KB Busts Up Another Myth: What Killed WCW

[misterglover]

So what the defenders of Bischoff are saying here is that WCW was alive, well, and making a profit for a publicly traded company when they got the axe?

Okay. So what?

Are the ratings in TNA going up, down, or staying flat?

Dont think thats what is being said...most ppl i see are admiting that WCW was losing money and a horrible product at its demise...what we are arguing is the fact the other side is trying to sell their opinion as FACT!!

 

[TheKingHustla]

My take on all of this is simply put as such, if WCW was still making money, and still a top product, someone else would have picked it up. The simple fact that no one did, should prove that the overall product sucked, and that it wasn't making money. All of the talk about the network not liking wrestling and all of that may be true, but that isnt what killed WCW, because it could have fit in on another network, if that network saw it as a profit and not a negative.

If you take any show that is making money now, and have the network that shows that show drop it, many other networks would be scrambling to pick it up. Look at that crappy show The Game, it's been dropped so many times, and it keeps getting picked up, because somehow, it makes money. The same could have been done for WCW, if it was making money.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Well first of all, here's a source (New York Daily News) that backs up their losses.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2000-10-07/sports/18151853_1_wcw-eric-bischoff-vince-russo

Based on those kind of losses and the big contracts that were guaranteed and the lack of business that they had after all of their mistakes in the previous two years, I reall don't think it was going to be able to do anything, TV or no TV.

KB, I get what you're saying about WCW's vitality as a company, it was not there at all. They indeed had major financial losses, however that link I put in my earlier post indeed states that Turner Networks was originally going to allow WCW to remain on their programming despite selling their controlling interest. Up until Jamie Kellner came in this was the plan, granted if WCW was in the black, Kellner might have sang an entirely different tune. In fact if that was the case a sale never would have happened in the first place, obviously.

However, that New York Times Article pre-dates anything Eric Bischoff said about WCW's original plans for being sold. Even they mentioned that WCW's brand was going to be kept alive on Turner programming despite the huge financial losses and viewership changes.

Again, I am not claiming to be an expert on anything in relation to this matter, but even if this was a last gasp effort to keep WCW alive it was still an effort nonetheless, the original intent of Turner Programming was to still support wrestling programming but with a change in authority over said programming that plan obviously went through.

I'm not saying that WCW would have been guaranteed an extended life through this deal but the original plan for its sale was to keep it running on the Networks. Again, a regime change altered that plan, I could see your point a little more had Fusient never been in the picture, but it's obvious that from that article, Turner Networks had plans to still support the programming they just didn't want controlling interest anymore. Obviously someone else of influence within the AOL-TW corporation wanted to give WCW another chance or else why would a deal have been proposed to keep the programming in the first place? But Kellner was obviously a lot more influential being the head of programming to where he was able to veto that decision.

 

[MB1025]

This right here proves my entire point: those companies were brand new other than Smackdown, which is the B show of WWE. This wasn't some brand new company. This was WCW, the company that 3 years ago was reigning on high as the kings of wrestling (which was on fire in 2001 with WWE making record profits the year before and going public so it's not like the market wasn't there), not some brand new startup company. Even ECW was able to get a TV deal, but not WCW. If a show is going to be making money and drawing in viewers, you would want it on your network. That's basic business sense. In September of 2000 TNN (now Spike) acquired WWF programing. They were in the market for it apparently. WCW however, wasn't wanted anywhere. Today a 1.8 is considered solid for Smackdown. Do you really think that a company wouldn't have wanted a company like WCW on if it was going to bring in even say a 1.5? The fact that no one else wanted it on their TV says a lot.

As far as another Network wanting it you are way off base. This isn't a TV show we are talking about just getting picked up on another channel. We are talking about a television company ( AOL/Time Warner ) owning WCW the company. They no longer wanted WCW so someone like a Eric Bischoff had to buy it in order to move it over to another station. What your saying is another Noetwork didn't want it because they didn't step in and buy the company. It doesn't work like that. Bischoff and his investors tried to buy the company and move it over to another Network which was either Fox or NBC affiliates.

USA just can't sell the WWE because Vince owns it. The WCW situation is like USA actually owning the WWE and not wanting it anymore. Vince would have to buy it in order to move it to another network. No Network is going to step in and by a wrestling company. BTW in 2001 WCW was averaging a 2.3 before being sold.

 

[MB1025]

My take on all of this is simply put as such, if WCW was still making money, and still a top product, someone else would have picked it up. The simple fact that no one did, should prove that the overall product sucked, and that it wasn't making money. All of the talk about the network not liking wrestling and all of that may be true, but that isnt what killed WCW, because it could have fit in on another network, if that network saw it as a profit and not a negative.

If you take any show that is making money now, and have the network that shows that show drop it, many other networks would be scrambling to pick it up. Look at that crappy show The Game, it's been dropped so many times, and it keeps getting picked up, because somehow, it makes money. The same could have been done for WCW, if it was making money.

The problem is you don't just pick up Nitro and Thunder and it is off to the races. As a network you would have to actually BUY WCW the company from AOL/TIme Warner because they didn't want it anymore. Do you see a TV station actually buying a company? No. A person, like Eric Bischoff, has to first purchase the company and then go pitch the idea of wrestling to an NBC, Fox, or what ever else.

If someone didn't cut a deal, back out of the Bischoff deal, and sell McMahon all the trademarks, tapes, and history for a million dollars we might be having a different conversation right now.

 

[shattered dreams]

They would have to be released from their contracts I'd assume. Scrubs was canceled by NBC and ABC picked it up for a year recently. Same basic idea.

Not true. Big difference between a show that airs every week and has a large staff on salary of some kind and a seasonal show that pays actors and other per episode. Suggesting an instantaneous transition was a real possibility is hilariously misguided. A wrestling company is fucked without its TV income once it makes the transition to such a model. WCW put itself in a bad place but the potential was still there, they just needed someone willing to invest willing to weather the short-term storm. How it plays out then no one knows for sure. Thus, it wasn't truly dead yet. That is until the TV got pulled which essentially torpedoes any chance of finding such an investor.

There seems to be this theory that WCW was alive and well when Kellner cancelled the shows and point blank it wasn't.

Please show me where this theory exists? I think you are the one that doesn't get it. You keep saying they would not have taken the show off tv if yadda yadda yadda (like every show that isn't doing pawn stars ratings gets taken off the air ). Who is this they? Oh right the same people that are supposedly irrelevant. Almost no one argues that only the merger killed them. What I find odd is the theory that the merger had no ill effects on the companies chances of survival. There is a lot of grey area in between "alive and well" and "already dead." Anyone arguing for either is a fool IMO. It just so happens that makes you a fool in my book on this case.

 

[klunderbunker]

As far as another Network wanting it you are way off base. This isn't a TV show we are talking about just getting picked up on another channel. We are talking about a television company ( AOL/Time Warner ) owning WCW the company. They no longer wanted WCW so someone like a Eric Bischoff had to buy it in order to move it over to another station. What your saying is another Noetwork didn't want it because they didn't step in and buy the company. It doesn't work like that. Bischoff and his investors tried to buy the company and move it over to another Network which was either Fox or NBC affiliates.

USA just can't sell the WWE because Vince owns it. The WCW situation is like USA actually owning the WWE and not wanting it anymore. Vince would have to buy it in order to move it to another network. No Network is going to step in and by a wrestling company. BTW in 2001 WCW was averaging a 2.3 before being sold.

You're talking about two different things. AOL/TW owned both the company AND the TV rights. If another network had wanted to step in and use those TV rights (now owned by Fusient), then WCW would have aired on a new network. That didn't happen, because no one wanted them. If WCW couldn't have aired on a new network, then why was Bischoff trying to shop it around to a new network? he would have been wasting his time.

