someone whose every statement is contrarian and designed to get a reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Always happy to help. I think your entertaining for what it's worth.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why not post it here in the comments? Likely to get more action here than in the forums.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I like the detailed review of the show, because since I never get to watch Raw, Andy gives me a good idea of how things went.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

    Gunther is likely to get more action than anything in the forums.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'd like to see Raw in Germany, so that when the crowd does the Daniel Bryan "NO! NO!" chant at something they dislike, WWE will think the Network price is over with the people.


    .....I'll show myself out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

    So the 411 version of John Edwards, Vince Jordan, and Dougie?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I tweeted about the stock drop from 40 minutes following the announcement and within SECONDS, it had over 30 retweets, mostly from British followers. I think there's a bit of anger there for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's gotta really suck for UK fans. UK and Canada have always been great fan bases for WWE and I have to believe the Network would do better with those two fan bases in play.

    But for whatever reason if it's out of WWE's control or not, Canada seemed to have gotten a crap version of the Network and UK doesn't have one. That sucks for good fans from there.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It's a nice thing to hear. Let me apologize for all the negative comments you're bound to get for saying that. I don't get to see all of raw because of work and stuff and I much prefer to read andys recaps than most recappers on the Internet. He at least tries to be objective in his reviews. Most reviewers take the time to make lame jokes and kiss up to the reader base

    ReplyDelete
  47. ....I'm kinda surprised ESPN still uses the same NFL highlight reel music. It's not THAT iconic to begin with

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm not comparing them per se, I'm just saying this is the kind of passive aggressive bitch about their readers stuff those guys do.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM

    Man, I can smell the vinegar and water form here.

    ReplyDelete
  50. BOOM. ROASTED.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Gotta be SKY sports cockblocking them. Its annoying how little news there is about this issue in 2014. If this was anything other than a wrestling channel there would be at least a few actual news stories about it and we would have some info.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I understand the incredible irony and all, but I do love me some Watry. (shocker, I ,know)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM

    I'm a little surprised that some financial site hasn't picked it up, although I admit to not really looking into it that deep.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I just don't like when people work a gimmick instead of give their real opinion or just talk like a person. That's why I can't deal with Watry.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM

    "Every woman in here would rather suck Charlie Sheen;s dick than shake Steve-O's hand."

    ReplyDelete
  56. I tried a google news search, that's as far as I'm willing to go lol

    ReplyDelete
  57. I guess i love that he calls out IWC hypocrisy, and is not afraid of the backlash. Mah hero!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 5:09 PM

    You put more effort into it than I did.

    ReplyDelete
  59. That is exactly the type of thing they'd do.

    ReplyDelete
  60. IF WWE got blindsided by an injunction they couldn't anticipate, it wouldn't necessarily be their fault.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm not xan of the wonder twins

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hold that 10 for Johnny B. BadNovember 3, 2014 at 5:12 PM

    I really loved Scott Keith's Col. Video style of ranting. While I usually skim the match reviews for jokes or plot points, I really appreciate Andy's detailed promo recapping. Plus, it's not like skimming the action is a big deal for me. I really enjoy Andy's recaps, and that he doesn't take the too often seen "everything old is better" attitude. Good writer with his own voice and perspective. Good to have you back, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Im not Zan of the wonder twins, so sadly you will not see me taking the form of anything. Sorry bro

    ReplyDelete
  64. Update: The delay is due to "ongoing negotiations" according to Dave. Hopefully not TNA-style ones.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Some dude at what culture completely speculated that SKY got an injunction, which is what I was thinking too, but he had nothing new to offer to back that up, and then bleacher report had a story that even I thought was alarmist about how this could kill the network in the uk before it even launches. Yeah maybe its some lawsuit from their UK tv partner, but not if this is just some massive tech issue.

