Chris Benoit- What to do about Mr.Benoit!!!
- Thread starter That N Word
- Start date
On the subject of Chris Benoit. A movie was announced back in 2011 titled "Crossface" and it went straight into pre-production hell. Based on the Ring of Hell: The Story of Chris Benoit and the fall of the pro wrestling industry by Matthew Randazzo V, it sounds like a hit piece on the entire business. They updated recently about Liev Schreiber playing the role of Benoit, then denied it. IMO there's no chance they ever will get this movie made, but if they somehow manage it, the WWE would not be too happy about it.
There's no reason for them to mention him...Benoit wasn't a big part of WWE history, he's had a few moments here and there. The only noteworthy thing he's done in his career is his match at WM 20 and maybe his match with Kurt Angle.. He was never a huge star, WWE doesn't ever have to mention him again and they won't.
I would agree. There's no need to promote him in any way as far as DVD's or features on him.....but going out of your way to not mention him is dumb and counterproductive......there was more than one person putting on those classic matches with Benoit and it's not fair to the other wrestlers for them to have significant parts of their careers ignored too.
I don't see the benefit in acting like he never existed. What does that do? It's 2015. Everyone has the internet. Everyone can find out anything they want to find out.
There's no reason to go out of the way to mention him(like they do with many other top past stars) and frankly there becomes less and less reason to bring up matches and moments the further they get into the past, but I also don't agree with going out of the way to avoid mentioning him.
I don't see the benefit in acting like he never existed. What does that do? It's 2015. Everyone has the internet. Everyone can find out anything they want to find out.
There's no reason to go out of the way to mention him(like they do with many other top past stars) and frankly there becomes less and less reason to bring up matches and moments the further they get into the past, but I also don't agree with going out of the way to avoid mentioning him.
therockiswwf
The voice of Michael Cole's headset
Ventura waived his royalty fees after falsely being told he wasn't eligible to receive them. Ventura sued and won. That is why he is mostly left out of DVD releases. Vince has to pay him royalties every time he is included on anything. Most people don't buy the DVD so they can hear Ventura, so that is why he is left out. He doesn't help sell the DVD. He is left on the Network and that costs a ton for Vince.
Again, WWE does not have a system that tells them how to punish people. They are a business. Not a court.
JTG and Hulk Hogan. Both were fired. Is that because Vince views racists the same as a guy with nothing to offer? The reasons are way different but they both no longer have jobs. See how ridiculous your argument is?
Censorship by the government isn't good. Censorship by a business that is censoring itself is an entirely different thing. The WWE can edit or show whatever they want because they own it (except for music due to royalties they would have to pay). I wish they would cut Benoit out (I skip any segment that he is in/mentioned), however I understand the views of those who want him left in. He is left in. Just not promoted. I can accept that.
Randy was the one who wanted them in, not Lanny.
Yep, a sponsor who pays millions isn't worth listening too. Great business plan. They have never said he didn't win the title at Wrestlemania XX, they just won't mention it. Which is exactly what they should do.
Main reason for WWE going PG was sponsors. Wrestling has a very hard time attracting sponsors (it is the sole reason WWE's latest TV contract wasn't as big as they thought it would be). The AE actually really hurt them in the sponsorship department (they were in a wrestling boom, which helped their finances take the blow of losing sponsors). They had a stigma. They are making more in ads now vs the AE. WWE made more in merchandise in 2009 than in 2001.
WWE's profit from 07-10 was higher than WWE's profit from 97-01 (2000 is their best single year performance however with 2010 coming in 2nd). I didn't use recent years due to WWE losing a lot of money due to Network startup costs (the profit from the Network should rise significantly this year) and due to their movie department (which has gotten much better).
A sponsors pays a shit ton of money to a company. In turn, they get promoted by that company. Then something happens that gives that company a bad name. A sponsor will not want to be associated with that. They will flee very easily. It is not like there is only one place that will promote them.
Or lets take a real world example. FIFA. Right after the scandal hit they lost a ton of sponsors. Castrol, Continental Tyres, Johnson & Johnson, Sony and Emirates are just a few that they lost. Losing those 5 sponsors cost them between 78 million to 163 million dollars a year. They had 6 top-tiered advertisers. Sony and Emirates were two of them. They nearly lost Visa (another one of the top 6) and a bunch of other sponsors (Sepp Blatter stepping down was huge in keeping them). They are also having a hard time attracting new sponsors.
babaGAReeb
Dark Match Jobber
wow....
it all adds up bro, it all adds up!
kevin sullivan the satanic wrestler, came to benoits home, murdered him and his family, had a couple of beers and then left. the roids that benoit never used, it belonged to the satanists who used them to bulk up(in addition to weakening him with other drugs) cause taking benoit down wont be easy and then just left the spares there.
then he posted about it on the internet cause he was drunk and later deleted it when he sobered up cause that was stupid.
the whole date and was about to be champion thing is there cause these satanists really like their important dates and shit.
the police were obviously in on these, silly illuminati puppets.
my theory is that they were gonna kill benoit with a car bomb but werent able to due to budget problems. damn i really wish they went with that, wouldve been quite an awesome way to go.