 

[MB1025]

You're talking about two different things. AOL/TW owned both the company AND the TV rights. If another network had wanted to step in and use those TV rights (now owned by Fusient), then WCW would have aired on a new network. That didn't happen, because no one wanted them. If WCW couldn't have aired on a new network, then why was Bischoff trying to shop it around to a new network? he would have been wasting his time.

No what I am saying is AOL/Time Warner no longer wanted WCW the company. Which means they wanted to sell everything. Not just the TV rights. If they sell the Tv rights they still have control of the company. They didn't want that. Same thing with the Braves, Thrashers, and Hawks. They didn't sell the TV rights they sold the entire franchises because they were in debt and also because they didn't want the programing anymore. All things Ted Turner kept on his programing no matter what. As soon as he is shown the door in 2001 2 years later 4 companies/franchises are sold by AOL.

Eric can't shop a company he didn't own yet. Multiple sources have said Fox and NBC affiliates were interested in airing the WCW product. However they backed out when Bischoff was being kept out of meetings for 3 weeks because McMahon was stepping in to buy it.

 

[TheKingHustla]

The problem is you don't just pick up Nitro and Thunder and it is off to the races. As a network you would have to actually BUY WCW the company from AOL/TIme Warner because they didn't want it anymore. Do you see a TV station actually buying a company? No. A person, like Eric Bischoff, has to first purchase the company and then go pitch the idea of wrestling to an NBC, Fox, or what ever else.

If someone didn't cut a deal, back out of the Bischoff deal, and sell McMahon all the trademarks, tapes, and history for a million dollars we might be having a different conversation right now.

If WCW was profitable, even if they didn't like wrestling, they could have aired the shows on another network, while still keeping the company, thus, making profits. The problem is, there was no real profit to offer any company to play the shows.

and even with what happened, we can even look at it from this point, Vince bought most of WCW, and even brought a nice amount of it's talent to WWF, do you not think that if the brand WCW was profitable, he would keep it and expand? He expanded with his brands soon after, and even kept ECW (although he changed it too much and it lost it's appeal), but why not WCW? Vince is a smart business man, and I honestly believe that if he felt that WCW could still be profitable to him, he would have managed to keep WCW alive, seeing how he had the trademarks, tapes, history, and majority of the relevant roster. The reality was that there was no profit in doing so, and thus, decided to just absorb the remainding roster into the E and let the WCW name, brand and company go by the wayside. If Vince could have SD, ECW, Raw, and all of that other mumbo jumbo he had going on, he could have savaged WCW, the problem most like was that the people running WCW ran it into the ground, making it unsavagable, not that the company didnt want them.

It's like seeing a prize winning horse go down, and everyone knows that it can't run the race anymore, the company just happened to be the one who put it down, but it wasn't the cause of it.

 

[akrassikauda]

WCW did kill it's self the merger finished them off. As Paul Heymen once said " The wrestling industry in the late 90's was like the dot.com industry, people had huge contracts (most not deserved) there was this huge bubble, then it burst". WWF had the best talent at a premium price if you made $1million a year it was because of incentives in the contract (autograph appearances, merchandise sales) and you were in the top 5 stars category.

Where as WCW had talent guaranteed $1million+ then have incentives in the contract. When you do that you have less money for production,writers, new talent, talent development. WCW was bleeding money same as ECW but not WWF they made the made the smart business decisions that WCW didn't make and should have made.

Then you have the merger that put the dirt on the dirt on the coffin. You mix some of the worse collective contracts, young talent gone, frat house mentality writing and booking (Judy Bagwell on a pole match) WWF clearly winning the war non wrestling people in charge of the corporation that holds your fate......Cue The Undertaker music

"I didn't have the biggest company but I was the lone surviving company" - VKM

 

[MWRedskins]

the time warner/aol merger didnt help WCW at all and was the downward spiral for WCW and Jamie offically killed it by acting like WCW was just a torn down, good for nothing company. NOW if Jamie were a smart guy he would've sold the company TO Bischoff and give him the TV time, but most didnt like the company, if they liked WCW then today WCW would be around just not with big ratings. WCW was a good wrestling company and what killed it was basically the higher ups didnt want WCW.

 

[MB1025]

If WCW was profitable, even if they didn't like wrestling, they could have aired the shows on another network, while still keeping the company, thus, making profits. The problem is, there was no real profit to offer any company to play the shows.

and even with what happened, we can even look at it from this point, Vince bought most of WCW, and even brought a nice amount of it's talent to WWF, do you not think that if the brand WCW was profitable, he would keep it and expand? He expanded with his brands soon after, and even kept ECW (although he changed it too much and it lost it's appeal), but why not WCW? Vince is a smart business man, and I honestly believe that if he felt that WCW could still be profitable to him, he would have managed to keep WCW alive, seeing how he had the trademarks, tapes, history, and majority of the relevant roster. The reality was that there was no profit in doing so, and thus, decided to just absorb the remainding roster into the E and let the WCW name, brand and company go by the wayside. If Vince could have SD, ECW, Raw, and all of that other mumbo jumbo he had going on, he could have savaged WCW, the problem most like was that the people running WCW ran it into the ground, making it unsavagable, not that the company didnt want them.

It's like seeing a prize winning horse go down, and everyone knows that it can't run the race anymore, the company just happened to be the one who put it down, but it wasn't the cause of it.

Not if you are re branding your image with a different type of programing like Jamie Kellner said he was going to do. Since that is the case why would they tie themselves to a company that they no longer want on their channels because of the type of programming they are? They just merged with AOL and at the time it was the deal of the century and they would make billions. Who cares if WCW was making millions or not. They didn't want it because they were going with a different formula.

There was interest. NBC and Fox affiliates. Once Bischoff was kept away those companies backed out. I find it funny that the company was sold for less to Mcmahon after Jamie Kellner publicly said the Bischoff deal was just about complete.

 

[MB1025]

WCW did kill it's self the merger finished them off. As Paul Heymen once said " The wrestling industry in the late 90's was like the dot.com industry, people had huge contracts (most not deserved) there was this huge bubble, then it burst". WWF had the best talent at a premium price if you made $1million a year it was because of incentives in the contract (autograph appearances, merchandise sales) and you were in the top 5 stars category.

Where as WCW had talent guaranteed $1million+ then have incentives in the contract. When you do that you have less money for production,writers, new talent, talent development. WCW was bleeding money same as ECW but not WWF they made the made the smart business decisions that WCW didn't make and should have made.

Then you have the merger that put the dirt on the dirt on the coffin. You mix some of the worse collective contracts, young talent gone, frat house mentality writing and booking (Judy Bagwell on a pole match) WWF clearly winning the war non wrestling people in charge of the corporation that holds your fate......Cue The Undertaker music

"I didn't have the biggest company but I was the lone surviving company" - VKM

Here is another myth about the contracts.

Scott Hall
Sting
Goldberg
Keven Nash
Macho Man Randy Savage
Scott Steiner
Hulk Hogan
Ric Flair

all had contracts with AOL/Time Warner. Not WCW. I am sure a lot of other top names went this rout also. Which means WCW didn't foot the bill. AOL/Time Warner did. The talent did this just in case anything happened to the company they would still get paid. Now you know why WWF/E didn't bring these guys in right away because they would not only have to buy those contracts out, but they would have to offer new ones.

 

[bigtrav01]

I agree with you for like 98% of it, the only part I don't agree with is with AOL/Time Warner liking wrestling, I don't think they did, but if it had made them a bunch of money, they would have kept it, but like you said WCW screwed itself over long before that merger, and I think they did put it out of their misery because it sucked, not because they hated it, but I think a lot of people at the company hated it, they had no reason to keep it, so the people that hated it spoke up and they people that wanted to stop losing money (which I imagine was everyone) decided to cancel it, not that TNT has done anything that made them any money since then though.

 

[HollywoodLuthias]

Time Warner didnt BUY WCW. They already owned it. WCW was owned by Ted Turner. Ted Turner merged his companies with Time Wanrer and became the majority share holder in Time Warner. WCW fell under the Time Warner umbrella and was under that umbrella for a long time. Then came AOL and AOL merged with Time Warner and Steve Case the CEO of AOL bought out enough shares that he was able to force a buyout of Ted Turner and thus removed Ted Turner from power. Turner was against the AOL / TW merger from the start. Once AOL had control of all of Time Warner they started to look at the divisions of the company. AOL wanted NOTHING to do with pro wrestling and Steve Case ordered WCW to be shutdown and sold off.

WCW going under had nothing to do with WWE, Russo, Hogan, Bischoff. It was AOL who wanted nothing to do with it anymore. Before the AOL/Time Warner merger WCW was in no danger of going under. Ted Turner was 100% behind WCW till the end. He would have never allowed WCW to be sold.

 

[Brian in Austin]

Dont think thats what is being said...most ppl i see are admiting that WCW was losing money and a horrible product at its demise...what we are arguing is the fact the other side is trying to sell their opinion as FACT!!

Well if most agree the product was bad AND was losing money at the time, any tv exec. would be a fool to keep that on tv. So, in other words, it wasn't the fault of the executive, but those running WCW. (i.e. Bischoff, Hogan, Russo, et al.)

 

[MWRedskins]

Well if most agree the product was bad AND was losing money at the time, any tv exec. would be a fool to keep that on tv. So, in other words, it wasn't the fault of the executive, but those running WCW. (i.e. Bischoff, Hogan, Russo, et al.)

the company wasnt making as much as they did, but it wasnt like the company was an ECW type company and the fact is they could've sold the company to Bischoff and kept it on their station TNT. WCW in my book died because of who it was sold to, i still believe if WCW was sold to Bischoff and say WCW was given a timeslot on another channel that it would be alive today, just not as great as it was in the past.

 

[akrassikauda]

Here is another myth about the contracts.

Scott Hall
Sting
Goldberg
Keven Nash
Macho Man Randy Savage
Scott Steiner
Hulk Hogan
Ric Flair

all had contracts with AOL/Time Warner. Not WCW. I am sure a lot of other top names went this rout also. Which means WCW didn't foot the bill. AOL/Time Warner did. The talent did this just in case anything happened to the company they would still get paid. Now you know why WWF/E didn't bring these guys in right away because they would not only have to buy those contracts out, but they would have to offer new ones.

So the contracts they had with Turner before the merger had nothing to do with it

Time Warner didn't BUY WCW. They already owned it. WCW was owned by Ted Turner. Ted Turner merged his companies with Time Wanrer and became the majority share holder in Time Warner. WCW fell under the Time Warner umbrella and was under that umbrella for a long time. Then came AOL and AOL merged with Time Warner and Steve Case the CEO of AOL bought out enough shares that he was able to force a buyout of Ted Turner and thus removed Ted Turner from power. Turner was against the AOL / TW merger from the start. Once AOL had control of all of Time Warner they started to look at the divisions of the company. AOL wanted NOTHING to do with pro wrestling and Steve Case ordered WCW to be shutdown and sold off.

WCW going under had nothing to do with WWE, Russo, Hogan, Bischoff. It was AOL who wanted nothing to do with it anymore. Before the AOL/Time Warner merger WCW was in no danger of going under. Ted Turner was 100% behind WCW till the end. He would have never allowed WCW to be sold.

Letting Jericho, Guerrero, Malenko, ****** go was not they're fault. The under utilizing and lack of respect for these wrestlers was not they're fault. Having the NWO run ruff shot was not they're fault as well not giving WCW fans what they wanted on a consistent basis was all AOL's fault. Spoiling Mankind vs Rock was AOL's fault the list is long on the fuck ups by Russo, Hogan and Bischoff and WWE capitalizing on it.

They where in a ratings war.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

So the contracts they had with Turner before the merger had nothing to do with it



Letting Jericho, Guerrero, Malenko, ****** go was not they're fault. The under utilizing and lack of respect for these wrestlers was not they're fault. Having the NWO run ruff shot was not they're fault as well not giving WCW fans what they wanted on a consistent basis was all AOL's fault. Spoiling Mankind vs Rock was AOL's fault the list is long on the fuck ups by Russo, Hogan and Bischoff and WWE capitalizing on it.

They where in a ratings war.

You've got to be completely shitting me, you just censored out Chris Benoit's name, I surely hope that was in jest and sarcasm. Again folks, none of us were around backstage to see what was REALLY going on with WCW, we know they lost money, we know they were owned by a corporate giant, but it just makes me laugh when I see people tie themselves so closely to the fact that WCW lost money but yet no one bothers to acknowledge that WCW was indeed ready to be sold by AOL-TW with the original intention of keeping WCW on the air.

Unfortunately as we found out Jamie Kellner said a no go on the TV deal staying with Turner networks post-Fusient sale. Therefore the deal then failed, but there were intentions to keep WCW on the air despite the money losses and the change in ownership. Like I said to KB earlier, obviously Jamie Kellner overrode the company's original decision to keep WCW on the air post-sale.

I don't understand why so many people want to ignore that fact when this information was published in the New York Times, we are not talking about the National Enquirer, TMZ, or the Wrestling Observer but the New York Times.

It's sad just how many people look at the internet and backstage shenanigans as their gospel for this malarkey, it really is.

 

[MB1025]

So the contracts they had with Turner befpre the merger had nothing to do with it

What are you talking about? They had contracts through Time Warner and not WCW the company. When the merger happened those Time warner contracts turned into AOL/Time Warner contracts. Time Warner fit the bill for guys like Hart, Hogan, and everyone I mentioned. All those contracts rolled over to AOL/Time Warner contracts. Which means those 7 figure contracts and maybe some 6 figure contracts were not in WCW's books, but in AOL/Time Warner's books.

 

[klunderbunker]

You've got to be completely shitting me, you just censored out Chris Benoit's name, I surely hope that was in jest and sarcasm. Again folks, none of us were around backstage to see what was REALLY going on with WCW, we know they lost money, we know they were owned by a corporate giant, but it just makes me laugh when I see people tie themselves so closely to the fact that WCW lost money but yet no one bothers to acknowledge that WCW was indeed ready to be sold by AOL-TW with the original intention of keeping WCW on the air.

Unfortunately as we found out Jamie Kellner said a no go on the TV deal staying with Turner networks post-Fusient sale. Therefore the deal then failed, but there were intentions to keep WCW on the air despite the money losses and the change in ownership. Like I said to KB earlier, obviously Jamie Kellner overrode the company's original decision to keep WCW on the air post-sale.

I don't understand why so many people want to ignore that fact when this information was published in the New York Times, we are not talking about the National Enquirer, TMZ, or the Wrestling Observer but the New York Times.

It's sad just how many people look at the internet and backstage shenanigans as their gospel for this malarkey, it really is.

The part about Kellner pulling the plug even if the show was supposed to be on WCW doesn't really mean much in the context of this. The whole point of the thread and the original post is that WCW was more or less dead by this point. It might have gone on another few months, but eventually, at let's say another year or so, the company would have folded due to a lack of business. Sponsors would have left and the ratings would have fallen even further. It's like taking a horse out back and shooting it. The horse would have lived, but it would have gotten more and more worthless. That's the point of this whole thread: there was no saving WCW without scrapping the entire time and resetting it, and even then it would have taken a miracle. That's the point.

 

[HollywoodLuthias]

So the contracts they had with Turner before the merger had nothing to do with it



Letting Jericho, Guerrero, Malenko, ****** go was not they're fault. The under utilizing and lack of respect for these wrestlers was not they're fault. Having the NWO run ruff shot was not they're fault as well not giving WCW fans what they wanted on a consistent basis was all AOL's fault. Spoiling Mankind vs Rock was AOL's fault the list is long on the fuck ups by Russo, Hogan and Bischoff and WWE capitalizing on it.

They where in a ratings war.

Jericho, Guerrero, Malenko in wcw did not bring in ratings.Jericho and Guerrero became big years after wcw folded...Storylines had did not bring wcw demise if that was the case wwe would have been shut down years ago

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

The part about Kellner pulling the plug even if the show was supposed to be on WCW doesn't really mean much in the context of this. The whole point of the thread and the original post is that WCW was more or less dead by this point. It might have gone on another few months, but eventually, at let's say another year or so, the company would have folded due to a lack of business. Sponsors would have left and the ratings would have fallen even further. It's like taking a horse out back and shooting it. The horse would have lived, but it would have gotten more and more worthless. That's the point of this whole thread: there was no saving WCW without scrapping the entire time and resetting it, and even then it would have taken a miracle. That's the point.

Again, you can't be certain of that, fact is, there was an opportunity to keep the company running and Turner Networks backed out of the deal when the regime change happened. You or I can't say that for sure how much longer WCW would have lasted, that's only conjecture and speculation, not hard solid fact.

For all we know, WCW might have just gone back to its Southern style "rasslin" format for all we know, again this is me speculating not saying this would have happened for sure. But you don't have any better idea than I do of how WCW would have fared if Fusient bought them. Fusient does have the distinction of being the company that founded Classic Sports and eventually selling to ESPN. What might have happened if the rumors are true is that the company would have been downsized more likely than not and then rebuilt, and who knows what could have happened from there.

Fact is, the one thing we know for certain here, is that Turner Networks chose to end their broadcasting of WCW after originally entering a deal where they would have kept the programming despite selling the company. Anything else that people want to say in regards to backstage decisions and politics and this, that and the other thing is just tugging at anything they can get from the spinning turbines of the tiresome rumor mill.

 

[klunderbunker]

Again, you can't be certain of that, fact is, there was an opportunity to keep the company running and Turner Networks backed out of the deal when the regime change happened. You or I can't say that for sure how much longer WCW would have lasted, that's only conjecture and speculation, not hard solid fact.

For all we know, WCW might have just gone back to its Southern style "rasslin" format for all we know, again this is me speculating not saying this would have happened for sure. But you don't have any better idea than I do of how WCW would have fared if Fusient bought them. Fusient does have the distinction of being the company that founded Classic Sports and eventually selling to ESPN. What might have happened if the rumors are true is that the company would have been downsized more likely than not and then rebuilt, and who knows what could have happened from there.

Fact is, the one thing we know for certain here, is that Turner Networks chose to end their broadcasting of WCW after originally entering a deal where they would have kept the programming despite selling the company. Anything else that people want to say in regards to backstage decisions and politics and this, that and the other thing is just tugging at anything they can get from the spinning turbines of the tiresome rumor mill.

I would certainly think that if they had to change everything about themselves and go back to what they were back int he days of the NWA and all that jazz, that they would have indeed been dead. To change everything about yourselves and lose the identity you've made for yourself would be considered death to me, much like the NWA has died.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

I would certainly think that if they had to change everything about themselves and go back to what they were back int he days of the NWA and all that jazz, that they would have indeed been dead. To change everything about yourselves and lose the identity you've made for yourself would be considered death to me, much like the NWA has died.

It definitely would not have been the same that's for sure, it would have been a huge step back, but it could have still had the potential to exist in one form or another. My personal opinion on the denigration of the product aside, which was not a very high one when you consider the record number of title changes in 2000 alone and use of David Arquette turned me off to the product completely. However JCP/NWA/WCW had a rich history on the Turner Networks and that's the one thing the other NWA affiliates did not have that WCW would have been able to keep is the TV time slot had the original deal gone through. Again the product would have been much different and probably not as glitzy as it used to be, again all speculation.

Again, it would have been hard to think of a WCW without Turner's financial contributions, but they had existed for YEARS without his or AOL-Time Warner's financial contributions as an independent company with the TBS time slot. It very well could have been that way again. But don't get me wrong here, I respect your point and feel you have merit in your stance, it's just that this whole idea of what undid WCW is such a COMPLICATED matter. It's definitely not a cut and dry thing.