    ReplyDelete
  66. It's a strange year when TNA has disappointed British fans less than WWE has.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Quite possibly - I suppose of the people I know, they're either a diehard who has found a way to get round the geographic barrier, or a casual who probably won't bother even when (if?) it becomes available here.

    It's an interesting one. I was always thinking that the UK Network would be the archive without the PPVs (due to the Sky agreement), so I was really surprised to find out last week that it was going to include PPVs too. Sky are still advertising Survivor Series at £14.95. There was even talk over the weekend that Sky would edit out parts of the TV broadcasts where the announcers shill the PPVs being available on the Network, to protect Sky's PPV revenue. Presumably WWE wouldn't take too kindly to interference with their product, and maybe that's where the issue lies.

    ReplyDelete
  68. What is there to really call the IWC out for? Watching professional wrestling in the first place? Maybe. But anything after that seems like cheap clickbait stuff to me. Just one guys opinion though.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 5:16 PM

    I kind of hope it's just a tech infrastructure issue, because a company that didn't clear its contracts with its cable providers before starting the web presence like this ... well, I might have to start siding with the WWE bashers.

    ReplyDelete
  70. WWE: Please?
    UK: No!
    WWE: Pretty Please!
    UK: No!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Got to think it's something Sky want. Their deal can't be watered down by losing PPV revenue to the Network. Amazed it got this far without something coming up, you'd think there would be some exclusivity in the contract with WWE, so to then tell Sky subscribers "don't fork out for PPV, watch on the Network" on Sky's own programming is beyond baffling.

    ReplyDelete
  72. oh no...they really didn't clear it with SKY and were just about to launch it...oh no that is a bad look, It can't be as bad as it looks though. There has to be more information coming.

    ReplyDelete
  73. They are saying "The WWE, The"

    ReplyDelete
  74. Fear not. They're going to rise above technology.

    ReplyDelete
  75. uh oh, now it looks like it actually might be because they didn't clear the contracts.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 5:20 PM

    I ain't you bro, and I have no fucking idea what your talking about.


    How was that basket of dicks? Tasty?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 5:20 PM

    Idiots. The WWE's crack legal team strikes again.

    ReplyDelete
  78. So like, Hell in the Cell did around 200,000 buys last year. That's 200K * $30ish (for the WWE's cut) = $6 million for the show.


    This year's Hell in the Cell had 731,000 subscribers. 731K * 9.99 = $7.3 mllion for the month.


    I know this year a ton of money was laid down for infastructure and rolling out apps across various platforms, but am I missing something here? Won't this be much better for the WWE longterm, especially without the WWE having to constantly negotiate with cable providers over their cut?

    ReplyDelete
  79. I'm in the "in the fan of the play-by-play" camp especially if there's a lot of exclamation points or caps to draw my attention to big moves. Probably not the cleanest or professionalist, but it lets you know where the highspots are and the reaction they generate.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Speaking of the WWE legal department, just a funny little personal story: I went to see Summerslam live and a friend of mine who is one of the people in the world who never watched wrestling but still knows its out there asked me how it was. I told him about it, and he asked me if the WWE was more popular than the WWF now. And told him its the same company, they just had to change their name because of the World Wildlife Fund.
    He was completely shocked that they lost the lawsuit and wanted to know why they had such shitty lawyers. A guy who has never watched the show, and doesn't care about the product at all was driven to tirade about shitty their lawyers are. Think about that.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I wouldn't know bud, I assumed you couldn't help but eat them yourself because all I recieved was an empty basket. Thanks for proving my point for a second day in a row though! Perhaps you can go for a three-peat tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

    And your point is?

    ReplyDelete
  83. You think that $9.99 is 100% WWE profit!?

    ReplyDelete
  84. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 3, 2014 at 5:28 PM

    The system works for the b-shows, but they probably don't keep all the money + upkeep.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Has WWE used the WWF name before WWF?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 5:34 PM

    Like I said somewhere down thread: idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  87. You do if you don't people digging around to see if you've died.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM

    Well, that had just as much to do with VKM making an agreement with the Panda fuckers and then arrogantly ignoring it every chance he got, while flaunting that he was ignoring it, because he didn't believe the World Wildlife Fund would strike back.


    Turns out he was wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  89. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM

    He's back, why would we start digging around to see if he's died NOW?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Exactly. I hear the company who actually runs the network (same people as the mlb app) take a decent cut of that 9.99. Not 50% like the PPV providers, but still a good amount.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I'm happy that your uncle is ok, but this isn't a good mindset and my significant BoD experience tells me that you should take a hiatus.


    But you do what you've gotta do.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Well if you again try to make a positive of which will again be a negative and shit RAW, people won't agree with you and will call you out. But you know that

    We ARE here because of our love for pro wrestling, but looking past the bullshit and pretending WWE in 2014 is "good", we'd just be lying to ourselves.

    We openly all agree that 1995 was a dogshit year for the company, why is it not ok to feel the same about the product now?

    ReplyDelete
  93. That works for the B-shows, but you're doing one thing wrong in applying the $9.99 as "pure profit" and taking away half of the money for "standard PPV". I assume their "cut" of that $9.99 is about $6-7 (streaming technology is expensive -- just think of the bandwidth alone to push the data they're pushing -- never mind servers and personnel)


    Even without "cutting" though, you're looking at the following (gross) for the B-shows:


    Pre-network
    200,000 x $50 = $10,000,000


    Post-network:
    70,000 x $50 = $3,500,000
    730,000 x $10 = $7,300,000
    for $10,800,000 total


    Yeah, they likely keep a higher percentage of that $7,300,000, but that isn't close to enough to offset the costs of the A-Shows. Take Wrestlemania:


    Pre-Network (assume a 50/50 HD/Non-HD split):
    1,000,000 x $65 = $65,000,000


    Post-Network (assume they keep 50% of their non-Network audience going forward -- WM30 had more people still using PPV -- about 65% -- but HitC had only 50% using standard PPV from the previous year... so 50% seems a fair mid-point):
    500,000 x $65 = $32,500,000
    730,000 x $10 = $7,300,000
    for a total of $39,800,000


    For WM alone, even if 50% of the people STILL go the traditional route, they're losing $25 MILLION, whereas the B-Shows are MAYBE gaining $1-2 Million each (if we're being generous and give them 75-80% of the $9.99)


    They are COUNTING on the B-shows and large numbers of subscribers to make up the losses from the Network.

    ReplyDelete
  94. CruelConnectionNumber2November 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM

    They pocket approximately 78-80% of the $9.99.

    ReplyDelete
  95. CruelConnectionNumber2November 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    And there were NOT 731,000 subscribers for HIAC. Far less. TONS of subscriptions ended on October 4th to 7th, which was exactly 6 months from WrestleMania weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  96. which is also why the "no commitment" thing will kill them. You can't have 1.4 million for WM and 300k for Battleground. the 6 month commitment was to combat that.

    ReplyDelete
  97. It will, which is why the idea surprised the hell out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Where'd you get that number from? (I'm not criticizing -- I'm asking if it's legit or a best-guess because I've been curious about doing Net numbers on this for a while)

    ReplyDelete
  99. As noted before, breakeven on the Network is around 1 million subscribers, and anything over that would be profit. There's a ton of money tied up in infrastructure and actual cost of putting on the show and costs that were associated with starting up the Network that eat into the money they're making on it every month. You can't really just compare PPV numbers to Network numbers, because they were able to make money on a far smaller "buyrate" with the PPV model (typically 100,000 buys would be breaking even) and it's a different system now.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 6:11 PM

    1995 was far better than the dogshit they're putting on now.

    ReplyDelete
  101. lol, sure it is.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Adam "Colorado" CurryNovember 3, 2014 at 6:23 PM

    1995 didn't have Kevin Dunn, Michael Cole, and the Miz. 1995 was better for those reasons alone.

