Skip to main content

Leave PPV?

Hey Scott,

Do you think they should leave PPV altogether after SummerSlam and go "all in" with the Network? According to the conference call they're not even considering PPV revenue in 2015 in their projections.

​From a personal perspective, absolutely.  If they're not counting on getting PPV money anymore, then might as well just commit and be done with it, plus now I'm used to getting the PPVs for free and having them available on-demand.  There was never any advantage to me having to pay $60 for the show and then not have a copy for later. 

Also, on a related note, the more we learn about this Rogers deal for the Network in Canada, the angrier I get about it.  What a bunch of fucking bullshit, as it won't be available west of Ontario (because I GUARANTEE that Bell, for example, isn't going to play ball with Rogers on this because they're more interested in keeping TSN exclusive to THEIR app) and it'll just be the live stream.  Shit like this is why I cut the cable in the first place.  Especially considering 24/7 cost LESS than this service and was on-demand!  FUCK ROGERS CABLE.

Comments

  1. The entire second paragraph is like a foreign language to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep, I was all in for the Network the moment it hit Canada. I didn't care if it was a dollar or two more than the U.S.. Even at $11.99, it would still be a great deal for what they were offering.


    Not now, though. All I wanted was the same deal - basically a wrestling stream app like Netflix - that I could load up on, say, my PS3. I didn't want to go through some fucking cable service just to enjoy my wrestling.


    So yeah, fuck that and fuck them. I don't know if it's WWE or Rogers to blame, but they just lost an iron-clad guaranteed sale from me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't stand Rogers. It feels like they're constantly shoving their respective dick in my face. Rogers Blue Jays baseball on Rogers Sportsnet live from the Rogers Centre, for example. I'm sure their hockey coverage will be equally as obnoxious.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You wanted: John Cena ending Undertaker's streak to overcome losing to Brock Lesnar.
    You got: Brock Lesnar ending Undertaker's streak to overcome losing to John Cena.



    To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I feel a little bad for Taker here (first time for everything), as I don't think it would have been nearly such a "shit performance" if he hadn't gotten concussed in the first 5 minutes. It wouldn't have been GREAT, I'm sure, but decent enough probably.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is your ironclad guarantee like big show's ironclad contract?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let's be honest. Nothing is as ironclad as Big Show's contract.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let's just hope they don't buy the Mr. Rogers franchise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, I think I liked "BROCK SMASH" better.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But then we wouldn't have had the spectacular Undertaker/CM Punk match.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Should roger goddell or roger the alien be their mascot?

    ReplyDelete
  12. " Shit like this is why I cut the cable in the first place. "


    http://getridofcable.net

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not an Undertaker fan but if fucking Cena was the one to end the streak, I would be done with wrestling.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "This may have been addressed before."


    The Blog of Doom, beat a topic of conversation into horsemeat? NEVER!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think it's time for a Montreal or Chris Walker thread.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, it IS his birthday.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fast typing comes with the journalism degree.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Broadcast journalism?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, broadcast journalism. That makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wrestlemania 27

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anything would have better than Brock ending the streak, the one guy who didn't need it whatsoever. I still can't believe Calloway is such a selfish ass that he'd only job to Brock. Terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have Rogers cable already so I don't care. My love of sports means I'm not cutting any cord anytime soon. With an already-extensive tape library at my fingers, I don't give a shit about on-demand content and will gladly pay much less for every WWE PPV. Plus, I know the streaming isn't going to crap out. That's a plus.

    Bell and Rogers work together constantly. They co-own sports franchises and other properties, for Christ sake.
    Either way, the United States might as well get used to this idea as well. If this kind of financial agreement works in Canada, I can guaran-damn-tee you WWE will pursue a similar arrangement with the likes of Comcast or DirecTV. That way, everybody wins.
    (Except the fans.)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Personally, I think Cena-Rock II should have been Cena-Punk, because those two would have torn down the house as a WrestleMania main event. And forget Brock-Triple H, just have Brock-Taker happen a year earlier.


