The "Broke" Angle

[Spidey Revivey]

My suspension of disbelief is pretty high; I can let my mind trick itself into thinking The Undertaker is a zombie with superpowers, that a small guy can defeat a big man in a legitimate fight. I can try and believe Kane has the powers of Hell at his disposal and that Sandow is a bona fide genius. That works out okay for a show built on entertainment. But there is one angle that makes absolutely no sense every single time they do it.

That angle is the "broke" angle.

WWE has probably seen its fair share of this angle. Hell I remember John "Bradshaw" Layfield running this with Shawn Michaels. And it was as believable then as it is now. Which is to say, not at all. How can we believe for one minute that a superstar of Big Show's caliber (let alone Shawn Michaels), who makes appearances on both shows on a frequent basis, has no money? How does that even happen? The Big Show may not be the biggest moneymaker in the business today, granted, but surely with how often he is around there's no way they could make him appear penniless.

I understand it's suppose to make for a better story. But this is about a guy who has been around with the company for a very long time. Even your average fan can figure out he is making money just by being there.

I think this is a ridiculous angle that has ran its course multiple times and doesn't really add anything to the show. A person being buried alive on a wrestling show is more believable than this.

Your thoughts?

 

[Slash-LN]

It makes even less sense to run an angle like that with the Big Show when not too long ago he had his iron clad contract angle. Are we supposed to forget about that? Are we supposed to think that contract didn't award him a good sum of money?

 

[Ziirox]

I agree. The "broke" angle is about as believable as someone saying ALL of the WWE Divas are excellent in-ring performers.

I think a more believable angle would be that the MacMahon family attorneys found a very noticeable loophole in Show's Iron Clad contract, and that if Show did not go through with their orders, he would be fired on the spot. Being a decade plus veteran in WWE and prominent employee in the company for those years more than likely has it's payoff in the form of several zeros on Big Show's paychecks. Using these VERY likely assumptions, we can all conclude Show probably makes quite a few more dollars than on-screen storylines suggest.

So, yes. This whole storyline smells like poo. It would have made sense to fire Big Show (using a loophole in his "Iron Clad Contract"), but to offer him opportunities to get his contract back by beating down Daniel Bryan week in and week out, and then pulling a Lucy at the last minute (Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown for those uncultured swines who may not know what I'm referencing). Making Show struggle but keep stringing him along would have been the better booking option here.

 

[The Scarred One]

I'm certainly not feeling this angle. I'm willing to suspend belief for a lot of things in wrestling, but the idea of a near 20-year veteran, especially a 7-foot-tall giant of one, being flat broke is somewhat hard to swallow. The Big Show is someone that could make a ton of money just by his very presence. Now if it was someone like Ric Flair, who is known to have had money problems, than it would work because it would believable.

Personally, I think they wasted the opportunity on the Big Show when they could've had someone else in his place who needed the push more. The Big Show doesn't need a storyline like this to get over as a face. I think this storyline would've been perfect for the Miz. It doesn't have to be about his financial status, but more about job security. The storyline has made it clear that Triple H would fire someone just because he can. So let's say the Miz made himself stand out as a target by running his mouth like he always does. The Miz has been struggling to stay consistently over as a face. So if he was to finally say he had enough and laid out Randy Orton for Daniel Bryan to reclaim the WWE Championship, it would really boost him as a face.

 

[Jerichoholic8894]

It's not even the "Broke angle"

It's running the "broke" angle on a guy who signed a "Iron Clad" contract within a year ago.

Vince McMahon must think we're dumber than shit, or he doesn't remember Big Show had an iron clad contract. There's no median on that.

No angle will ever be worse than Katie Vick, nor Eddie and Rey feuding over Rey's son. Those two angles are as bad as it gets. But then the Broke angle is right behind it.

Want to make a "broke" angle seem real? Pick a superstar like like The Miz, and say he lost all his money due to investing in his own career after WreslteMania 28, that would be believable because he hasn't done shit since Mania 28.

But don't tell me Big Show is as broke as Quincy Carter, because I won't even second guess the falseness in that storyline.

 

[That Zon Kid]

Big Show has a net worth of 20 million. I think he's doing okay

 

[That Zon Kid]

Then again most of WWE's fanbase is 5 year olds so I guess they would believe it

 

[Tastycles]

Ric Flair is one of the biggest names in the history of wrestling, and was still an active competitor until 5 years ago. He's also legitimately failed to maintain control of his finances. It is not that hard to believe that any wrestler would be reckless with their money. This is why many of them go on far longer than they ought to.

 

[lil bitch Kid]

Big Show has a net worth of 20 million. I think he's doing okay

Ok, so, first, it's not real, Fan Boy.

Now, if they would have at least explained it by saying that he's broke because he was out injured for so long, they could have do e two things: 1) explain his lack of cash; 2) Advanced the idea that the bosses are evil. Of course in the real world we know that the E still pays down sides when guys are hurt, but the angle could have played out that it's "not good for business" to pay a guy who's not bringing in business.

 

[faltemer]

Really? This is where it becomes too much? This?

Ignoring the fact of all the former WWE/WCW stars who are now broke, or any sport for that matter. How for a second is this less believable then anything undertaker/kane do. Or anyone the size of punk even remotely being able to stand up to someone like show or Mark Henry. I think peoples problem with this angle, come form who the angle is aimed at. They dont like Show, so they say they cant for a second believe it. There are hundreds of things less believable then this angle.

 

[Klown_Karnage]

I do have some problems with the "broke" angle, at least in the Big Show's case, but not in every one. It is fully possible for someone to be making big appearances and still be broke for most of the time.

Rick Flair is a good example, but that largely comes from paying...oh I don't even know how many alimonies he's up to by this time. No personal experience there, but I can only guess that they will add up to a huge amount. I would have thought Flair would have packed it in permanently and rested on his laurels, but it's my guess that it's the alimonies that keep him working. While we're at it, we can throw in the Hulkster in this category as well. Again, this is only my guess from the various "reports" I get as a fan. I could be totally wrong. This at least could be one justification for a "broke" story.

With Shawn, at least they gave a half-way plausible explanation. He was foolish with his money, gave away any and all to fair-weather friends who had no intention of paying him back, etc.

This explanation doesn't really work where Big Show is concerned, especially with no explanation to that effect. We are pretty much being told "Big Show is broke because we say he's broke! Don't question us!" It's not really an unbelievable story, it's simply presented sloppily. Sort of a "band-aid" over the "iron-clad contract" which WWE creative didn't think through well enough in advance and so is trying (half-heartedly) to come up with something to explain away why they can still mess with him.

So, in conclusion, while I can see the "broke" angle working, I agree that it doesn't work with Show.

 

[EastCoastFan]

It's possible, the most famous case in point being Ric Flair. He was a huge draw in his prime, but three messy divorces and living a jet-set lifestyle combined with bad business decisions drained his bank account.

Hulk Hogan was the biggest-drawing and highest-paid wrestler ever, but a messy and expensive divorce gave most of his money to his now ex-wife.

William Regal isn't broke, but he doesn't have as much money as you'd think thanks to the medical bills from his heart surgery in 2003. This may be why WWE is now making superstars get their own health insurance.

Drugs will also drain your money. Pro wrestling's dark side is notoriously filled with drugs, prescription or otherwise.

In 1995, the WWF did an angle where Nikolai Volkoff (who'd been inactive for a few years prior) admitted he was broke, and sold himself out to Ted DiBiase. Also in the 1990's, WCW did an angle where Diamond Dallas Page wound up broke.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Ric Flair is one of the biggest names in the history of wrestling, and was still an active competitor until 5 years ago. He's also legitimately failed to maintain control of his finances. It is not that hard to believe that any wrestler would be reckless with their money. This is why many of them go on far longer than they ought to.

This is an excellent point. Hulk Hogan is also another huge name who was extremely wealthy. Around a decade or so ago, he was worth tens of millions of dollars. Today, he's worth about $5 million. That's still a huge sum of money to any reasonably normal person, but he's lost a lot of money in business ventures that went belly up, investing millions in an attempt to buy his daughter a successful career as a recording artist and a divorce in which his wife Linda took in excess of 70% of his assets totaling somewhere around $30 million in property, vehicles and money.

If you're really able & willing to suspend disbelief, this angle isn't at all difficult to buy into. Due to circumstances like the economy taking a nosedive in 2008, the Bernie Madoff scandal and various other times I've heard about Wall Street masters of the universe fucking people over, I've read & heard about any number of hard luck stories in which people have lost everything due to bad investments, having been cheated by stockbrokers, tax issues, loans being called in, etc. Show "losing his money" via bad investments & business ventures isn't unbelievable at all. It probably happens to someone, somewhere every day of the week.

As for an "iron clad contract", it's true that it's a logic hole. Logic holes are abound in pro wrestling storylines. But, at the same time, that was pretty close to 1.5 years ago. You can't plan & write storylines for 18 months down the road without being able to predict the future 100% accurately. Is there a 100% foolproof way to get around the logic hole? Not really. All Triple H would have to do, however, is say that WWE attorneys had managed to find some sort of corporate, legal loophole that allows for Big Show's termination if he doesn't "perform his duties" exactly as instructed by WWE executives. For all intents & purposes, that's pretty much what they've done. If I remember correctly, Stephanie said something along those lines the night she aired Show's "dirty laundry" in public.

 

[Summersox]

Surely the easiest way to go down this route would have been to say 'Big Show asked to renegotiate his contract to increase his earnings but gave up some of the rights he previously had including that he can't be fired.'

 

[HellBoundPower]

What's even more ludicrous than Big Show being broke was Stephanie McMahon claiming that Big Show gave her advice and was backstage with her as a 12 year old girl! Big Show is only 4 1/2 years older than her, and he didn't even show up in the WWF until 1999, when Steph was 22. I think that's an even bigger insult to our intelligence than the "broke" angle. The whole angle in general is just stupid in my opinion. Everything about it. Big Show was just a heel a few months ago, and now he has a heart and is friends with Daniel Bryan? WWE must really think the fans are dumb.

 

[tonykegger]

I'll admit I wondered if Big Show was really broke. I feel that Big Show is a big enough star that he shouldn't have to work a full-time schedule at his age and I wondered if he was working full-time because he needed the money. Wrestlers can go broke and I'm sure they make less money than we think they do.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Really? This is where it becomes too much? This?

I'll explain.

Ignoring the fact of all the former WWE/WCW stars who are now broke, or any sport for that matter.

Name one active superstar that appears on a televised program as often as Big Show has, and are broke.

Ric Flair shouldn't count because Ric Flair is notorious for losing money; whether he's paying multiple alimonies or just recklessly spending, he is infamous for it and is not a viable reason to think a "broke" angle is logical.

How for a second is this less believable then anything undertaker/kane do.

It's not just about believability. It's also about entertainment. Undertaker and Kane are entertaining as boogeymen; broke Superstars aren't.

Or anyone the size of punk even remotely being able to stand up to someone like show or Mark Henry.

Underdogs win all the time. Don't you ever watch Youtube bully vids?

I think peoples problem with this angle, come form who the angle is aimed at. They dont like Show, so they say they cant for a second believe it. There are hundreds of things less believable then this angle.

It's not because they don't like Big Show. I happen to like Big Show a lot. It's about how long he has been in the business, that he has been billed "THE LARGEST ATHLETE IN SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT" and has barely been out of the WWE picture since debuting in 1999...that it's really a slap to the face of every wrestling fan to think someone who has worked regularly with a company could possibly be broke.

And to be broke "from no apparent reason". Seriously, Triple H probably ad-libbed that shit in because they are desperately trying to find a reason for Big Show to listen to them. Think about it.

The "iron-clad" contract is another factor in how ridiculous this angle is, but everyone that has already mentioned it has explained it enough. The Big Show should have nothing to fear from Triple H and his posse, can't possibly be fired if they are using continuity, and being broke at this point is much less believable than a zombie wrestler.

 

[BigSam]

The broke angle is ridiculous, big show crying is bloody stupid more stupid then the BE A * BULLY CAMPAIN, (rybacK)

how does a 7ft 500pound giant start crying all of a sudden when this time last year he was one of the most dominant heels in the WWE? HOW? WHY? its fricken stupid

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Terrell Owens, Ric Flair, and Antwan Walker just called - they wanted to know if I'd give them some cash for their last shred of dignity.

Active and retired athletes go broke. It happens. Just because you are making tons of money doesn't mean you aren't spending, investing, losing, giving away more than what you bring in. Imagine Show's grocery bill.

Plus, didn't Steph explain he made some poor financial choices and gave a lot away. I get it if you are not enjoying this angle but failing to suspend disbelief with this one is silly when WWE is constantly defying logic and explanation on a regular basis.

 

[jdman12]

Hi im pretty sure Stephanie explained that Big show lost his money because of bad investing in the 2008 stock market turndown.

 

[shalliin]

My suspension of disbelief is pretty high; I can let my mind trick itself into thinking The Undertaker is a zombie with superpowers, that a small guy can defeat a big man in a legitimate fight. I can try and believe Kane has the powers of Hell at his disposal and that Sandow is a bona fide genius. That works out okay for a show built on entertainment. But there is one angle that makes absolutely no sense every single time they do it.

That angle is the "broke" angle.

WWE has probably seen its fair share of this angle. Hell I remember John "Bradshaw" Layfield running this with Shawn Michaels. And it was as believable then as it is now. Which is to say, not at all. How can we believe for one minute that a superstar of Big Show's caliber (let alone Shawn Michaels), who makes appearances on both shows on a frequent basis, has no money? How does that even happen? The Big Show may not be the biggest moneymaker in the business today, granted, but surely with how often he is around there's no way they could make him appear penniless.

I understand it's suppose to make for a better story. But this is about a guy who has been around with the company for a very long time. Even your average fan can figure out he is making money just by being there.

I think this is a ridiculous angle that has ran its course multiple times and doesn't really add anything to the show. A person being buried alive on a wrestling show is more believable than this.

Your thoughts?

It doesn't work for some athletes, but it is a legimitate angle to explore. Every should know by know the story of many many athletes and entertainers who squandered millions away. MC Hammer, Mike Tyson to name two, and within wrestling itself, just look at Ric Flair. He should have made enough to retire on and live his life comfortably by 1995 at the latest, yet his free spending and bad marriages mean he's worked the last what, 20 years to pay off debts he's owed to his ex wifes and such. Even George Carlin, one of the funniest men to ever live spent almost 20 years paying off back taxes to the IRS from his manager's stealing from him. HE had only finished paying off a couple of years before he died. SO an athlete going broke even while working continously is a possible and potentially believable story line.
For me, it's the way they've outed the story and showcased it that has caused me issues. It should have been introduced in a more natural way. Maybe some vignettes of show having trouble traveling, you know, coach instead of 1st class flights, lower budget rental cars that kind of thing. Sharing hotel rooms, the kind of stuff most of them already do to save money. Then make the announcement or alternatively, blackmail him with it. Don't actually reveal it, but use it to make him do what you want and have people wondering why he's listening and exactly what it is that they have on him that makes him obey them. That would have made it work much better.
As for the ironclad contract thing, wrestling has a short memory for such, and that story line was 2 or 3 years ago and frankly, has nothing to do with if he mismanaged his money. That contract could have expired and he had to sign a new contract that didn't include such a clause. So I have no problems there either.

 

[mral82]

As far as the So Called "IRON CLAD CONTRACT" it has been brought up by The Corporation as they said something bout it. As far as the broke thing is concerned if interesting as Wreslters squander the money away back then when their were no wellness policies in effect as that's why alot of guys from the 90's are dead cause they spend it all on Booze, Drugs, and Women. So they could mean he's "Broke" casue w/o the WWE paying his bills he has nothing on his own. I don't know other than that. Plus the "Broke" Angle is another recycled Storyline.

 

[berlinbrawler]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the "broke angle."

I mean, like you said, we accept that the Undertaker is a superpowered zombie. Why is that acceptable, but when they're saying "This guy made some bad investments and lost his savings" we go "Nah, totally unrealistic!" ?

The only dumb thing about all this is the whole Iron Clad Contract thing, which is a total 100% contradiction to all that is going on with Big Show right now.

That being said - it's a television show and far from the first time the WWE went "Never mind, please disregard history, we're trying something else." OK. Whateverrrrr.
I have a much, much bigger problem with the WWE staging a dance off between R-Truth, Fandango, Great Khali and the Miz and wasting 15 minutes of my life.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

Actually, as a long time fan - I actually like the "broke" angle. Five years ago when they ran the angle with HBK; it was fresh and new. And after 5 years I think it is okay to bring it up again. I understand the mis-givings though...
For example - in 2008 it was entirely feasible people could have lost a lot of their wealth. Even the Hollywood superstar Kevin Bacon lost everything he had.
It would have made sense then.

If they had taken care of the minor details- it would have made sense again this time with Big Show.

After all the most popular characters and storylines are ones where the viewers can relate to someone on the shows- and a lot of people have lost a lot since 2008 in the real world. For that reason I would be in favour of this storyline.

 

[#tamale]

Ric Flair is one of the biggest names in the history of wrestling, and was still an active competitor until 5 years ago. He's also legitimately failed to maintain control of his finances. It is not that hard to believe that any wrestler would be reckless with their money. This is why many of them go on far longer than they ought to.

This is the best point in the whole thread.

I think people are confusing being broke with being poor. It has been stated in this thread. How many athletes/entertainers make millions but because of poor decisions lose everything? Michael Jackson was someone who earned hundreds of millions of dollars yet was broke by the end of his career.

It's not hard to suspend disbelief. If you make monetary mistakes you are going to lose. That's what Stephanie said (which people are forgetting). Big Show made bad investment decisions and lost all his money.