    ReplyDelete
  103. What an interesting tactic...attempt to garner sympathy then launch into a passive aggressive attack on your "readers". You're a real prize and by that i mean a thin-skinned imbecile. Turf this clown, Keith.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I have no problem with your positivity. I have a problem with the length of the recaps and self pity of its author.

    ReplyDelete
  105. This. Your friend didn't get the whole story. The WWF was using "WWF" since the 60s and was allowing Vince to share it, but this agreement was predicated on the notion that Vince adhere to the parameters they agreed upon initially.

    Vince, being Vince, got all "I'M VINCENT KENNEDY MCMAHON, DAMN IT" about it and broke the agreement. There's not a lawyer in the industry that could have won that case.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Nope. The Fund was founded in the 60s. The Fed was founded in the 80s.

    ReplyDelete
  107. At this point, Vince's single-minded goal is "hit 1M subscribers." Everything else is just whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I mean, he didn't go into excessive detail about his disgusting imaginary sexlife.


    Incidentally, that's probably the main reason people hate Meekin.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Yep. If this is the issue, and it seems pretty likely, then HOLY SHIT HOW DO YOU NOT SORT ALL THIS OUT BEFOREHAND

    ReplyDelete
  110. I don't have a rooting interest here, but man, that got weird and antagonistic fast. But, uh, go Wonder Twins?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Counterpoint: there really isn't any feasible set of circumstances that would have resulted in an injunction that the WWE shouldn't have anticipated.

    ReplyDelete
  112. What were the parameters he agreed to?

    ReplyDelete
  113. A quick googling of "world wildlife fund sues wwe" will reveal a sea of information to you, hungry mind.

    Essentially, it was merchandising agreements, particularly overseas merchandising, that Vince violated.

    ReplyDelete
  114. True, but this rant is the genesis to going the Meekin route. Let's just stop it before it can gain any steam.

    ReplyDelete
  115. if my avatar inspired that, I'm honored!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Your meltdown was better than this one.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Actually, it was founded in 1963, but didn't begin using the WWF initials until 1979. The Fund was still founded first (1961), although the WWWF's pre-cursor (Capital Wrestling Corporation) dates back to 1952.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It was uninforcable. Get rid of it and get those subscribers who were scared off by it.

    ReplyDelete
  119. When did they drop the w? Wasn't that before 1979

    ReplyDelete
  120. The answer to a question that nobody asked: Why do I seem so angry about WWE ignoring the fans...


    I'm not a WWE/WWF fan. Don't get me wrong -- I like some of the things they do, but I was brought into wrestling watching Dusty fight the 4 Horsemen and this newcomer Sting teamed with Rick Steiner. The WWF is, and always has been, too "clean" for me -- something about the huge crowds, the flashy lights -- I always got much more enjoyment watching the darker "lower budget" productions of NWA, WCW, TNA, and now the Indies.


    However, after watching both WCW and now TNA die by their own hubris (fine, TNA is CTD. It's possible they'll come back, but highly unlikely) -- by ignoring what fans want over and over and over -- seeing WWE do the same things just brings back too many bad memories. I held onto TNA beyond reason until finally giving up on them in 2013 (I'd given them too many chances, and seen my hopes dashed dozens of times in the 11 years I supported them).


    I don't want WWE to fail. I want wrestlers to have something to aspire to. Nobody gets into wrestling saying "I want the chance to wrestle in front of 400 people!" As much as I love PWG and Chikara and ROH, these people aren't improving for the sake of improving -- they improve with the hopes of someday going to the "big show" (not Paul Wight).


    If you take away WWE, you make wrestling even more a niche than it already is. Seriously, if WWE goes down, who in their right mind will allow PWG a TV deal?


