Legends with JBL - Eric Bischoff

[justinept]

For starters, I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy the entire concept of this show since I love hearing about legends discuss their personal history in the business. I love most WWE podcasts for the same reason. Bur I want to discuss the Eric Bischoff interview here...

I think history has been very kind to Bischoff - much kinder than it will ever be to Vince Russo. Perhaps it's because Bischoff comes off as a bit more humble or because his version of events seem mostly logical... perhaps it's because Bischoff struck up a better relationship with Vince McMahon in the post-WCW world, and thus, McMahon is more willing to paint Bischoff in a better light than he does with Russo. Whatever the reason, I always find it curious that no one calls Bischoff on the one major inconsistency with his "downfall of WCW" story.

1) Bischoff says that the higher-ups at Turner wanted WCW to fail. They never wanted it on the books. As Turner was losing control of his company, the higher-ups saw it as the perfect opportunity to undercut Bischoff by firing him, thus putting them in a position to kill the company.

2) Bischoff says that the higher-ups at Turner were sold a 'bag of goods' by Russo who used his charm to convince those in charge that he was responsible for the WWE's success.

He often times uses both these statements in the same interview (he did so on Legends with JBL." But they don't add up. If the higher-ups at Turner were trying to sabotage the company by getting rid of Bischoff, then why would they bring in a guy like Russo, who, as Bischoff puts it, tricked these people into thinking he was responsible for the most profitable wrestling product of all time?

Which one do you buy? 'Cause honestly, it can't be both. Either the Turner higher-ups trying to kill WCW... or they hired Russo in a desperate attempt to save it.

 

[Xpyred013]

I haven't seen the legends thing with Bischoff yet, but maybe he meant that Turner was going to end WCW but gave it one last shot and Russo came and sold them a bright future. Once they saw that he couldn't deliver, they pulled the plug and definitely wanted it over.

 

[UFOcalling]

I think it could have been both. There were probably so many different things being told to so many different people at the time that it kind of makes sense both ways. I know, that's a cop-out...so if I'm forced to pick one or the other, I'd say that I believe Eric when he said that once Turner lost all his "power" over WCW, they were looking to drive a stake in WCW's heart ASAP...but I don't think those same people were in charge of hiring Vinny Roo. Does that make sense? Maybe I'm not answering the question the way you want it answered.

The part that gets me the most about the JBL/Bischoff interview is The Bash at the Beach 2000 story. I don't know why, but Russo's story seems more believable to me. It's not because I believe Hogan is/was an egomaniac (even though I do), but I guess it had more to do with Bischoff just glossing over the whole story in 30 seconds or less - then wrapping it up by calling Russo "a liar". Again, I just find Russo's story (with his detailed analysis of his conversations with Jarrett & Hogan) to be more believable. I know "everyone" in wrestling is a liar...so maybe there are elements of truth in both stories, but again - Russo's just seems so much more feasible than Bischoff's.

 

[kingtrojan]

I think it could have been both. There were probably so many different things being told to so many different people at the time that it kind of makes sense both ways. I know, that's a cop-out...so if I'm forced to pick one or the other, I'd say that I believe Eric when he said that once Turner lost all his "power" over WCW, they were looking to drive a stake in WCW's heart ASAP...but I don't think those same people were in charge of hiring Vinny Roo. Does that make sense? Maybe I'm not answering the question the way you want it answered.

The part that gets me the most about the JBL/Bischoff interview is The Bash at the Beach 2000 story. I don't know why, but Russo's story seems more believable to me. It's not because I believe Hogan is/was an egomaniac (even though I do), but I guess it had more to do with Bischoff just glossing over the whole story in 30 seconds or less - then wrapping it up by calling Russo "a liar". Again, I just find Russo's story (with his detailed analysis of his conversations with Jarrett & Hogan) to be more believable. I know "everyone" in wrestling is a liar...so maybe there are elements of truth in both stories, but again - Russo's just seems so much more feasible than Bischoff's.