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
JTG and Hulk Hogan. So, they fired both a black man and a "racist". How do you feel about them firing a black man? Is that racist? Was that based on color? Or is it only based on color when it is morally convienient?
Some would play the race card (yes, some blacks play a card where they accuse anyone who holds them accountable, including the police and the courts, as racist, and who demand total impunity from criticism, since the critics can only be racially motivated, and it can't be about being held to the same level of accountability than others).
You bleat how unfair blacks have had it in the past. Well, swings and roundabouts. They are getting a good run of it now, and even pull the strings and accuse anyone who questions them as "racist".
How dare JTG be fired? It is racial profiling at its worst. It has to be racist, it can't be because he sucked.
"Randy wanted them in".
That's according to Lanny Poffo. You can say anything when quoting someone who is dead, and can't refute it. I think that Lanny is pissed off that WWE never cared about his brother until after he died, and then suddenly they want him in the HoF.
I agree where I read that Poffo said that WWE should have put Randy in when he was alive, and he could be there to share it with family and friends. But I feel that Lanny's declaration of what Savage said was more a case of "You wouldn't put him in when you had the chance, so you're not putting him in now".
Besides, couldn't WWE got around Poffo and ask Randy's widow for permission instead. Apparently, Owen's widow gets final say on anything to do with Owen, so why isn't Savage's widow the go-to for HoF permission. It would be like if your mom says "No", you then go and ask your dad.
Censorship isn't good if I am paying FULL PRICE for a DVD, with a match missing. It isn't good if I pay for the Network, and loads of content isn't there (since they would need to remove all of Benoit's WWE, WCW, ECW footage). My purchasing of a Network subscription depended on this, since if they remove Benoit, then what other content am I being denied? They would do the same to Hogan, Snuka and anyone who pisses Vince off.
I like the idea the Network does instead- give a warning, offer parental control, so those who want to not see him can do this, and the rest of us less discerning viewers can enjoy an uncut, unfetted WWE Network, where I can see what I want to see when I choose to see it.
It is one thing to not mention Benoit, not put him in the HoF etc. I actually fully endorse this, and if there was ever a "line in the sand to do it", it's this (not Hogan being banned for something much less). But to remove his matches from DVDs, edit him out of matches, or not showing a classic match from the past, because Benoit is in it, is a bridge too far. It punishes other people in the match, who aren't getting their classic match shown and it punishes us fans, who aren't getting the full product we paid for.
Also, sponsors need to know their place. Otherwise it is the tail wagging the dog. They don't have to invest in your product. They do it because they need you as much as you need it. If a sponsor plays moral police with too many companies, they may find no-one to promote their brand.
Secondly, if WWE was making millions, and it was the biggest thing out, then sponsors would stay on board, because the alternative is to walk away from millions. In business, you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Besides, are companies prepared to have morality held against them too? Can WWE pull out on a sponsor who has an employee say or do something wrong? Or will they get sued for breach of contract? Can sponsors dish it out but not take it? Or is it a predatory, one-sided relationship?
Also, if you rely on sponsors for the main part of your revenue, maybe you shouldn't be in business. I thought that the fans were the ones who prop up WWE, since people here always act like they are the reason WWE is successful. Bums on seats and merchandise make a lot of WWE's money. When a sponsor pulls out, they have as much to lose revenue wise as if they stayed and copped the heat. Pulling out isn't a decision they should take lightly.
Besides, advertisers and sponsors are hypocrites. They want to avoid scandal and not tarnish their almighty "brand", but have no qualms advertising during movies and TV shows with nudity, foul language and heavy sex. "Breaking Bad" didn't seem to need to tread a careful line to keep sponsors happy.
If a sponsor pulled out on me, I would put it out there that the sponsor is difficult to deal with, and hurt their negotiating power with other companies. Or instead, I would go to their main competitor, and then say how, if they sponsor my company, I will say how this product is much better than their competitor's, which I can't be sued for, since it is an opinion, but one that will embarrass the ex-sponsor.
"A sponsor puts a shitload of money into a company". No-one puts a gun to their head. They do this because they get something from the deal as well, so to then act like the moral police, and think that they hold all the cards in the game is arrogance to the extreme. Most sponsorships end at some time anyway, so they will leave you for a better deal, sooner or later regardless.
If FIFA are having a hard time attracting new sponsors, then wait until the heat dies down, go to their competitors, lowball what they have to pay you this time around (since people will more likely get on board if they are getting more and paying less), and then promote the hell out of them, and make a point to say how their product is better than the competitor's (which are the companies that pulled out on you). The new companies will be so pleased that you have gone beyond what you had to do to promote them, for less money, and caused a drop in their competitor's sales at the same time, that they will be more open to pay more on the next contract. There is nothing that the previous sponsors can do, since you are no longer contracted to promote their "brand", and you are stating an opinion, and only saying what you are paid to say, so they can't sue for slander. If they pull out for "damaging" their brand, show them how to truly hurt their brand name in a whole new way.
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
JTG and Hulk Hogan. So, they fired both a black man and a "racist". How do you feel about them firing a black man? Is that racist? Was that based on color? Or is it only based on color when it is morally convenient?
Some would play the race card (yes, some blacks play a card where they accuse anyone who holds them accountable, including the police and the courts, as racist, and who demand total impunity from criticism, since the critics can only be racially motivated, and it can't be about being held to the same level of accountability than others).