    I'm not saying WWE will fail -- if anyone is equipped to pull out of this stupidity, it's them -- but they sure aren't inspiring a hell of a lot of hope right now. As someone who has sat and watched this twice, pretty much to the bitter end, I just hope that they can right the ship before it sinks too low. I don't think they can really "pull a WWE" (succeed at the brink of disaster) a third time.

    ReplyDelete
  121. This was Vince being an idiot more than anything

    ReplyDelete
  122. Nobody asked because nobody cared

    ReplyDelete
  123. It was totally enforceable if you just made the $60 charge at the BEGINNING of the cycle (instead of $10 a month)

    ReplyDelete
  124. Kevin Dunn was in the WWF in 1995. He's been with the company forever

    ReplyDelete
  125. Uh, Kevin Dunn was around in '95, too.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Hey Andy.

    Go fuck yourself and this pity parade post.

    You litteraly just asked for negative feedback, like an attention whore.

    And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously

    ReplyDelete
  127. I can't read recaps with that garbage. Looks like a fourth grader typed it.

    Also, Shut up Meekin

    ReplyDelete
  128. Oh man, she's going to be so disappointed with the consensus on the show tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Just for that I'm making sure I get the shitty ending for your character the next time I play Chrono Trigger.

    ReplyDelete
  130. My thoughts to you and your family, Andy.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Most of us are here because we like Scott Keith (the owner of this blog you're contributing to), who wrote/writes mostly about what he hates in a style that is highly entertaining and readable.


    The most interesting thing about your write-ups is the consistency of which you get mangled in the comments while you struggle to grasp why wrestling fans enjoy being cynical on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Dude told me he could smell the water and vinegar form. Zan was all about form of (insert some water type here).

    ReplyDelete
  133. God, this is like reading the debates on how results of an e-fed should be produced...

    ReplyDelete
  134. Rawr!


    That was a A+ catfight.

    ReplyDelete
  135. ...we don't really care.

    ReplyDelete
  136. He didn't eat anything, so no, not really a Meekin move.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Man, as someone who sat through all of 2010, 2014 isn't that bad.


    2010's saving grace were Daniel Bryan and Punk, literally everybody else was bad. 2014 has Rollins, Ambrose (I don't love him but you guys do), Cesaro (who's getting the Punk treatment), and a top of his game Triple H.


    Storylines are underwhelming, but isn't the talent glut it's been in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  138. It's not Cuuch "Gee my life sucks" bad, it's not Matt "I'm an aggressive prick" bad or Caliber "Somebody please pay attention to me" bad, but it was an awful mix of all three.


    Get over yourself Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Oh, no, that far I got. It's the sudden sexual insult fight that followed with basically no provocation that perplexed me.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Not enough pictures. Of his uncle, the hospital, his face before he was sad/after he was sad....

    ReplyDelete
  141. Glad someone got the joke. I'm hated around these parts. Nine posts out of ten of mine are followed by one of 5-6 people attempting to "get themselves over" with lame insults because I'm apparently a troll, mostly because I have my own opinion.

    It makes me feel these people are literally incapable of ignoring things they dislike.

    ReplyDelete
  142. "I apologize for missing last week. My uncle was going in for heart surgery, and my mind just wasn't on writing a recap of a show just to get 100% negative feedback.


    He's going to make it, and I'm going to be back for tonight's show to absorb all the hate you give. I won't stop looking for things in the show I like, because that's how I am. If you want someone who hates wrestling, why are you on a wrestling blog, after all?"



    Please don't do this. Don't bring up a personal family tragedy in the same breath as you strawmanning this blog's readers. Either let us know about what happened so we can give sympathy or complain about us. Don't do both.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Literally no one cares what you think. About anything.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Needed to be more heavy-handed. Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  145. This is pretty much the exact opposite of irony.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Didn't you literally just get banned for posting pictures of Abeyance in a live thread?

    ReplyDelete
  147. I've never done anything like that? Sorry, not sure what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment