KB Busts Up Another Myth: What Killed WCW

[klunderbunker]

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.

What I'm saying boils down to this: I've seen a lot of people here that seem to think that WCW died because one guy one day said "wrestling sucks and it's not airing here anymore." and that's it. That's what killed WCW. That theory obviously makes no sense so I was pointing out that the company was in peril already and needed some kind of saving. What Kellner did was say this company is beyond help and axed it from his network. No one else wanted it and the company went out of business. In short, it wasn't one thing that killed WCW on one day after a merger. This series of events had started years ago and was out of anyone's control when the plug was finally pulled.

 

[WWEIsLife2]

I think this is a good debate here and sometimes I do wonder why the Deal to sell to Bischoff fell through other than selling it to Vince. That being said I do think the AOL/Time Warner merger was the major factor in WCW's demise overall. Yes Russo coming in really put the final nail in the coffin but as KB pointed out the 1998 article WCW's demise started before the merger.

Even after Starrcade 1997 when Sting won the Title from Hogan the Nitro Ratings were still strong but by 1998 the cracks were starting to show a little bit. The nWo was still there,nothing had changed after Sting won the Title,Hogan was still the top Heel in the Company,and no New Stars were being made. Plus they vacated the Title by Superbrawl 1998 with a Sting/Hogan rematch which I think ended in a schmozz as well.

Other than Goldberg WCW did not create any New Stars and kept pushing the same people like Hogan,Nash,Macho Man,and Sting into the Title picture while the WWF/E was doing the opposite and doing New things. If i remember Bischoff was sent home in September 1999 and they brought in Russo in October to turn it around. That didn't work and brought Eric back but again nothing changed.

The Nitro/Thunder Ratings were still decent but were getting killed by RAW & Smackdown. Attendance dropped big time for TV/PPV and even House Shows then started losing money hand over fist. Plus they even gave David Arquette and Vince Russo the World Title from crying out loud,I mean what did that say about WCW by the end. So there were alot of contributing factors to WCW's demise I think not just the AOL merger,that was just the final bullet for them.

Also I do like Recapping the WCW Shows on a little website called TheHistoryOfWWE.com (for anyone who knows about that Site,its awesome) and I like watching all the Past Shows online anywhere I can find them.

 

[Dalek Rising]

Here's a question that can add to this debate. If the Aol-Warner merger would have never happened, would WCW still be dead? Would Jamie Kellner ever have gotten into the position to completely cancel WCW? Would Bishoff been able to turn WCW around? Would WCW been given the time for such a turn around?

Let's also not forget that after 9/11, there was a recession that cost many companies' huge amount of dollars, so, if WCW was still around and losing a million per week, would they have been cancelled and sold to WWE anyway?

Yes, the product was crap. Yes, they were losing money. Yes, the ratings were low, but, still one of the highest on that network. But, if the merger never happened, would they ever have had a chance to turn things around?

Well, there is one simple answer, because of the merger and subsequent sell to WWE, they never even had a chance to turn it all around, so, therefor, in my humblest of opinions, the merger did effectively kill WCW.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

What I'm saying boils down to this: I've seen a lot of people here that seem to think that WCW died because one guy one day said "wrestling sucks and it's not airing here anymore." and that's it. That's what killed WCW. That theory obviously makes no sense so I was pointing out that the company was in peril already and needed some kind of saving. What Kellner did was say this company is beyond help and axed it from his network. No one else wanted it and the company went out of business. In short, it wasn't one thing that killed WCW on one day after a merger. This series of events had started years ago and was out of anyone's control when the plug was finally pulled.

KB, that works just fine for me boss, at least we both can agree that there was a HUGE number of factors and not just one, I just stand by what I said being the killing blow, but there was no doubt that there was so much going against the company already.

Good input on your part man, I appreciate it.

 

[MB1025]

What I'm saying boils down to this: I've seen a lot of people here that seem to think that WCW died because one guy one day said "wrestling sucks and it's not airing here anymore." and that's it. That's what killed WCW. That theory obviously makes no sense so I was pointing out that the company was in peril already and needed some kind of saving. What Kellner did was say this company is beyond help and axed it from his network. No one else wanted it and the company went out of business. In short, it wasn't one thing that killed WCW on one day after a merger. This series of events had started years ago and was out of anyone's control when the plug was finally pulled.

Then you also have to put into account that even in 1997 in one of their best years standards and practices where all ready getting involved in what can and can't be shown TV. Russo, Ferrara, Sullivan, and Bischoff all talk about this. Interviews. You can take this ad them not trying to take the blame, but lets be realistic here. When they were on top of the mountain with a large gap they were already being told what they can and can not do on a daily basis when this was the case a year prior. 2 years later a merger happens that doesn't want WCW at all on its station. they are also not making money. How bad do you think the butting in of corporate people became?

I still stick to my guns that the merger was the number reason for the demise. They hadn't even gone a full year of losing money when AOL stepped in in 1999. The deal was in place in the fall of 1999 and the announcement came in January or February of 2000. Once they stepped in, got involved, WCW loast 80 million dollars.

 

[Megadeth]

I feel like the thing being over looked here is that the merger is a big part of the reason why WCW started becoming so bad. Before WCW became so successful, most Time Warner exec's just viewed it as Ted Turner's little side project and for the most part ignored it. Then suddenly when they started making millions of dollars in profit, and with the merger upcoming, the execs who new pretty much nothing about wrestling decided they wanted to start getting involved. I am not saying that they were deliberately trying to kill WCW, but they felt since it was making so much money that they could no longer just let it run wild so to speak. So basically they went from letting Bischoff have pretty much full reign, to wanting to start to micro-manage everything WCW did. Right during the middle of the attitude era, the Time Warner execs decided they wanted WCW to become more "family friendly." They started giving WCW notes on what they could and could not do, where as before they never had to ask for permission to do anything really. Not to mention that with the restructuring of Time Warner to prepare for the merger, the management that was over the WCW division changed multiple times over the last few years. And that trickled down into who was actually running WCW. They went from Bischoff to Russo, back to Bischoff, then Bischoff and Russo working together, back to Russo, then I think Kevin Sullivan took over booking at some point, Kevin Nash was booker at one point, so with the management constantly changing who was even in charge of writing the shows, it became almost impossible for any long term plans to be put in place, and caused a lot of the problems with the quality of the on air product, which lead to the ratings decline, and the low ticket sales and such.

 

[MetalBuffalo911]

A network cancelling it's highest rated show on the network is unheard of. TNT has not recovered since then.

TNT has recovered since getting rid of WCW. NBA regular season, NBA playoffs, NCAA Tournament, NASCAR, The British Open, the PGA Championship, The Closer is highly rated and was up for awards every single year. TBS as well has baseball and the NCAA Tournament. Believe me, they have recovered from the late WCW.

 

[klunderbunker]

KB, that works just fine for me boss, at least we both can agree that there was a HUGE number of factors and not just one, I just stand by what I said being the killing blow, but there was no doubt that there was so much going against the company already.

Good input on your part man, I appreciate it.

Oh sure there were. Kellner's move did ultimately kill it, but the main gist of this is that had WCW not screwed up everything before that, there's a good chance that A, Kellner wouldn't have killed it or B, someone else would have snatched it up.

 

[shattered dreams]

I'd liken this to a heart attack vs bad eating habits. What killed you? A heart attack. However, over time bad eating habits put you at risk for the heart attack. Did WCW put themselves at risk before the merger? Absolutely. However, they were not dead yet and there was no guarantee that they were going to have that heart attack like kb keeps claiming. I do not know why he keeps trying to sell this no one else wanted them point because it is at best questionable speculation.

The merger put them in an even worse place. As other have shown AOL/TW had reason to need money immediately more than money later. WCW was going to lose money in the short-term but could conceivably turn things around to make much more given some time. Throw in the fact that the company did not want wrestling in their plans long-term and the fit is just about as bad as it could be. Thus, I find it hard to deny the merger's role in killing the company.

 

[Brian in Austin]

I'm still struck by the fact that even though there's lots of room for debate about the demise of WCW, that no one is really extolling the virtues of Bischoff, Russo, and Hogan. If these guys were so great, why let their talent walk out the door?

Hmmmm......

 

[MB1025]

I'm still struck by the fact that even though there's lots of room for debate about the demise of WCW, that no one is really extolling the virtues of Turner Broadcasting having lost the likes of Bischoff, Russo, and Hogan. If these guys were so great, why let their talent walk out the door?

Hmmmm......

How many times do you have to hear that people where involved that had no idea how to run a wrestling company before it sinks in? The people that fired Bischoff are the same people that replaced him with Bill Busch who was an accountant. Now I know you are trying to make this into a TNA sucks comment, but they fired the executive producer of WCW and made an accountant the new executive producer.

I think you have to ask yourself what were so great about the people above Eric Bischoff to be in their positions?

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The problem with WCW was always in reality people bullshitting their way to running the company when they had no business being anywhere near being in charge...and then using hype to stay there... The day Turner took the helm and wanted to build a "panthenon of sports" with his other teams it set the tone... Turner bought out the Crocketts, who did know what they were doing and replaced them with a succession of bean counters or ass clowns like Bill Watts... and signing Argentinian Basketball players and shipping them to WCW when they turned out shit...then Flair was given the book... taking the successes like Ron Simmons and Steve Austin and jobbing them back out to the bigger guys so Flair could beat them and look good himself... Could Ted not have kept Jim Crockett around?

Sorry, I know the guy Watts is a HOF'er but "I want no more of this top rope stuff...they ain't dang acrobats." was the gist of his style... "Oh and by the way, tonight my son is going over you..."Then it was the "Pizza Hut" guy... eventually they were in such a state that Bischoff could pitch the names "Hogan" and "Savage" and Ted would bite, because it couldn't have sunken any lower... when in reality, had he gone in and hired away Bret, Michaels and DiBiase (who was still active) and keeping Austin then they could have done some equally good numbers... but Bischoff sold Ted on Hogan and Hogan sold Eric and over those years it continued...

For a short period, Eric Bischoff did seem to have "it", creatively WCW was fresh... but the ideas quickly ran dry and the NWO just expanded and got bloated... in reality it was the Hogan turn, Vince could have done it and made it even bigger... Even Goldberg was not really a creative triumph but an old buddy of Hogan's who caught on...

Russo comes in... thinking he is the shit behind Vince's success when in reality he was just shit... but again a man with no business running a then billion dollar generating show was given the ball and Eric was gone? Then Nash was running the show and jobbing out the only true success of the entire WCW era out to himself...

Forget the ratings, they were more luck than judgement... any company that over 10 years allows a succession of muppets that Henson would have rejected to blag their way in to running was never going to succeed once people who DID have a clue turned up... like AOL/Time Warner...

WWE has always worked cos there was one, strong guy running it... Vince Sr or Jr... the buck stopped there... Watts blamed the wrestlers not liking him, Frey blamed that he inherited a mess, Bischoff blamed AOL, Russo blamed Hogan... not one of them took responsibility for the fact that they took on a job that ultimately they were ill equipped for and failed in it... THAT is what killed WCW!

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

KB...respectfully. You are wrong.


The ratings that WCW was getting at the time still were at the very top (I believe so, I could be wrong and will be humbled if I am) or at least in the top several spots on the network. The potential to make money was there because the interest was there. If the powers that be at AOL/Time Warner could have gotten some order in the WCW management and budgeted its money more wisely, it would have been ok to continue.

From what I understand, AOL/Time Warner wanted to go in a new direction with it's programming. If you remember, the TNT logo changed around this time, and they started using the slogan "We've Got Drama." Sure, they could have incorporated dramatic things from WCW into its element, but clearly, this was a shift from what standard TNT programming had been up to that point.

Fusient Media backed out when AOL/Time Warner would not give them a television slot in order to be broadcast. This is where I don't understand your point, KB. If Fusient OWNED WCW, then AOL/TW would only have to provide the TV time, and would no longer have to employ the entirety of WCW. It would be all profit for AOL/TW, would it not? Jamie Kellner did not want to be associated with wrestling. If he did, he would have sold WCW to Fusient Media, give them some airtime, pay them a bit of money to be on the network, and then make some money off of television advertising (and he could have sold the advertisement slots at a pretty high price since the ratings were still doing considerably well in comparison to other popular cable shows).

No matter how you slice it, WCW died because Jamie Kellner did not want to let it live on his watch.

 

[klunderbunker]

KB...respectfully. You are wrong.


The ratings that WCW was getting at the time still were at the very top (I believe so, I could be wrong and will be humbled if I am) or at least in the top several spots on the network. The potential to make money was there because the interest was there. If the powers that be at AOL/Time Warner could have gotten some order in the WCW management and budgeted its money more wisely, it would have been ok to continue.

From what I understand, AOL/Time Warner wanted to go in a new direction with it's programming. If you remember, the TNT logo changed around this time, and they started using the slogan "We've Got Drama." Sure, they could have incorporated dramatic things from WCW into its element, but clearly, this was a shift from what standard TNT programming had been up to that point.