You bleat how unfair blacks have had it in the past. Well, swings and roundabouts. They are getting a good run of it now, and even pull the strings and accuse anyone who questions them as "racist".
How dare JTG be fired? It is racial profiling at its worst. It has to be racist, it can't be because he sucked.
"Randy wanted them in".
That's according to Lanny Poffo. You can say anything when quoting someone who is dead, and can't refute it. I think that Lanny is pissed off that WWE never cared about his brother until after he died, and then suddenly they want him in the HoF.
I agree where I read that Poffo said that WWE should have put Randy in when he was alive, and he could be there to share it with family and friends. But I feel that Lanny's declaration of what Savage said was more a case of "You wouldn't put him in when you had the chance, so you're not putting him in now".
Besides, couldn't WWE got around Poffo and ask Randy's widow for permission instead. Apparently, Owen's widow gets final say on anything to do with Owen, so why isn't Savage's widow the go-to for HoF permission. It would be like if your mom says "No", you then go and ask your dad.
Censorship isn't good if I am paying FULL PRICE for a DVD, with a match missing. It isn't good if I pay for the Network, and loads of content isn't there (since they would need to remove all of Benoit's WWE, WCW, ECW footage). My purchasing of a Network subscription depended on this, since if they remove Benoit, then what other content am I being denied? They would do the same to Hogan, Snuka and anyone who pisses Vince off.
I like the idea the Network does instead- give a warning, offer parental control, so those who want to not see him can do this, and the rest of us less discerning viewers can enjoy an uncut, unfetted WWE Network, where I can see what I want to see when I choose to see it.
It is one thing to not mention Benoit, not put him in the HoF etc. I actually fully endorse this, and if there was ever a "line in the sand to do it", it's this (not Hogan being banned for something much less). But to remove his matches from DVDs, edit him out of matches, or not showing a classic match from the past, because Benoit is in it, is a bridge too far. It punishes other people in the match, who aren't getting their classic match shown and it punishes us fans, who aren't getting the full product we paid for.
Also, sponsors need to know their place. Otherwise it is the tail wagging the dog. They don't have to invest in your product. They do it because they need you as much as you need it. If a sponsor plays moral police with too many companies, they may find no-one to promote their brand.
Secondly, if WWE was making millions, and it was the biggest thing out, then sponsors would stay on board, because the alternative is to walk away from millions. In business, you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Besides, are companies prepared to have morality held against them too? Can WWE pull out on a sponsor who has an employee say or do something wrong? Or will they get sued for breach of contract? Can sponsors dish it out but not take it? Or is it a predatory, one-sided relationship?
Also, if you rely on sponsors for the main part of your revenue, maybe you shouldn't be in business. I thought that the fans were the ones who prop up WWE, since people here always act like they are the reason WWE is successful. Bums on seats and merchandise make a lot of WWE's money. When a sponsor pulls out, they have as much to lose revenue wise as if they stayed and copped the heat. Pulling out isn't a decision they should take lightly.
Besides, advertisers and sponsors are hypocrites. They want to avoid scandal and not tarnish their almighty "brand", but have no qualms advertising during movies and TV shows with nudity, foul language and heavy sex. "Breaking Bad" didn't seem to need to tread a careful line to keep sponsors happy.
If a sponsor pulled out on me, I would put it out there that the sponsor is difficult to deal with, and hurt their negotiating power with other companies. Or instead, I would go to their main competitor, and then say how, if they sponsor my company, I will say how this product is much better than their competitor's, which I can't be sued for, since it is an opinion, but one that will embarrass the ex-sponsor.
"A sponsor puts a shitload of money into a company". No-one puts a gun to their head. They do this because they get something from the deal as well, so to then act like the moral police, and think that they hold all the cards in the game is arrogance to the extreme. Most sponsorships end at some time anyway, so they will leave you for a better deal, sooner or later regardless.
Sponsors pull out because they are not winning from the deal. The company isn't making enough, or they aren't getting enough exposure (such as sponsors of winning NBA teams will get a lot more exposure, because of finals, then the poorer teams, regardless of morality. In the end, it is all business, and often when a sponsor pulls out, it is for another reason entirely, and they play the "morals" card, so that they can get out from under their contract without being sued.
TV lowballing the WWE. It won't matter, since I predict that one day, all WWE content will be exclusive to the Network, as more and more TV execs don't want wrestling anyway. If USA want to lowball WWE on the deal, maybe Vince should threaten to pull the deal, and put all WWE content on the Network instead, and see if USA really want it bad enough or not. If they do, they will try to negotiate to keep Vince from walking, or if they don't, then if USA don't care enough about it to pay top dollar, then they don't care enough to keep it either.
If FIFA are having a hard time attracting new sponsors, then wait until the heat dies down, go to their competitors, lowball what they have to pay you this time around (since people will more likely get on board if they are getting more and paying less), and then promote the hell out of them, and make a point to say how their product is better than the competitor's (which are the companies that pulled out on you). The new companies will be so pleased that you have gone beyond what you had to do to promote them, for less money, and caused a drop in their competitor's sales at the same time, that they will be more open to pay more on the next contract. There is nothing that the previous sponsors can do, since you are no longer contracted to promote their "brand", and you are stating an opinion, and only saying what you are paid to say, so they can't sue for slander. If they pull out for "damaging" their brand, show them how to truly hurt their brand name in a whole new way.
beermanaust
Dark Match Jobber
Benoit deserves to be in HOF for his wrestling accomplismhent, I think it's to much rumours still on what acctually happend that night.