    Cena-Undertaker? I can't think of a good time to actually have it. It would have made more sense this year than any other. Maybe replace the third Triple H match in the cell.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cena ending the streak is worse. Much, much worse. Brock winning has given him the extra unstoppableness that is making the build to Cena/Lesnar 2 awesome

    ReplyDelete
  25. Brock and Heyman are already making way more of it than Cena would have. Cena, unless used to turn him heel, would have been the absolute worst choice possible. It not only is something he doesn't need even a little bit, it also would have made the anti Cena stuff much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If he was fully selfish, wouldn't he just keep the streak going?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I always think, nobody on the planet needed a win over Andre the Giant less than Hogan, the guy who had already been champ for 3 years.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Mount Rushmore of Cena topics: Cena vs. the streak, Cena turning heel, Cena calling people poopy when it's supposed to be a blood feud, Cena no-selling effects of vicious matches in said blood feuds.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Agreed, far worse. It would have hurt Cena much more than it would have helped him.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Except while the states get all the fantastic archival footage, we're stuck with just the 24/7 live stream. That's not what I was excited about for the Network. Not to mention we're hamstrung through Rogers, not an app service that could work on multiple devices like they've been advertising for almost a year.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Also, wasn't the whole "Taker made the decision to lose" thing shot down about 2 seconds after WM ended?

    ReplyDelete
  32. The LAW is saying that WWE's told them it'll have both the live content and the VOD.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Vince made the decision but he wouldn't have done it unless Taker was cool with it

    ReplyDelete
  34. Considering Cena's popularity with the pre-pubescent set, I'm starting to wonder if WWE creative is made up entirely of 8-10-year-olds.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It's true. Taker is Vince's favourite creation.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Still gonna have that Rogers stank all over it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You're wrong in pretty much every way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I hope that's true. Without video-on-demand, it's not worth it for me (assuming my cable provider Eastlink picks it up -- called them this afternoon and no one knew a thing about it, not a good sign).

    ReplyDelete
  39. Not to mention that Taker was ready to lose to Orton and Kane at previous Manias.

    ReplyDelete
  40. But in that world we wouldn't have got Punk/Taker and I love that match.

    ReplyDelete
  41. more than Shane & Steph?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rogers owns FX Canada and Bell is notable for not picking it up, as one example. This would seem to be a similar situation.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Man, if it happened this year I wouldn't have, because I was so into the Bryan stuff, but if it happened last year, I might have. It would just reinforce that WWE sees Cena as not only the best ever, but also someone they desperately need to protect.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm fully expecting Rogers to basically just reinstate what Classics on Demand was, except call it WWE Network. That's really their style.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think Cena-Punk would have blown it away.

    ReplyDelete
  46. as long as Living Colour still live-performs Punk to the ring it's all good

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yes , but "Vince made the decision and Taker agreed to do it" is a far cry from "Taker refused to lose to anyone but Brock".

    ReplyDelete
  48. A Cena Taker streak match would give me a heart attack

    ReplyDelete
  49. For the Main Event of WrestleMania to defend the title against John Cena? Abso-friggin-lutely.

    ReplyDelete
  50. that Cena/Punk Raw match they had about a month before Mania was better than Taker vs Punk and every other match on that shitty mania

    ReplyDelete
  51. Coming again to save the motherfucking day yeah

    ReplyDelete
  52. That's not even remotely a good comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  53. If Vince could get away with it it totally would be. Paying writers in candy cigarettes is a lot less painful to the bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I would have saved that Raw match for the post WM PPV. Pay Punk to stay 1 extra month, and say 'you may have gotten redemption by beating Rock, but you STILL have never beaten me decisively when the WWE title is on the line. " Boom, 5 star match, huge buyrate.

    ReplyDelete
  55. No intelligence, no intensity and no integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  56. That's great in theory (and world's better than that awful Cena/Ryback feud), but Punk was really banged up after mania. Remember that flying elbow that didn't break the table? Punk was limping bad the rest of the match.

    ReplyDelete
  57. It's still hamstrung with Rogers, not the Netflix-like app available on most devices like down in the states.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Yep, maybe work a 1 month deal where he just has to cut promos for Raw, but doesn't have to wrestle any matches until that one PPV. But oh well, what's done is done.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Only if Cena turned heel in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  60. No way, Brock's the man.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I would have kept the title on Punk til Mania, let Cena beat him for it in the main event. Then he can cut a scathing promo walking off the show.