Now imagine that the merger happens in say the middle of 97. WCW is profitable, self-sufficient, dominant in its industry and the cool show on cable. My point is this: if WCW had been this successful or even breaking even/matching Raw and drawing solid sponsors, I don't think Kellner would have had any problem with it on his network. Why in the world would you throw away a show/company that is doing well?

That's the point: Kellner got rid of WCW because it stopped being successful. Had it still been successful, it would have survived or at least not been canceled immediately. The stuff WCW did before the merger is what really killed it, not what Kellner did which was just eliminating it after it was already more or less dead..

Fusient Media backed out when AOL/Time Warner would not give them a television slot in order to be broadcast. This is where I don't understand your point, KB. If Fusient OWNED WCW, then AOL/TW would only have to provide the TV time, and would no longer have to employ the entirety of WCW. It would be all profit for AOL/TW, would it not? Jamie Kellner did not want to be associated with wrestling. If he did, he would have sold WCW to Fusient Media, give them some airtime, pay them a bit of money to be on the network, and then make some money off of television advertising (and he could have sold the advertisement slots at a pretty high price since the ratings were still doing considerably well in comparison to other popular cable shows).

No matter how you slice it, WCW died because Jamie Kellner did not want to let it live on his watch.

This is where I disagree.

Flash back to 1997. Nitro is regularly getting high threes with the occasional four (above what Raw is doing now), WCW is dominant in the industry, I'd assume it's one of if not the top show on cable, you have more or less a guaranteed money maker in Starrcade on the horizon, WWF is nowhere to be seen, and more importantly: WCW is making money.

With a cable show making money and more or less operating on its own, what harm was it doing to Turner? None whatsoever. In short Turner left it alone and it gave Turner a nice tidy profit.

Now imagine if the merger happened in 1997. WCW is profitable, standing on its own, dominant in its industry, one of the top shows on cable and most importantly: profitable. Had Kellner taken over then, I think he would have had zero problem with wrestling being on his networks. Why would you get rid of something that is profitable when you have to put in zero extra effort or time or money or resources? That's the point of what I'm saying.

By the time Kellner took over, WCW wasn't profitable, it wasn't number one in its industry, it wasn't one of the top cable shows, and it was bleeding money. Kellner didn't like wrestling and the wrestling was in trouble. If it had been doing well, I think he would have grumbled but let it stick around while making money. When WCW stopped making money, it was thrown off the air and it stopped making money because they screwed up, which is the whole point of this thread: WCW messed up and Kellner ended it.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

This is where I disagree.

Flash back to 1997. Nitro is regularly getting high threes with the occasional four (above what Raw is doing now), WCW is dominant in the industry, I'd assume it's one of if not the top show on cable, you have more or less a guaranteed money maker in Starrcade on the horizon, WWF is nowhere to be seen, and more importantly: WCW is making money.

With a cable show making money and more or less operating on its own, what harm was it doing to Turner? None whatsoever. In short Turner left it alone and it gave Turner a nice tidy profit.

Now imagine if the merger happened in 1997. WCW is profitable, standing on its own, dominant in its industry, one of the top shows on cable and most importantly: profitable. Had Kellner taken over then, I think he would have had zero problem with wrestling being on his networks. Why would you get rid of something that is profitable when you have to put in zero extra effort or time or money or resources? That's the point of what I'm saying.

By the time Kellner took over, WCW wasn't profitable, it wasn't number one in its industry, it wasn't one of the top cable shows, and it was bleeding money. Kellner didn't like wrestling and the wrestling was in trouble. If it had been doing well, I think he would have grumbled but let it stick around while making money. When WCW stopped making money, it was thrown off the air and it stopped making money because they screwed up, which is the whole point of this thread: WCW messed up and Kellner ended it.

If the merger had happened in 1997, then Goldberg would have been at the start of his push, AOL would still have been a top net provider and the whole WWE going out of business could have happened... but in reality, AOL had no plans to merge then, Goldberg could have flopped with that one intervention and if AOL were going to go with someone they would have gone with Vince cos he'd have cut them a hell of a deal...and the IWC as it is would not exist... The merger was more out of necessity as AOL were losing ground and wanted to reinvent... Kellner was the first guy who looked at it and saw the history of bad management and realised that unless he could get Vince... no one out there could have turned it round...

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

But you are really just speculating, KB. To say definitively that this is the reason that Kellner pulled the plug is misguided. Kellner could have still sold WCW back in the day when it was beating Raw, he might have just gotten more money for it.

WCW was NOT dead or dying...I didn't seen anyone taking any paycuts, bro. Kellner decided he did not want to fund it anymore. Whether or not it was a profitable business does not take away from the fact that if Billionaire Ted was still running the show, things might be different in the wrestling landscape today.

 

[klunderbunker]

But you are really just speculating, KB. To say definitively that this is the reason that Kellner pulled the plug is misguided. Kellner could have still sold WCW back in the day when it was beating Raw, he might have just gotten more money for it.

WCW was NOT dead or dying...I didn't seen anyone taking any paycuts, bro. Kellner decided he did not want to fund it anymore. Whether or not it was a profitable business does not take away from the fact that if Billionaire Ted was still running the show, things might be different in the wrestling landscape today.

There's a difference between selling the thing and killing it. Selling would mean it was still alive and AOL/TW celebrates with a very nice profit while WCW lives on. Two different things.

You don't call losing 80 million dollars a year with most of your young guys gone dying? Also, even with Turner still being in charge late into 2000, things were spiraling out of control. No one was going to the shows, no one was watching the show (by comparison to Raw) and the company got worse and worse. I'd certainly call that dying, especailly how far they fell in such a short time. How long do you think they could have kept that up?

 

[X]

Everyone who keeps saying that KB is wrong, PLEASE answer me this: was WCW making a profit? No. If they had been making a profit, is it feasible that Jamie Kellner and AOL/Time Warner would have given them more time before pulling the plug? Yes.

What is so fucking difficult to understand about that? The company was hemorrhaging money like it was going out of style. That's why they got the plug pulled on them. Not the lack of TV show, not the TV ratings, not the product, not Jamie Kellner's opinion of wrestling, not AOL/Time Warner being biased against wrestling, but because they were NOT a profitable company whatsoever. For a company that was already losing money (AOL/Time Warner), that's the bottom line.

Seriously, how can you even argue against this? It's FACT that WCW was losing an unGodly amount of money. Companies that lose a ton of money wind up dead. This is business 101, and it's what happened to WCW.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

There's a difference between selling the thing and killing it. Selling would mean it was still alive and AOL/TW celebrates with a very nice profit while WCW lives on. Two different things.

You don't call losing 80 million dollars a year with most of your young guys gone dying? Also, even with Turner still being in charge late into 2000, things were spiraling out of control. No one was going to the shows, no one was watching the show (by comparison to Raw) and the company got worse and worse. I'd certainly call that dying, especailly how far they fell in such a short time. How long do you think they could have kept that up?

I don't disagree with you in terms of WCW's management being a piece of shit. It is my opinion, however, that it could have been turned around with a new mind in charge. I know they had tried new people in charge, etc, etc, etc. But I believe that as long as Bischoff had been running the show, it only ended in the black ONE year. But Bischoff was in charge for quite a long time.

We are going back and forth, but I think where our opinions ultimately differ are that you think that Kellner pulled the plug because WCW was a shitty business. I think that Kellner pulled the plug because he didn't want to be associated with "rasslin." I proposed scenarios as to where Kellner could have made WCW profitable.

 

[X]

We are going back and forth, but I think where our opinions ultimately differ are that you think that Kellner pulled the plug because WCW was a shitty business. I think that Kellner pulled the plug because he didn't want to be associated with "rasslin." I proposed scenarios as to where Kellner could have made WCW profitable.

But Ricky, do you actually think that Kellner would have pulled the plug on them had they been making them a profit? AOL/Time Warner at the time was losing a lot of money, so ANY division of their company that could bring in a healthy profit would NOT have been sold off, plain and simple.

That's my point here that I don't think you're getting. Had WCW been making 80 million in profit instead of losing 80 million in losses, no way would Kellner have pulled the plug, regardless of whether he wanted to be associated with wrestling or not. Simple as that.

But, they weren't making money. They were losing tons and tons of it. So this gave him all the ammunition he needed to sell the company off.

 

[CleverName51]

Everyone who keeps saying that KB is wrong, PLEASE answer me this: was WCW making a profit? No. If they had been making a profit, is it feasible that Jamie Kellner and AOL/Time Warner would have given them more time before pulling the plug? Yes.

What is so fucking difficult to understand about that? The company was hemorrhaging money like it was going out of style. That's why they got the plug pulled on them. Not the lack of TV show, not the TV ratings, not the product, not Jamie Kellner's opinion of wrestling, not AOL/Time Warner being biased against wrestling, but because they were NOT a profitable company whatsoever. For a company that was already losing money (AOL/Time Warner), that's the bottom line.

Seriously, how can you even argue against this? It's FACT that WCW was losing an unGodly amount of money. Companies that lose a ton of money wind up dead. This is business 101, and it's what happened to WCW.

BOOM! WINNING!

Ratings do NOT equal profits...because you still need to cover your costs.

WCW was so horribly mismanaged (paying guys like Hogan, Hart etc...) that even if they were doing 6.5+ in the ratings, they'd still be losing money.

Think of this way,

Person X sells fruit and Person Y sells coffee

Person Y brings in an income $500 per day, Person X $50, the only problem is, Person X's operating costs are about $25 (seeds, water, ladder to pick fruit) while Person Y needs cups, coffee makers, grinders, cleaning equipment and that all costs $1000 a day to run)

Who's making the profit?



That's why Keller euthanized WcW. Sure it was one of the TBS's TNT's highest rated shows, but it STILL could NOT out draw the cost it took to make it.

That's why TNT shows reruns of Family Guy now every monday from 8p-11p ET in the USA, because guess what, doing a possible 1.5 (making numbers up here) on Family Guy reruns will profit because that rating, and those ads cover the cost of buying the rights to show Family Guy from Fox.

WcW on the other hand, might draw a 2.5-3 in the ratings. (putting it between Raw and SD) but its COST would not be profitable.


I think that's where KB wasn't clear in his explanation, ratings vs cost matters, not just ratings


KB, I believe my explanation here is what you were going for?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

X...the interest for WCW was still there. It had the potential to make AOL/TW the most money out of any asset they had in terms of television. With tweaking of the WCW management, it could have turned a profit once again.

If business 101 applied to WCW, then it would have been dead a minimum of 1 year before it died. Clearly, the rules of business were not being followed.

 

[X]

X...the interest for WCW was still there. It had the potential to make AOL/TW the most money out of any asset they had in terms of television. With tweaking of the WCW management, it could have turned a profit once again.

Potential doesn't pay the bills though Ricky. Yeah, they had potential to be profitable again. That doesn't change the fact that they WEREN'T profitable, and in fact were losing upwards of 80 million per year before they went out of business.

Potential is fine and dandy, but if you have "potential" while losing 80 million dollars, not a lot of companies are going to stick with you.

You seem to be of the opinion that Kellner was unfair for not giving them another shot, right? You're of the opinion that he just didn't want to be associated with wrestling, and you're probably right. But why was he supposed to hold onto this company in the HOPE that it would turn around later?

I think the main issue you and a alot of people have here is because Kellner wasn't willing to lose millions and millions of dollars just to have a wrestling company in existence, like Ted Turner was.

I can't blame Kellner for not sticking around with them, he didn't owe it to WCW or it's fans to keep them around in the hopes that they would turn around business. The facts of the situation is that he had a company losing millions in his hands, and all he wanted to do was get rid of that company to try and help AOL/Time Warner's quartlery losses. They were already losing a lot of money as a company, so selling off another part of that company that was losing them a ton of money makes perfect sense from a business perspective.

Again, it just seems to be like you guys are pissed that Kellner wasn't a rich billionaire who could afford to own a company that loses 80 million dollars a year, like Ted Turner did with WCW for years. It was easier for them and their pocket books just to sell the company off and be done with it, and from a business perspective that was the right thing to do for AOL/Time Warner at the time.

We can't all be Ted Turner, who could basically just burn money in a pile and laugh about it and be fine. Do you get what I'm saying here?

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I think there was a fundemental "non wrestling" agenda... after all, they could have gone right back to Vince after the buy out and said... ok, we'll give you a slot... if YOU run it... and it might have worked... but they chose not to cos they knew that Vince would never give that Key man clause to them... and that in reality the dam had bust and the IWC were going to take a lot of the momentum out of wrestling... and they did... after all the AOL guys had access to all those message boards and sites... they did their research...

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I don't blame Kellner for dropping the company, at all. Let's make that clear. Do I wish WCW would have continued? Hell yes. So, perhaps I am projecting a bit of resentment here. But fiscally he had every right to get rid of WCW. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it was his choice that killed WCW.