Wasn't it also that the cop got a SMS from Benoits phone on sunday? But they knew he was killed on saturday. It all still a little to weird.
Wasn't it also that the cop got a SMS from Benoits phone on sunday? But they knew he was killed on saturday. It all still a little to weird.
therockiswwf
The voice of Michael Cole's headset
You have some wrong information. Chris did not text message a cop. Chris sent the messages to a few coworkers (Chavo being one of them). Chris died sometime on Sunday, the same day he sent the messages. You really think the police wouldn't notice a text message sent after a guy died?
JTG was fired because he had nothing to offer. I have no idea what you are going on about.
Seriously what are you talking about? I think you need to reread my last post as you completely missed the point.
Randy was involved with the WWE before he died. They did a thing with his action figure (or DVD, can't remember) where he did a little video to promote it. Savage died the year after that.
You aren't making any sense. Why would Lanny allow WWE to induct Savage if he is mad at them? Randy refused to be inducted without WWE also inducting Lanny and their father. So they couldn't induct Randy when he was alive because Randy wouldn't allow them too.
Different situation. I'm assuming Randy's widow left it up to Lanny.
Martha gets final say because of a lawsuit. They can't do anything at all with Owen without Martha's approval because she would immediately sue them (and win).
WWE owns their content. They can do as they please with it. I wasn't saying I wouldn't be annoyed if they censored a bunch of stuff, I was just saying it is different from government censorship.
I agree.
I would personally want Benoit's content cut. However I can see why people want his stuff left in and if I were in charge, I would leave it in.
Sponsors don't work like that. You have to appeal to sponsors. You have to attract them. It is not the other way around. Sponsors pay you. You have to make them want to do that.
Wrestling has a stigma. The Attitude Era really hurt their image. It made sponsors flee and view wrestling as dirty. It doesn't matter how much money WWE is/was making, they had to shed that image to attract big name sponsors.
Yeah it can be a two way street. Depends on how the contracts are setup.
You don't know how TV works. You see, sponsors are why TV shows succeed and fail. Take a show that gets huge ratings. Now say that show experiences a huge fall in ratings every commercial break. Then once the commercial break is over, the ratings shoot back up. That show will be canceled. Why? No sponsors will want to advertise with them. No sponsors will cover their TV costs. It will cost the host company (ex. NBC/USA for Raw) money. The TV industry is sponsor driven.
Also sponsors can go somewhere else and advertise. They aren't (usually) tied to just one place.
Breaking Bad didn't have the stigma that wrestling does. Breaking Bad was a mature show aimed at mature audiences. Their sponsors knew that and didn't have a problem with it.
Putting it out there that a sponsor is difficult to deal with is slander. They can sue for that. Saying it is an opinion won't protect you. If you knowingly make false statements (such as saying they are difficult to deal with when they weren't), then you will be sued.
What if the competitor doesn't want to sponsor you?
Also you would find it very hard to attract new sponsors with this kind of attitude. Why would any sponsor want to deal with you if the moment they leave, you insult them? That is childish. It doesn't embarrass the ex-sponsor, it embarrasses you.
You have to keep sponsors happy because if you don't, you won't survive. They pay the bills.
Baseless. Sponsors will pullout because of scandals. They don't want to be associated with companies that are bad because that could end up hurting their business as well.
USA didn't lowball them. WWE would have gotten much more if they attracted more sponsors. They don't. If Vince puts all content on the Network, they would go out of business really quickly. They have no way of replacing the income they get from USA and sponsors. To replace just the TV contract, they would need 20 MILLION network subscribers.
So say I stay on as a sponsor and you offer new sponsors a better deal, I would be pissed off. Why are you not rewarding the ones who stay? See why that would be a bad idea?
Again, who says their competitors want to advertise with you? Also how much power do you think your product has? You think you can somehow cause a decline in any business that terminates their relationship with yours? You would get your ass sued off (since you don't understand how slander works). No one would want to advertise with you.
You have very little understanding of how businesses work.
To tie this back into the thread topic, what they are doing now with Benoit is perfect. They don't advertise him. They don't mention him. If people want to watch his stuff, they still can. They aren't stopping you. If they were to promote Benoit, sponsors would flee. They would flee as fast as they possibly could. They wouldn't want to be associated with a company that promotes a murderer.
babaGAReeb
Dark Match Jobber
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
"Macho Man" is in the HoF, whereas Lanny and his dad are not. If they needed Lanny's permission, then Lanny went against "Macho Man's" wishes.
Also, why do you think that sponsors hook up with organisations- to be nice, for their health, they like giving money away, is it a donation?
No, they do it to make money. Therefore, they gain something out of the bargain too, or otherwise they would say "No" at the start.
Therefore, the sponsor doesn't have all the stroke if they are gaining as well. No-one put a gun to their head.
Sponsors who pull out on sponsorships constantly can hurt their brand name as well, since why would anyone enter into deals with a sponsor when they are known for pulling out early at the slightest sniff of a scandal.
No, a sponsor can't sue for slander in the case of promoting a competitor because (a) the sponsor broke the contract, meaning that they don't sponsor you anymore, so (b) you can get sponsorship from whomever you want, even a competitor of the sponsor, and (c) if you now say that the new sponsor's product is better than all competitors, then you can't be sued, as all companies promote themselves as the best (that's how advertising works) and, as long as you don't name the competitor, how can they prove it was them being referred to? You can only sue if you are specifically slandered, not if it is alluded that you fit into a group of companies who all may be being referred to. Also, there is no actual way of proving who is better, but you are hired to promote the brand who sponsor you, so are only doing what you are told.
Take for example, toothpaste. Now, if one toothpaste sponsor pulls out, a sportsperson can get sponsored by their main competitor. To then have the sportsperson say how this toothpaste is better than all others, and say what advantages it has, is advertising, and isn't slander, since the sponsor who pulled out can just get another sportsperson to promote their product and say the same thing.
If a sponsor keeps breaking contracts, then why should anyone dealing with them enter a contract with them, since they can't be trusted to honor a contract.
Also, how does what Benoit did mean that the sponsor endorsed his actions? That is a long bow, and any customer who stops using that sponsor for this is an idiot, and not worth having as a customer.
Sponsors need WWE as much as WWE needs them, otherwise they wouldn't agree to terms to begin with. So it is in their interests to look after them just as much, as WWE could get a better deal from a competitor when the contract next comes up.
As for USA not paying as much for TV rights, well Vince can just put Raw and SD on WWE Network next time, and see how much USA values "Raw". If they try to make a better offer, then deal with them. If not, then show it exclusive to the Network.
therockiswwf
The voice of Michael Cole's headset
That is exactly what happened. Lanny said he went against his brother's wishes and allowed them to induct him because he felt it that Randy deserved to be in.
Here is a quote from Lanny:
Lanny Poffo said:
Sponsors can advertise in numerous places. They have the advantage. They can go nearly anywhere they want.
Sponsors have more stroke. They can easily leave and go somewhere else if they are a big name.
Usually companies don't expect to have scandals. Also, money.
I knew you weren't going to comprehend what I wrote correctly.
I never said anything about promoting a competitor being slander. If you try to hurt a company by saying something like they are hard to deal with when they weren't, you can be sued for that. You are lying in a malicious way that could hurt a business.
Again, you misread what I wrote.
Money. Also if they terminate it because of a scandal you did, then other companies won't be bothered by it.
Promoting does not mean the same thing as endorsing. I never said otherwise. However, Benoit is still a murderer. Promoting a murderer (not endorsing) is not a good business practice.
WWE needs sponsors more. Sponsors all leave WWE, WWE is in trouble. WWE terminates all sponsorship contracts, they can go somewhere else. Some of those sponsors may have trouble for a bit after (Mattel would have to end their toy deal and that would hurt them) but most will end up fine. Say Toyota sponsors Raw and that contract is terminated early. Toyota will end up fine.
If Vince threatens to put Raw on the Network, NBC might die from laughing. WWE cannot afford to put Raw on the Network. As in the WWE will go out of business. They would lose both the TV and the sponsor revenues. Remember the Bischoff/Fusient Media Ventures deal to buy WCW? It fell through because WCW lost its TV slots. WCW became near worthless and allowed Vince to buy it for just a couple million. Without the TV deal, WWE is pretty much worthless. They provide a huge source of income that isn't easily replaced (which is an understatement).
@smarkmouth
Friendly Neighborhood
In my eyes, Chris Benoit materials should never be promoted again. He was my favorite wrestler back when, but even though I'll watch the occasional match, I get a degree of discomfort. Maybe you share that with me, or maybe you disagree entirely, but WWE is not wrong to play it safe. Ethically speaking, I'm on board with WWE on the decision to cease promoting materials pertaining to Benoit.
That being said, I do believe it's time for the company to move on. I remember in Vince McMahon's video retracting the Chris Benoit tribute, he talked about beginning a healing process, and I think it's time to lean into that idea. I think that such a healing process does indeed involve a Hall of Fame induction, but not of Chris Benoit. I believe WWE should induct Chris Nowinski into the Hall of Fame.
I believe in inducting Nowinski for his work with the Sports Legacy Institute. He has helped bring concussion awareness front and center regarding sports and entertainment talents. Admittedly, it can be frustrating to see a fan favorite benched for too long, I believe the program has done more good than harm. While this alone is a worthy cause in my estimations, I also believe it would give the WWE fair and mature platform to discuss the Benoit tragedy. Even referencing Benoit in Nowinski's induction gives WWE a chance to look it's ugly past in the eye and try to heal.
Of course, WWE would never do that.
That being said, I do believe it's time for the company to move on. I remember in Vince McMahon's video retracting the Chris Benoit tribute, he talked about beginning a healing process, and I think it's time to lean into that idea. I think that such a healing process does indeed involve a Hall of Fame induction, but not of Chris Benoit. I believe WWE should induct Chris Nowinski into the Hall of Fame.
I believe in inducting Nowinski for his work with the Sports Legacy Institute. He has helped bring concussion awareness front and center regarding sports and entertainment talents. Admittedly, it can be frustrating to see a fan favorite benched for too long, I believe the program has done more good than harm. While this alone is a worthy cause in my estimations, I also believe it would give the WWE fair and mature platform to discuss the Benoit tragedy. Even referencing Benoit in Nowinski's induction gives WWE a chance to look it's ugly past in the eye and try to heal.
Of course, WWE would never do that.
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
So Lanny ignored his dead brother's wishes. Did he challenge Savage's will (if he had one) as well, since what Randy wants doesn't matter.
I think that Lanny MADE UP saying that Randy wanted them all in, hoping to get inducted himself, or get some money out of WWE to induct Savage. I mean, Savage wasn't around to verify the statement, was he? So Lanny could say that "Macho Man" just about said anything.
(I wonder if, when Lanny said that his brother wanted all three of them inducted, if he actually said it like "Macho Man" Randy Savage? OOOH YEAHHH!)
Also, this reminds me of a sponsorship story. I heard that part of the reason Vince was pissed off with Savage leaving, was because he was taking his lucrative Slim Jim sponsorship with him, costing Vince lots of money because of WWE getting the benefit of Savage's sponsorship with Slim Jim.
Sure, sponsors could go anywhere. Then how come they picked WWE. There must have been a reason to pick them, rather than someone else. Maybe it is because they BENEFIT from it.
If Vince said in private conversations to other business people he deals with, that he found the sponsor difficult, then that is harder to sue over than if he publicly said it.
Also, what happens when it is the sponsor involved in the scandal, with one of their employees, or they are found to be doing insider trading or something. Does the WWE have the same right to pull out? According to you, WWE would go under because they need sponsors to survive. That's what you said. So does that mean sponsors can say and do what they like, and those they sponsor have to like it or lump it, because the sponsor holds all the cards?
We had this issue in Australia a couple of years ago. One of our football teams pulled out on a sponsor, not the other way around, because an employee of the sponsoring company had written racist and sexist things on his Facebook. The football team pulled out, costing them lots of money, but they survived, and were applauded for taking a moral stand.
This goes to promoting versus endorsement. Does WWE stick with a company, who had a racist and sexist on their books? You all applaud WWE sacking Hogan, yet you make it sound like sponsors are God to WWE and that Vince has to decide between pulling out on a company who may be involved in some scandal, but doing that may bankrupt WWE.
A sponsor is NOT promoting a murderer if WWE shows Benoit matches on the Network, or leaves his matches on DVDs. The matches happened. Sponsors have power, but they don't have the power or right to re-write history. Going forward, WWE were right not to mention Benoit or put him in the HoF, but they are wrong to cut his matches from DVD or the Network, but still charge full price for it. It isn't WWE's fault that they put the World Title on Chris Benoit at their biggest event, THREE FRIGGIN' years before he even did these murders. What, do sponsors now expect WWE to be clairvoyant as well. If a company doesn't want to sponsor WWE because they once employed a murderer, then they have the right to. But don't enter the sponsorship contract, and then moan later about it. Sponsors know going in, and unless WWE PROMOTE Chris Benoit in a new way, then they know what they signed on to.
You make it sound like WWE would die tomorrow without sponsors. They have plenty of other revenue streams. Besides, the highest-rating era for WWE was the "Attitude Era", which showed nudity, women crawling around like a dog, necrophilia, and every sort of crudity known to man. If they had animals on "Raw" during that era, you just know that they would have done a bestiality angle as well. Yet they made more money than they do now, despite many sponsors staying away. But I bet the ones they had made millions, and profited heavily from leaving their morals at the door. WWE was at an all-time high, yet their numbers of sponsors was at its lowest. How does that work? Maybe sponsors don't put the sun in the sky as much as they or you think they do.
If NBC laugh at WWE leaving, let them. But if WWE has another revival, and get big ratings at another station, let's see NBC laugh at lowballing WWE then.
WCW didn't have their own network to put their shows on, WWE does. Raw and Smackdown would still be produced, just to a smaller audience of the WWE Network subscribers. In fact, it might attract more subscribers, if WWE fans can't get their fix elsewhere.
WWE will survive, even if some sponsor pulls out. They have other sponsors. There are plenty of companies needing promotion just as much as WWE need money. A new start-up company may love the massive exposure a show like "RAW" will bring them for brand awareness, and charities like Susan B. Komen benefits in donations by associating with companies like WWE.
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Christopher Nowinski in the HoF? WTF?
Okay, I'll play along with the "most ridiculous person to put in a future HoF". I nominate the Gobbleygooker. That is where I rate Chris Nowinkski.
If you mean for his work with concussion, then we are inducting scientists now. What next? People complain about movie, TV and music stars being inducted in a wrestling HoF, and you want to put in a scientist?
wtf:
:
:Winner of "Most Ridiculous Post on wrestlezone for 2015. The envelope please. The winner is "Dear Wrestler" for his suggestion to have some "Tough Enough" runner-up who is now some scientist to go into the WWE HoF".
Also, all Nowinski did was provide Vince with a way of covering his ass. You see, I think Benoit did the murders because of 'roid rage, due to his years of steroid abuse.
The media thinks it is roid rage. The police suspect roid rage. I read articles which match Benoit's actions exactly with someone suffering roid rage, and it answers a lot of questions. But Vince McMahon says that it isn't roid rage. I mean, Vince wouldn't lie to cover his ass about his lax Wellness program, would he? Not Vincent K. McMahon, who once faced prison for steroids being rampant in WWE.
Vince, Nowinski and others say that it is that Benoit's brain is stuffed. But then, how come other dementia patients don't kill? You would have a bunch of oldies with their facilites gone committing a crime wave, when they can't even make their own breakfast anymore. Yet someone with an addled brain could kill two people and then himself?
Mick Foley got eleven chairshots to the head while handcuffed against the Rock at RR 99, yet he hasn't gone psycho and killed his family.
Maybe Nowinski should try one other test. See how a damaged brain reacts when it has also suffered many years of rampant steroid abuse. The combination of the two may have played a part. But I am pretty sure that if Benoit did it, it was the steroids he has injected into himself for years on end that played some part.
@smarkmouth
Friendly Neighborhood
You're right, how dare we dilute the prestige of a group of men pretend fighting in pants with the work of someone who has done valid work in protecting sports figures. Fuck me for suggesting such a ridiculous notion.
Oh, and wow, can't believe I would dare value the work of a concussion scientist over a game show host or a convicted rapist. Wha t ass backwards thinking I have been cursed with!!
Also excellent points. I'll be sure reference emoticons in future thesis'.
See, I actually agree with most of your post. I only had to sift through a chunk of babyshit. I never disregarded roid rage as a factor, but 'the media' is just as guilty as ignoring a factor of this as WWE is guilty of ignoring the other. That two do not cancel each other out, nor is it an avenue or justification for either to skip the conversation entirely. In turn, there is value in your suggested test. Look at you, applying scientific method!
therockiswwf
The voice of Michael Cole's headset
I think you're grasping at straws. WWE attempted to induct Randy at Wrestlemania 28 but Lanny refused due to his brother's wishes.
There is very little information on how much WWE pays the inductors/inductees but from what is available, it is not much (range is from $1,000 to $5,000). Hotel and travel accommodations are probably provided as well. So I'm guessing it was not for money.
I'm sure it pissed Vince off but he probably got over that a long time ago.
It is a strategic decision to choose what you sponsor. Sponsors choose WWE for a reason. However sponsors usually don't rely on one place they sponsor to survive. Sure it might hurt them to pullout short term but long term they will usually be fine.
Take Honda. They pulled out halfway through the XFL season due to low ratings. Honda ended up fine.
Yes but it is not like Vince knows the entire business world (plus most wouldn't care). Also you are changing what you said.
WWE won't survive if ALL sponsors leave. That is what I said. If one sponsor leaves, it would hurt them in the short term but they would recover easily.
Yes, because that is one sponsor. Businesses can survive one sponsor leaving.
Again, I said if ALL sponsors leave. Not if just one leaves. Read my stuff more carefully.
Read this part slowly. You keep getting confused.
Promoting is not the same as endorsing. Sponsors would flee if WWE promoted Benoit's matches. WWE would be promoting an entertainment product with a murderer. Most would understand they aren't endorsing Benoit's actions. But they would still be promoting (not endorsing) a guy who murdered 2 people. Wrestling is entertainment based. This is different than say a documentary about Hitler.
You just oversimplified something that is way more complex than you think. TV ratings are down due to a billion factors. At that time, wrestling was in a culture fad. The Wars was the main reason for that. Once the Wars ended, the bubble popped and ratings went into free-fall. There are now over 1000 channels to choose from. Significantly more entertainment options. The internet has also cut huge into that market (with streaming and whatnot). DVR as well. When I was young, if I didn't watch Raw live, I would miss it. Now I can DVR it. If I forget to do that, I can just find it online. Another factor is 3 hours. Getting people to sit through that is not easy. It is a combination of a number of reasons as to why their ratings are down.
WWE made more profit from 07-10 than they did 98-01. Now how they managed to do that despite more entertainment options and lower ratings (plus no longer being a pop-culture fad) is amazing. They have been hampered in recent years by the cost of starting up the Network (short term harm for long term benefits) and their movie division (which now breaks even and isn't much a factor). So it seems leaving their morals at the door, even during a fad, did not make them more money. Once that fad ended, they lost nearly 20 million in 02-03. One of the reasons was sponsors.
The necrophilia angle happened during the ratings free-fall. Many people still bring up the Stratus barking like a dog segment to show how lowbrow WWE is. WWE got into huge trouble with The Kat accidentally exposing her breasts on PPV (they had the wrong camera angle and whoever was supposed to cover her up was late). They nearly lost their contract with DirectTV due to it. They did lose a sponsor (and/or PPV provider) due to it but I can't find the article that mentions who they lost.
WWE would have gone out of business if all sponsors left during the Attitude Era as well. No sponsors means no TV. No TV means, to put it bluntly, you're fucked.
NBC would laugh if WWE threatened to leave them and go on the Network. You said WWE should have threatened to do that which is an incredibly dumb idea.
Oh dear. Raw and Smackdown cost a lot of money to produce. NBC pays them a huge amount so they can produce those shows. NBC recoups those costs via sponsors (this is how TV works). I said this before but I'll repeat it again, to replace just the TV deal for NBC, WWE would need 20 million Network subscribers. Raw gets between 3 to 4 million viewers. They need one million subscribers to break even on Network costs. Sponsors would all leave WWE if they went to the Network (much smaller audience and most sponsors are tied to NBC) and WWE would lose the TV deal revenue. That is a very hard hit and one they would not survive.
WWE doesn't want startups. Those usually have very little money. They want big name sponsors because they have money. More big name sponsors they attract, the more NBC pays them. They also make money from the sponsors as well.
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
"Pretend fight in pants". Are you Mark Madden? This just shows how much respect you give wrestling. If you stepped in a wrestling ring, pal, any one of those guys "pretend fighting in pants" would break your neck in an instant.
Don't know why you even watch WWE if you think that all they do is "pretend fight in pants".
"Fuck me for suggesting such a ridiculous notion".
No, I have no interest in fucking you, unless you are a hot woman.
I never said that I agreed with many of the celebrity nominations that go into the HoF. The whole "celebrity wing" was first started because apparently Vince McMahon thought that it was a joke that Pete Ross would never be in the baseball HoF, so he put in the WWE HoF instead. Now, it is a way to get Hollywood publicity and sell Wrestlemania.
Most of the mainstream have never heard of Chris Nowinski. He isn't a world-renowned scientist, and has not appeared in WWE since he got "future-endeavoured". Now if Stephen Hawking guest-hosted "Raw", he might be a chance.
I don't know what to make of scientists anyway. Instead of trying to give Vince an out for his part of the responsibility that Benoit got addicted to steroids on his watch, and this, I believe, led to Benoit doing what he did. According to an issue of "Power Slam" magazine, Benoit failed Wellness THREE times, but got a slap on the wrist, instead of being fired, because Jeff Jarrett bragged that he would sign Chris Benoit to TNA. At this time, Chris Jericho was off on one of his sabbaticals, and TNA had just signed Angle, and Jarrett was planning to have Jericho, Benoit and Angle all in TNA, and Vince saw it as another company stealing his talent all over again, just like Eric Bischoff did. So, apparently, Vince turned a blind eye. Soon after, the murders happened. So if Vince had enforced the Wellness Policy, Benoit would have been sacked, and maybe got help before he did these horrendous crimes, or it would have been TNA's problem, and Vince would actually be looked at favourably, since he fired someone who violated his Wellness Policy, whereas TNA would have been criticized for hiring a guy with such a bad drug problem.
Besides, I would rather scientists spend time trying to finally cure cancer, since it would help a lot of people, especially a loved one of mine who is going through a cancer battle. Any scientist who can finally find a cure for all cancers, and saves my relative's life, can go in my Hall-Of-Fame, as well as WWE's. I see that as more worthwhile than an excuse, which, if Benoit had lived, his defense would use the ruined brain defense to get Benoit committed, rather than get the death penalty. Now does Nancy and Daniel deserve to have their killer get off on a lesser offence, if he had lived?
I think that a test to see steroid abuse on an already affected brain would be interesting. I mean, look at what crimes are committed on ice and other drugs. So, why couldn't the same happen here.
Did you know, and this is verified by the Atlanta police department, that Chris Benoit visited a doctor on the day of Nancy's death? A young child, sitting with his father in the waiting room saw him, and Benoit allowed him to take his photo on the kid's phone (I have seen the picture in a magazine, and it is considered the last photo of Chris Benoit alive. He is wearing a baseball cap and you could see the gap in his teeth. It's definitely him). The child also said which doctor Benoit went to see, and saw him go into the doctor's office. This same doctor got raided by police two weeks later for prescribing steroids to NFL players, and other sportsmen, including a few WWE stars (e.g. Edge, John Morrison, Rey Mysterio, Mr Kennedy etc).
Apparently, two hours after Benoit was reported to have visited this doctor, Nancy Benoit is believed to have died. Also, police found Benoit's credit cards maxed out on legal and illegal steroid sites, and Benoit's autospy revealed that he died with eleven times the amount of normal hormone composition in the human body, meaning that he was drugged up when he died.
@smarkmouth
Friendly Neighborhood
I have no doubt that they could break my neck and leave me on my deathbed, if they were insane enough to assault me for a remark. Believe it or not, respect for the art form and not taking it too seriously are not mutually exclusive notions. I love the story that they tell me in the ring and recognize the risk that the talents take, but at the end of the day, I'm still celebrating an extravagant carny act. That's not a knock on my part. It's objective analysis
Your loss, cutie.
Look, I'm not gonna spend 12 pages arguing with you, or reconstructing timelines. For fuck sake, as I pointed out, I don't even disagree with your own POV on the Benoit incident., so I don't know why you're going off on that. We're just going to have to agree to disagree about Nowinski. As it stands, WWE's hall of fame is a political device before it is a legit honour. I'd like to see this platform used for informed discussion. The title of the thread is 'What to do about Mr. Benoit', and I stand my my opinion of looking it in the eye and healing.
I am sorry to hear of your friend, though.