    ReplyDelete
  62. What a crappy candle.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thing is, I was perfectly fine with the (albeit predictable) WM card. And the buyrate was over 1 million, so who are we to argue? My only problem was them giving a huge PPV match on Raw. But hey, we got a great free match, and it's not my money that was Caliber'd.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sounds like you've been getting a good Rogering by the cable company for a while.

    http://db2.stb.s-msn.com/i/9B/1C2986DB5621C9E3BE48D0B4427B_h416_w622_m2_q80_chlNasCSo.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  65. i keep hearing that. why? Did Hogan turn heel when he ended Andre's fictional 15 year undefeated streak?

    ReplyDelete
  66. we argue b/c there was no creativity in that mania card

    ReplyDelete
  67. Well I constantly hear on here that WWE can't plan long term. And when they do (the top 3 matches were pretty much set in stone for several months), then they get bashed for being predictable. But if they make a few changes to their plans, like the Daniel Bryan/Batista thing at WM, then they can't stick to a plan. WWE can never win sometimes. (note: We're all happy that they DID change WM 30, but i still hear the complaints that it wasn't the plan all along)

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oops, I still had Cena/Taker in mind. I retract that.



    (proof that i'm... *GASP* actually not perfect!! *gasp gasp gasp*

    ReplyDelete
  69. Maybe not a bad idea for Wrestlemania 29 to have booked Punk/Cena for the title and then have Undertaker defend the Streak against the Rock. Those are two huge matches.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Cena isn't Hulk Hogan. He's never, ever been close to Hogan in his prime.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Predictability isn't the problem. As I said, no creativity in the WM29 matches.



    Rock vs Cena wasn't a feud that year. They worked an angle the year before, Rock won. Cena claims to have a terrible year that wasn't remotely terrible. Now they're headed to Mania. Cena doesn't seem extra driven to beat Rock, or vice versa. No new wrinkles added to the feud....it's a full year of act 2.


    Punk vs Undertaker was only about "hey your manager died" nothing else--that is not a story.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Scott, how would you rebook the invasion?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Undertaker is a face, and Andre had just turned heel.

    ReplyDelete
  74. And was the biggest heel in wrestling...going against the biggest face in wrestling.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Knuckleberry PinnJuly 31, 2014 at 7:27 PM

    Sorry if this was said below, but for me it was all the way back at Wrestlemania 27. We still keep our Taker/HBK series, we avoid Miz saying he main events a Mania, and we give that show the amazing main event that it so sorely needed to land it in firmly good territory.

    ReplyDelete
  76. That's really good. If Miz must be champ he could've defended against Morrison, like many people wanted at the time

    ReplyDelete
  77. In retrospect, yeah, it should have been last year when Taker could still work a match, but without that kind of knowledge - it should have been this year. COME ON, it's the big round number, WM30, what better time to do that?

    And really, what was with Cena/Bray? THAT was the best they could do for their biggest star on the biggest show ever? THAT was the best they could think of in terms of getting people to sign-up for the Network?

    I think Vince really, REALLY overestimated Batista's return.

    ReplyDelete
  78. at the time I thought Bray was gonna win (go ahead; laugh), now in retrospect it did absolutely nothing for Bray.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Considering Punk and Cena had a ****3/4 on Raw right before Mania, if they had done a match together at Mania instead it would have been amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Knuckleberry PinnJuly 31, 2014 at 8:23 PM

    Ditto here. I'm very doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
  81. It completely stunted brays character development.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I don't think he was necessarily wrong to expect big things from Batista; he left when he was doing his great douchebag heel character, and everyone had fond memories of him. Now, when you add the Bryan Revolution and the fact Big Dave came back sucking wind, that's where it went downhill.


    But I thought it was going to be big, at first too.

    ReplyDelete
  83. TSN=Canadian ESPN for those confused.

    We also call it sportscentre, not sportscenter.

    You're welcome

    ReplyDelete
  84. Taker vs Cena or gtfo
    /farva

    ReplyDelete
  85. I'm out. I don't know how Shaw Cable will handle this and honestly i no longer care.


    Won't even consider paying for this shit now, i'll just continue to watch illegal streams and ignore the company when they do their usual yearly houseshows like i've done for the past several years.


    Don't want my money Vince? Good! Go fuck yourself, i hope the network subs fall to under 500K by the end of the year & we go back to 1994/95 levels of shit business.

    ReplyDelete
  86. How about never?

    No, really.