Like with most stories the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, I always figured they probably agreed to have Russo go out and tear them apart but he probably went to far in their minds so Hogan ended up suing

 

[New Hot Fed]

It's more like the executives didn't care much for wrestling and cause of this made life difficult for WCW and Bischoff. But since it was part of their company, they wanted to make it work and not lose money.

Funny thing is, if it was up to them, maybe WCW would still exist today cause again their job was for everything they had control of to be successful. And it's Bischoff really that put into their heads that WCW could be sold. And that lead to them getting rid of it. But it's EB really in 2000 when he realised that his relationship with Russo would never work that WCW would have to leave Time Warner to flourish. He wanted to buy it and made an offer to them.

This was the spark that made them think that since it was such a problem, that they were losing so much money and they never cared for it to begin with that they could actually get rid of "this lowly wrestling". Refusing to even show it again on the Turner networks was really a detail. It's funny how Bischoff thought he would buy WCW from them and with them still allowing wrestling to be shown on their TV. When they decided to sell, they wanted nothing to do with wrestling anymore.

But if not for Bischoff and him offering to buy WCW, once the Russo/Bischoff WCW 2000 era would have been gone, Time Warner would probably have never think of selling and they would just have hired someone else as the new wrestling boss. And maybe things would have gotten better, who knows.

Bischoff could have been WCW's savior but in truth, without wanting it, was responsible for its Death.

 

[aaronmb]

I just watched it too and really enjoyed it. As far as BATB, when you watch Russo's shoot interview where he explains it, it makes so much sense. Russo, Hogan, and Bischoff were in on it, and Russo said he'd call Hogan the next day, to figure out what to do next. But, Brad Siegel(who was the boss and hated wrestling) told him not to call him, as he didnt want to pay Hogan. So since Russo didnt call him, Hogan thought that Russo one upped him.
With as bad as wcw was at that time, it's kind of ironic how it was the highest rated show on TNT.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I get how AOL didn't want WCW anymore, even if it was making lots of money.

This happens all the time. Many TV stations, especially reluctantly invest in shows they hate because the audience likes it, so, since they are making money, they stick with it, but the moment the ratings sag, instead of making changes to save the show, they let it die instead.

This happened in TV folklore when the head of a TV station axed "Gilligan's Island", even though it still rated well, because he wanted to use the slot to bring back his favorite show "Gunsmoke", even though had been axed because of poor ratings. This happens all the time, where the station has some influence of what shows they will get behind (this is why we have so many reality shows. Because they are cheaper to make, and product placement can be used, rather than making expensive drama or comedy).

Maybe Russo got hired, because they saw through Russo, and knew he was a loose cannon who would sink WCW. Also, they may have got Russo, hoping that it would weaken "Raw". They may have stuck with it while it was beating WWE in the ratings, but when it was rating poorly, they let it die.

Also, Ted Turner was behind WCW all along, but he got pushed out.

 

[rmp0012002]

When AOL came in Turner was done and nothing more than a figurehead, which he kind of had been for a while. I don't know if AOL/TW didn't want wrestling or that was an excuse to take off a lagging product but they didn't help their cause by wanting a PG product while WWE was doing the Attitude Era. I still believe if WCW was not hemorrhaging money and pulling in the $40m a year they were just a couple years before that AOL would have kept them on TV or at least sold it at a good profit.

 

[Wald]

The easy answer to this is that it was the AOL/Time Warner merger that really caused the end of WCW and that that happened in January, 2000, a few months after Russo had been brought in as head of creative.

Why Bischoff brings up Russo's bright lights story is that I'm sure Russo told WCW that he was the brains behind the numbers WWF were pulling in the summer of 1999 (people like Flair have also said this) and that he could get them those numbers. Instead the ratings started to fall pretty dramatically and that could have caused a lot of the Time Warner people to not really go to bat for WCW against the AOL people.