    If it happened, Cena would have to be champ. Without that, you can call the finish a mile away: AA reversed into tombstone, pinfall. The appeal of that match is that Cena as champ can't lose the belt to a guy who wrestles once a year (obligatory "Lesnar lol"), but Taker can't lose to the guy the WWE still thinks they can get crowds to cheer for.

    There's no way to book a finish to that match that'll make anyone happy, which is probably why they never did it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. It's basically ruined the Wyatts. Bray Wyatt never got boring chants before that program.

    ReplyDelete
  88. It should have happened at 27. Rock costs Cena the match, setting up the 28 match.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Totally agree.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Wrestlemania 30 could have been:
    - Undertaker vs. Cena
    - Lesnar vs. Punk
    - Bryan vs. HHH
    . . .just like guys like Farva, myself, and others were rambling about since late last year. Throw in Wyatts vs. Shield, Orton vs. Batista as well.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Mister_E_KindaBuzzedAllBecauseJuly 31, 2014 at 9:26 PM

    To be fair, I've had terrible experiences with Bell too.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Yep. Miz vs. Morrison could have taken its place

    ReplyDelete
  93. I agree. I think Rock vs. HHH one last time would have been fine too. After Rock loses to Punk in his last pursuit of the WWE title (Rumble '13), he's ready to say goodbye....but HHH challenges his arch nemesis for one more match. Total "special attraction" but gives both veterans something to do without taking away from the full-time guys. Do Punk-Cena 'Ironman' or something as the ultimate closure of their feud

    ReplyDelete
  94. Cena vs. Punk, Ironman (or something suitably epic)
    Rock vs. HHH (one last time)
    Taker vs. Brock (a year earlier)

    ReplyDelete
  95. Wrestlemania 27:
    - John Cena vs. The Undertaker (give Cena a year-long reign headed into it)


    Wrestlemania 28:
    - John Cena vs. The Rock
    - The Undertaker vs. Triple H (2nd time, rather than 3rd in this scenario)


    Wrestlemania 29:
    - John Cena vs. CM Punk, IronMan
    - Brock Lesnar vs. The Undertaker
    - Triple H vs. The Rock

    ReplyDelete
  96. Hasn't this effectively already happened?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Dude, they JUST announced the deal, and EastLink probably haven't even begun negotiations with Rogers yet. Give it a couple days/weeks. Cable TV deals don't exactly move at the speed of light.

    ReplyDelete
  98. That would have been a good idea, better than jobbing to Miz.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Would have been a nice stacked card.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anyone not on Rogers needs to chill for a couple days/weeks to let the legal process go through to determine if they get it. I guarantee Shaw or Cogeco or Sasktel did not pick up the phone and call Rogers as soon as PWI reported the deal and be all "OH MA GERD!! WE NEED WWE NETWORK!! TAKE OUR MONEY NOW!!"


    Let all the business/political BS take care of itself, and I'm sure there will be more than just Rogers with WWE Network. Although... I wouldn't hold my breath if you're on Shaw or Bell.

    ReplyDelete
  101. And they wonder why they can't push new talent.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Yeah, they did have a decent match on Raw earlier in the year.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Would have saved the show.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Then punk could have disappeared front the company.

    ReplyDelete
  105. He could then leave for how long again and it would fit his character.

    ReplyDelete
  106. And Punk had to win a match to face the Undertaker.

    ReplyDelete
  107. That was a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  108. To me, that's what would have made the match so fascinating and so much fun. Once they went into the whole WWE "Let me kick out of your finisher, right after you kick out of mine," routine, the crowd would have gone insane.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Why wouldn't it be like the Disney etc. AppleTV apps are in the States, where you have to login through your cable provider and then boom you're good?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Other than Cena, Brock actually makes the most sense. I'm just thankful to whatever "higher power" there is that "Mr. Fragile Ego" HHH wasn't the one to do it, though to be fair, he DID have to be the one who walked away from his match with Taker, while the Deadman had to be carted to the back, thus making himself appear greater than Taker in just about every way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  111. More than Shane, almost definitely. After all, he got the son he REALLY always wanted when Steph married HHH.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Never doing Cena vs Taker as a mania main event is just mind blowing. There has to be something behind the scenes of why they never pulled the trigger on it. I mean they really can't be that stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  113. In Punk's world, and I agree, Punk should have been in Miz's spot.

    ReplyDelete
  114. It was one of the last true main events they had.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I was never that impressed with Rocks return either. At least Cena was nice enough to carry him.

    Yeah I said it.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Okay, I have to know who on here attacked WWE for not sticking to the plan of Batista/Orton. Who was it?

    ReplyDelete
  117. They always made magic together.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I never had a huge problem with Rock/Cena II other than Rock clearly out of wrestling shape and not ending the match how it should have ended. Rock kips up like the year before to catch him in the Rock bottom only Cena has learned from his mistake the year before, stops himself, and gets Rock to charge into a AA. Storyline wise it would have made sense as Cena had been going on about that being his big mistake.

    I guess in my world you do Cena beating the streak, and then the following year doing Cena/Rock II with a more in ring shape Rock and a better finish.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Yeah. If Punk still leaves (instead of getting his win back over Lesnar), then audible to Brock vs. Batista.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Well, with all the cuts, they now allegedly only need like 500k subs to make a profit.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Because it was so much cleaner and less complicated by doing it like Netflix.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Worst_in_the_WorldAugust 1, 2014 at 5:46 AM

    Petulant child

    ReplyDelete
  123. Worst_in_the_WorldAugust 1, 2014 at 5:50 AM

    Oh shit you know his real name

    ReplyDelete
  124. No because dropping PPV entirely is an incredible short-sighted, bone-headed, ill conceived thing to do in which the company would essentially be throwing away (increasingly smaller, admittedly) amounts of money by cutting non-Network subscribers out. Trust me, there are people unwilling to change. There are people who will pay $55 for a PPV that they know how to order but will balk at $20 for a month of the Network that they don't know how to use. There are people you'll be cutting out who are unable to even GET the Network, people who live in areas without good enough internet speeds to stream the shows, and people who live in countries where it isn't or won't be available.

    I mean yeah, WWE has done an excellent job of killing PPV as a cash cow for themselves thus far, but it would be ludicrous to go even deeper with it after the catastrophic attempts of getting the Network up and running. Do they have to go all-in on the Network? On the surface of things, yes, but when it's been SUCH a disaster, how can they justify to themselves and to their shareholders about getting in any deeper?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Oh, I was excited for his return too, as his heel run was fantastic. Which is why it was so confusing that they brought him back as a face.

    Plus, as much as people may have been looking forward to his return, nobody was looking for him to *replace* Bryan as the spotlighted act. Bringing him back could have been a good thing, but not at the expense of their most popular act.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Totally agree.

    ReplyDelete
  127. I was 100% convinced that they'd go the Raven/Foley/Austin route, and have Bray "pass out from the pain" while locked in the STF.

    THAT would have been an amazing layer to add to the character.

    ReplyDelete
  128. They started teasing it at one point. I remember a match between DX, JeriShow, and Cena/Taker on a special Raw that ended with Taker tombstoning Cena.

    ReplyDelete
  129. The network is supposed to roll out in Canada in 12 days and Viewers Choice is shutting down Sept. 30. Hopefully they'll move faster than that.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Rogers will. But I deal with EastLink at work and they are not the quickest folks when it comes to getting contracts pushed through.

    ReplyDelete
  131. This is the first time in my life I've ever really been glad not to be Canadian.

    ReplyDelete
  132. same for Punk.


    if Rock had been put with less talented (or: less motivated) workers he would have been exposed even worse than he already was.

    ReplyDelete
  133. also, so often suggested: Cena vs. Taker "I Quit" match.

    the most unpredictable main event match ever because both guys are presented as workers that NEVER submit.

    (yes, I know that Taker has lost once or so. but that's once in forever)

    ReplyDelete
  134. Punk vs. Taker feels similar to Batista vs. Taker to me.

    (= the guys seemingly trying everything to steal the show and make their match the best of the night)

    ReplyDelete
  135. I don't know if I like that one as much others because you would lose the near falls.

    ReplyDelete
  136. MikeyMike, WitnessAugust 1, 2014 at 11:34 AM

    All I know about TSN is Michael Landsberg.

    ReplyDelete
  137. The Disney/etc apps are pretty much done like Netflix, only with an extra subscriber login. Is there anything I'm missing?

    ReplyDelete
  138. My memory isn't what it used to be, but didn't Cena score a pin on Taker during a tag match at NWO 2007? I'd have thought for sure then that that would have led to Cena/Taker at that years mania.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment