AOL/Time Warner Merger: The Last Nail in WCW's Coffin

[therockiswwf]

the only reason WWE couldn't get WCW on TV was because of the deal they had with TNN at the time barring them from airing a wrestling show on directly competing networks

That is not true.

Here is a promo for WCW's return:
https://vimeo.com/74583488

WWE tried to get another show for WCW. Saturday night show which eventually fell apart. Likely fell apart due to the extremely thin roster (Booker, DDP...Lance Storm?), bad timeslot and numerous other reasons. Jim Ross confirmed they were planning to do this:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/03/30/wcw-on-tnn-date-and-time
They accurately point out that it would be unlikely to succeed.

They then thought about it replacing Raw. That fell apart likely due to lack of star power/interest. Booker T vs Buff didn't help but that likely wasn't the sole reason these plans never came to be.

 

[Makaveli31]

It was more profitable for Spike TV to air reruns of cops over TNA. Why? Ad revenue. WWE went PG because big advertisers would not touch them due to the perception (wrestling being dirty) and the income problem. While that hasn't fixed all of their problems, it did help them get a bigger TV contract.

COPS is what they call "cheap programming" it's cheap to produce and it's cheap to buy. Perfect for a small channel like Spike but if you're TNT and you want to compete with the big boys i.e. ESPN and Fox Sports you need live programming and Nitro provided that.

WCW was losing money and ad sales could not make them profitable. Nitro only lasted that long because Ted Turner protected them. His decision to keep Nitro was not a business one. The decision to cancel it was. They could replace it with something that commands top dollar, crossover appeal and wasn't losing a crap ton of money.

By your own admission WCW generated a profit in '96, '97, and '98 and in 1998 they made more money than any wrestling company in history so obviously ad sales were not a problem. The problem was the bloated contracts Bischoff gave out. One guy cannot make 10 million per year etc....when PPV buys and attendance goes down.

WCW was spending way more than they were taking in but they were a drop on the bucket in the Time Warner media conglomerate. Time Warner was involved in media, movies, sports, etc....When AOL merged with Time Warner they became even more insignificant. Turner was completely out of the picture. When the AOL stock dropped from 226 billion to 20 billion they started scrapping EVERYTHING. WCW, the Hawks, the Braves, the Thrashers, Philips Arena, so ad revenue or (lack of) had nothing to do with the sale of WCW.

AOLTW would have to pay WCW a TV contract. That isn't cheap. They were able to hit those demographics when they had big names. They couldn't get those names anymore. It was obvious that their future was not bright.

AOLTW would've had a financial stake in the company so any fee they would have had to pay Fusient would've been reimbursed iwhen WCW came back online. They also would have profited had WCW taken off. How do you know they couldn't get those names anymore? Bischoff had relationships with all the big names. In fact, they probably would've come back for half of what they made in WCW so it would'v saved Fusient a hell of a lot of money.

No, WCW was losing millions and Kellner made a smart business decision. Here is a fun fact. WWE couldn't even get WCW a TV show. WWE was airing Raw, SD, Heat, Livewire, Jakked, Excess, Superstars and Attitude. Not all of those aired worldwide but they couldn't even convince NBC to air Nitro.

Smart business decision? So you have a company you want to sell. You have one company offering 50 million, all they want you to do is keep the status quo. You already have WCW programming on TV. It's not costing you a dime to keep Nitro on air. Another company is offering 2.5 million. You would choose the 2.5?!?? I think you need a economics class.

No but I also don't believe things that are obviously preposterous. Your conspiracy would involve a person purposely losing millions of dollars for zero gain. My theory is based on evidence and logic.

Siegel would not have made or lost any money. It was AOL/Time Warner's money. He would be moved to a different division. He just did his friend a favor.

Actually they wanted to cancel it. Numerous times. Only Ted said no. No one could fight Ted. They didn't want to cancel it when it was raking in money. Once it started losing money, they did. WCW only made a profit in 96, 97 and 98 since 1990. I'm not sure what the situation was like before 1990.

So Ted Turner being forced out of power in the AOL merger led to the death of WCW. Thank you for making my point for me,.

 

[therockiswwf]

COPS is what they call "cheap programming" it's cheap to produce and it's cheap to buy. Perfect for a small channel like Spike but if you're TNT and you want to compete with the big boys i.e. ESPN and Fox Sports you need live programming and Nitro provided that.

I used that as an example to illustrate my point.

By your own admission WCW generated a profit in '96, '97, and '98 and in 1998 they made more money than any wrestling company in history so obviously ad sales were not a problem. The problem was the bloated contracts Bischoff gave out. One guy cannot make 10 million per year etc....when PPV buys and attendance goes down.

You misunderstood again. Ad sales WERE a problem. Just because they made a profit does not mean they had full price ads. Death of WCW book points out that they still would have lost money (can't remember which year specifically, somewhere from 99-01) even if they paid the talent nothing.

WCW was spending way more than they were taking in but they were a drop on the bucket in the Time Warner media conglomerate. Time Warner was involved in media, movies, sports, etc....When AOL merged with Time Warner they became even more insignificant. Turner was completely out of the picture. When the AOL stock dropped from 226 billion to 20 billion they started scrapping EVERYTHING. WCW, the Hawks, the Braves, the Thrashers, Philips Arena, so ad revenue or (lack of) had nothing to do with the sale of WCW.

Ads did have something to do with it. To reboot WCW, they would have to give them a TV contract. WCW would have less stars and was in a extreme downward spiral. They would have to make a multi-year commitment (otherwise why would Fuisent buy them) to something that was bleeding money. To something that doesn't pull in full ad revenue. To something they could replace and actually make money. It would have been risky to invest in WCW's future.

Also WCW lost between $60-$80 million in 2000. I don't give a shit how much AOLTW is making/losing, that is a gigantic red flag and no business person would allow that to continue. Ted did because he had a soft spot and was personally a billionaire.

AOLTW would've had a financial stake in the company so any fee they would have had to pay Fusient would've been reimbursed iwhen WCW came back online. They also would have profited had WCW taken off. How do you know they couldn't get those names anymore? Bischoff had relationships with all the big names. In fact, they probably would've come back for half of what they made in WCW so it would'v saved Fusient a hell of a lot of money.

Nope. They would still have to pay WCW a TV contract. AOLTW offered a 50% buyout to remaining WCW stars after it ended (Hogan, Goldberg, Flair, etc.). They couldn't go to WWE without their contracts ending. DDP was the only one who accepted. He only did because he wanted to retire in WWE and knew he didn't have much time left. So your claim that they would have come back for half is completely asinine. WWE could offer them more once their contracts ended.

Yes, they would have profited if WCW took off. But there was no indication that it would do that anytime soon.

Smart business decision? So you have a company you want to sell. You have one company offering 50 million, all they want you to do is keep the status quo. You already have WCW programming on TV. It's not costing you a dime to keep Nitro on air. Another company is offering 2.5 million. You would choose the 2.5?!?? I think you need a economics class.

Misunderstood once again. They saved money because they didn't need to pay a TV contract. That $50 million would have gone into a TV contract. THAT WOULD COSTS AOLTW MONEY.

This is why I keep saying to dig deeper. You keep looking at the surface level.

Siegel would not have made or lost any money. It was AOL/Time Warner's money. He would be moved to a different division. He just did his friend a favor.

Or he did his fucking job. You think he could just go out and lose $80 million without consequences? You think that any rational company would allow that? Good lord.

So Ted Turner being forced out of power in the AOL merger led to the death of WCW. Thank you for making my point for me,.

WCW died because no business is supposed to lose that much fucking money. Had they been making money, WCW would have survived. Once again, lack of critical thinking skills.

 

[Makaveli31]

You misunderstood again. Ad sales WERE a problem. Just because they made a profit does not mean they had full price ads. Death of WCW book points out that they still would have lost money (can't remember which year specifically, somewhere from 99-01) even if they paid the talent nothing.

And they would've lost money even if they had full priced ads so what's your damn point? OBVIOUSLY ad sales was not the only problem.

Ads did have something to do with it. To reboot WCW, they would have to give them a TV contract. WCW would have less stars and was in a extreme downward spiral. They would have to make a multi-year commitment (otherwise why would Fuisent buy them) to something that was bleeding money. To something that doesn't pull in full ad revenue. To something they could replace and actually make money. It would have been risky to invest in WCW's future.

But a company that just a couple of years ago was making millions of dollars. Let's see I could either sell for a measly 2.5 mil and get nothing or I could invest in a company with the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars? I would take that risk.

Nope. They would still have to pay WCW a TV contract. AOLTW offered a 50% buyout to remaining WCW stars after it ended (Hogan, Goldberg, Flair, etc.). They couldn't go to WWE without their contracts ending. DDP was the only one who accepted. He only did because he wanted to retire in WWE and knew he didn't have much time left. So your claim that they would have come back for half is completely asinine. WWE could offer them more once their contracts ended.

More money for more work. We know how grueling the WWE schedule was/is. The "top stars" simply would have waited till their TW contracts expired then joined Bischoff and Fusient.

Yes, they would have profited if WCW took off. But there was no indication that it would do that anytime soon.

Speculation but the fact is just a few years ago WCW was raking in the profits, we probably would've said the same thing about the WWF in 1996 and look what happened. Making money is all about reward vs risk.

Misunderstood once again. They saved money because they didn't need to pay a TV contract. That $50 million would have gone into a TV contract. THAT WOULD COSTS AOLTW MONEY.

This is why I keep saying to dig deeper. You keep looking at the surface level.

Where do you get that a TV contract costs 50 million?

Or he did his fucking job. You think he could just go out and lose $80 million without consequences? You think that any rational company would allow that? Good lord.

You're an idiot dude. He didn't "lose" it. He rigged it so Fusient pulled out when the shows were cancelled leaving ONLY the WWE.

WCW died because no business is supposed to lose that much fucking money. Had they been making money, WCW would have survived. Once again, lack of critical thinking skills

So bankrupt companies can't make a comeback? Maybe you should look up Apple.

 

[therockiswwf]

There is a long part at the bottom that is VERY interesting.

And they would've lost money even if they had full priced ads so what's your damn point? OBVIOUSLY ad sales was not the only problem.

I KNOW THAT. I'm saying ads were part of the problem and why I would be timid to invest in WCW's future. However we originally got into the discussion about ads because you said WCW was generating huge ad money when they were not. They were drawing way less ad money than comparable products.

But a company that just a couple of years ago was making millions of dollars. Let's see I could either sell for a measly 2.5 mil and get nothing or I could invest in a company with the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars? I would take that risk.

A company that had zero chance to even approach that kind of money in any shape or form for the foreseeable future. Do you honestly believe a company that just lost $80 million was worth investing in? So do I make a $2.5 million profit or do I invest in a company that just lost 80 million fucking dollars.

The only stupid thing about selling WCW instead of keeping it was they didn't even try to profit off DVD sales. Though that would've required a lot of work and they probably didn't think it would be worth it.

More money for more work. We know how grueling the WWE schedule was/is. The "top stars" simply would have waited till their TW contracts expired then joined Bischoff and Fusient.

Because every top star joined TNA right away right? And those top stars that did join TNA made TNA a huge success right? You can understandably say that using TNA isn't a fair comparison. However to assume the big names that actually draw would join a smaller WCW for less money is asinine.

Speculation but the fact is just a few years ago WCW was raking in the profits, we probably would've said the same thing about the WWF in 1996 and look what happened. Making money is all about reward vs risk.

They lost $80 million.

It was obvious WCW was relying on diminishing returns. They also didn't lose 80 fucking million dollars. That last one is kind of important. WWE lost around $6 million then but made a profit immediately the next year. They also didn't lose money in consecutive years. Vince McMahon had a long track record of success while Eric Bischoff had three years and failed twice immediately following those years.

Where do you get that a TV contract costs 50 million?

WWE currently gets $200 million per year from theirs. WWE got around $90 million in 1999 (or 2000). WCW probably was paid in that same ballpark.

You're an idiot dude. He didn't "lose" it. He rigged it so Fusient pulled out when the shows were cancelled leaving ONLY the WWE.

You're saying that it would have been smart to keep a company that had just lost and I can't emphasize this enough, $80 million. Not only that, but they will go in with a weaker roster and a guy who has failed twice (Bischoff). I would have thrown him into a volcano if he kept it.

So bankrupt companies can't make a comeback? Maybe you should look up Apple.

You ever heard of the old saying, exception to the rule? When companies lose almost $100 million, they generally do not survive.

...and holy shit, I just found something very interesting. Fuisent's final offer was actually only $5 million. The rest of that number comes from WCW hitting certain benchmarks. Benchmarks that were probably unrealistic.

It was only four years ago that World Championship Wrestling produced the top-rated show on basic cable and beat its main rival, the World Wresting Federation, on a weekly basis.
And when World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc. acquired WCW from Turner Broadcasting System Inc. in March -- after pounding it into submission in the ratings battle over the last few years -- news reports put the price tag at up to $20 million. That marked a big drop from the reported $75 million that Fusient Media Ventures had offered for WCW during January, in a deal that later fell apart.
As it turns out, the WWF -- which has seen its ratings for fall since it moved to new cable home TNN: The National Network -- only paid a measly $2.5 million for WCW, plus an additional $1.8 million in related costs, the company revealed in a recent earnings report.
That's $4.3 million in total: the same price that Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder Gary Sheffield was seeking for his Tampa home, the exact amount it recently cost to build a new air traffic control tower at Central Illinois Regional Airport, or the cost of a couple of Super Bowl commercials.
How did WCW's value fall from a reported $75 million offer to $4.3 million? The $75 million was a bogus number leaked by Turner executives "to save face," a source familiar with the deal said.
In reality, the source said, Fusient's original WCW offer in January was for $10 million, which included a guarantee that it would be allotted 5 percent of the primetime schedule on Turner Network Television and TBS Superstation for WCW programming.
Fusient agreed to pay up to an additional $65 million in seven years if WCW hit certain benchmarks, including increasing the value of the business to $1 billion, the source added.
Fusient later pulled its offer after it reviewed WCW's books, and made a second offer for WCW, which included no up-front money and an agreement to spend $5 million in advertising on properties owned by AOL Time Warner Inc. (Turner's parent company), a source said. Turner ended up taking WWF's offer.
TBS and Fusient executives declined to comment on the offer. All WWF president Stuart Snyder would say about the bargain price WWF paid for its longtime rival was, "It was the right number for both parties, and we've moved on."

 

[sikkbones]

In 2001 the DVD market was still in its infancy and the reality was the ps2 really pushed the format away from being a niche market for home theater owners.

Wcw was still producing wcw vhs as late as 99, I remember buying Nash's wcw video around then.

Clearly it was a non event in terms of income for them as I do remember ppvs being available for sale...

But expensive... I don't think that wcw ever profited from the home video market in the same way colluseem video/ titansports did.

 

[SSJPhenom]

In lieu of recent posts, I stick to my original and correct thesis; the AOL/Time Warner merger did not kill WCW.....

WCW killed WCW!!

 

[AnthonyM4]

It really did. They were making bad decisions and losing money before the merger. Like I said earlier, wrestling has not been the same since.

You should write an epilogue for wcw.

 

[sikkbones]

It really did. They were making bad decisions and losing money before the merger. Like I said earlier, wrestling has not been the same since.

You should write an epilogue for wcw.

Actually... I think he's got one more in him...

No discussion on the the death of wcw is done without addressing the invasion...

Vince did try for about six seconds to get wcw on one his networks... Plus how badly the invasion failed should be be addressed.

 

[Makaveli31]

And I will stand by my valid point that the merger ultimately killed WCW. The FACT remains that network executives, for well over a decade, had tried in vain to get rid of WCW not because of poor storylines or the fact that it was losing money (as we mentioned losing money .can actually be a good thing for a major corporation if and when the product eventually turns around like WCW did) but because it was considered "low-brow" and " southern" by the Hollywood executives. They wanted hit shows and movies and pro sports not pro wrestling. As repeatedly stayed the ONLY reason WCW stayed in business as long as it did was Ted Turner first as owner of Turner Entertainment, then on the boards of Time Warner and AOL Time Warner but after multiple mergers Turners influence was severely limited. He could not stop the sale to of WCW to the WWE, Fusient or anyone one. Ratings didn't matter, ad revenue didn't matter WCW was going to be sold to the highest bidder. It they were profitable they still would have been sold off due to AOL declining stock price.

So now that we go that settled we now ask the question IF WCW was generating ad revenue (max revenue) why would these executives, who for YEARS had been trying to get WCW off of Turner all of sudden switch gears and do a deal to keep WCW on air? The answer? They wouldn't. It was never in the plans to keep WCW on air no matter what. Ratings, revenue, great or shitty story lines, great or shitty matches. Turner, the lone savior of WCW, had been neutralized. It was no longer his company so with that WCW died. Siegel conspired with Syder to sell to WWE because he knew WWE was not going to put WCW on air. They wanted the video library for their up coming network. That is all there is too it.

 

[therockiswwf]

And I will stand by my valid point that the merger ultimately killed WCW. The FACT remains that network executives, for well over a decade, had tried in vain to get rid of WCW not because of poor storylines or the fact that it was losing money (as we mentioned losing money .can actually be a good thing for a major corporation if and when the product eventually turns around like WCW did) but because it was considered "low-brow" and " southern" by the Hollywood executives.

They wanted to cancel it because it lost money EVERY SINGLE YEAR from at least 90-95 and 99-01. They didn't complain when it was making money (imagine that). It made money for three years then lost almost $100 million. Losing money is never a good thing. Corporations much rather make $100 million than lose it.

I hate that the Kardashians have a TV show. I would want to cancel it if I was in that position...unless it was making money then all of a sudden I would love the Kardashians.

AOLTW killing WCW is like saying they shot WCW after WCW had already fallen off a cliff. WCW was already dead. You are taking the literal cause for their demise and dismissing why they were in that position. WCW put themselves in a position to die.

They wanted hit shows and movies and pro sports not pro wrestling.

WCW wasn't a hit TV show anymore. It was in a downward spiral and seemingly there was no stopping the bleeding. Those ratings were only going to get worse.

As repeatedly stayed the ONLY reason WCW stayed in business as long as it did was Ted Turner first as owner of Turner Entertainment, then on the boards of Time Warner and AOL Time Warner but after multiple mergers Turners influence was severely limited. He could not stop the sale to of WCW to the WWE, Fusient or anyone one. Ratings didn't matter, ad revenue didn't matter WCW was going to be sold to the highest bidder. It they were profitable they still would have been sold off due to AOL declining stock price.

They would not have been sold off if WCW was making money because duh. Unless they could not afford it.

So now that we go that settled we now ask the question IF WCW was generating ad revenue (max revenue) why would these executives, who for YEARS had been trying to get WCW off of Turner all of sudden switch gears and do a deal to keep WCW on air? The answer? They wouldn't.

If? They tried to cancel WCW because it wasn't generating max ad revenue, it was losing shit tons of money and low crossover potential. They eventually succeeded because WCW was losing money and they did what they were supposed to do.

It was never in the plans to keep WCW on air no matter what. Ratings, revenue, great or shitty story lines, great or shitty matches. Turner, the lone savior of WCW, had been neutralized. It was no longer his company so with that WCW died. Siegel conspired with Syder to sell to WWE because he knew WWE was not going to put WCW on air. They wanted the video library for their up coming network. That is all there is too it.

Except WWE offered the most and they wouldn't have to deal with WCW losing money anymore. Fusient's deal wasn't what people thought it was (WCW didn't have a bright future anyways). Who else would buy it? The Network was still years off so I have no idea why you thought WWE wanted it for that.

WCW wasn't in their plans because WCW was losing money. WCW had no future. Simple as that.

You just won't learn.

 

[Makaveli31]

They wanted to cancel it because it lost money EVERY SINGLE YEAR from at least 90-95 and 99-01. They didn't complain when it was making money (imagine that). It made money for three years then lost almost $100 million. Losing money is never a good thing. Corporations much rather make $100 million than lose it.

Wow you are a true and complete moron. The executives from Hollywood movie and the entertainment industry HATED WCW not because it made or lost money they HATED pro wrestling period. They were not wrestling fans, they were not from Jim Crockett promotions, they were executives from Hollywood, California. Why do you think there was so much dissent and tension in the early years at WCW? It was the executives clashing with the bookers.

Bischoff came in and with Harvey Schiller (head of Turner Sports) was able to serve as a buffer between the bookers and executives but I will bet you ANY amount of money, the executives at Turner would've sold WCW in a heartbeat even when they were making money. It was never about dollars with these guys, they were getting paid reagrdless of whether WCW made or lost money, they hated having pro wrestling on their station. If you listen to ANY interview with Bsichoff or even Russo they said they were in a constant battle with the executives who wanted to see WCW fail and kill it off even it's best days.

AOLTW killing WCW is like saying they shot WCW after WCW had already fallen off a cliff. WCW was already dead. You are taking the literal cause for their demise and dismissing why they were in that position. WCW put themselves in a position to die.

It's simple. If Ted Turner was still in charge WCW would've lived on. What made it possible to kill off WCW was the merger and Turner's inability to save it. You could've said the same thing about WCW in 1993 about how they were "dead" the key difference is Ted Turner and his position of power.

WCW wasn't a hit TV show anymore. It was in a downward spiral and seemingly there was no stopping the bleeding. Those ratings were only going to get worse.

Again, they wanted movies. These were Hollywood executives. They could give a rat's ass about WCW. Whether it made money or not.

They would not have been sold off if WCW was making money because duh. Unless they could not afford it.

AOL was going belly up. They had lost BILLIONS of dollars, their stock price dropped from 226 billion to 20 billion...we're talking BILLIONS here not MILLIONS and you think WCW would not have been sold off?!?! Are you living in fantasy land.

If? They tried to cancel WCW because it wasn't generating max ad revenue, it was losing shit tons of money and low crossover potential. They eventually succeeded because WCW was losing money and they did what they were supposed to do.

They succeeded because Ted Turner was out of power. Again, the same thing could be said about WCW in the early 90's. There is no difference. The ONLY difference was Ted Turner was out of power.

Except WWE offered the most and they wouldn't have to deal with WCW losing money anymore. Fusient's deal wasn't what people thought it was (WCW didn't have a bright future anyways). Who else would buy it? The Network was still years off so I have no idea why you thought WWE wanted it for that.

WCW possessed a massive video library that stretched back decades and was a huge part of the history of pro wrestling. Of course they wanted it for that.

 

[therockiswwf]

Wow you are a true and complete moron. The executives from Hollywood movie and the entertainment industry HATED WCW not because it made or lost money they HATED pro wrestling period. They were not wrestling fans, they were not from Jim Crockett promotions, they were executives from Hollywood, California. Why do you think there was so much dissent and tension in the early years at WCW? It was the executives clashing with the bookers.

Or because WCW was losing money every single year (except for only 96, 97 and 98). Going 3 for at least 11 isn't good.

WCW # of years with positive net income from 94-01 - 3
WWE # of years with positive net income from 94-01 - 6

Bischoff came in and with Harvey Schiller (head of Turner Sports) was able to serve as a buffer between the bookers and executives but I will bet you ANY amount of money, the executives at Turner would've sold WCW in a heartbeat even when they were making money. It was never about dollars with these guys, they were getting paid reagrdless of whether WCW made or lost money, they hated having pro wrestling on their station. If you listen to ANY interview with Bsichoff or even Russo they said they were in a constant battle with the executives who wanted to see WCW fail and kill it off even it's best days.

Russo lies all the damn time so screw him. He accelerated WCW's demise if anything.

Bischoff says that about the years they were not making money. The interference that occurred when they were making money was to create Thunder and expand Nitro.

They would not have sold WCW when it was making crazy money unless they were concerned with the low crossover audience and/or thought they could make more with something else.

It's simple. If Ted Turner was still in charge WCW would've lived on. What made it possible to kill off WCW was the merger and Turner's inability to save it. You could've said the same thing about WCW in 1993 about how they were "dead" the key difference is Ted Turner and his position of power.

WCW put themselves in that position.

Again, they wanted movies. These were Hollywood executives. They could give a rat's ass about WCW. Whether it made money or not.

They wanted money. WCW wasn't doing that.

AOL was going belly up. They had lost BILLIONS of dollars, their stock price dropped from 226 billion to 20 billion...we're talking BILLIONS here not MILLIONS and you think WCW would not have been sold off?!?! Are you living in fantasy land.

That's why I put the "unless they could not afford it" part.

They succeeded because Ted Turner was out of power. Again, the same thing could be said about WCW in the early 90's. There is no difference. The ONLY difference was Ted Turner was out of power.

WCW PUT THEMSELVES IN THAT POSITION.

WCW possessed a massive video library that stretched back decades and was a huge part of the history of pro wrestling. Of course they wanted it for that.

You specifically said for the Network. Which didn't exist yet.

You also said WWE wasn't going to put WCW on the air. Which isn't true. WWE tried their ass off to put WCW on the air. Then once they realized what the talent base was, they probably went oh shit (among other factors). They actually made ads for the return of WCW. Jim Ross stated they had tentative plans for the TV taping schedule and gave dates.

Bruce Prichard stated the plan was to run WCW as a separate company (different marketing teams, creative, etc). So they were definitely planning to continue WCW.

 

[Makaveli31]

Or because WCW was losing money every single year (except for only 96, 97 and 98). Going 3 for at least 11 isn't good.

WCW # of years with positive net income from 94-01 - 3
WWE # of years with positive net income from 94-01 - 6

So why weren't they killed off in the early '90's genius, if 'losing money" was the only barometer.

Russo lies all the damn time so screw him. He accelerated WCW's demise if anything.

Bischoff says that about the years they were not making money. The interference that occurred when they were making money was to create Thunder and expand Nitro.

They would not have sold WCW when it was making crazy money unless they were concerned with the low crossover audience and/or thought they could make more with something else.

Well we can only go by they said because I don't know and you don't know and both have said they constantly had to deal with meddling executives even during 1996-1999. Why do you think Bischoff was burned out at the end of 1998 and had to take a sabbatical? Those were the profitable years yet he had to constantly deal with meddling executives trying to undermine WCW.

As far as whether WCW would've been sold that's pure speculation. Profitable business have been sold before so it's not unheard of. If WCW was valued at 100 million in 1998 and someone came in with a 200 million offer to buy, who knows whether Siegel (if he was in charge at the time) would've sold or not. I would bet they would considering Brad Siegel had no ties whatsoever to WCW. He just put in charge of the company similar to Kip Frey and Jim Herd before him. He didn't own WCW like McMahon owned the WWE so why wouldn't he sell if given the opportunity.

WCW put themselves in that position.

News flash: They were in that "position" for most of their existence as you pointed out in your first answer. The only difference is Ted Turner was willing to eat the losses. AOL was not.

WCW PUT THEMSELVES IN THAT POSITION.

News flash: They were that in "position" for most of their existence as you pointed out in your first answer. The only difference is Ted Turner was willing to eat the losses. AOL was not.

You specifically said for the Network. Which didn't exist yet.

News flash: You need to acquire content for the network. It doesn't just happen overnight and WWE 24/7 and the DVD's featuring WCW/NWA material started soon after the acquisition.

You also said WWE wasn't going to put WCW on the air. Which isn't true. WWE tried their ass off to put WCW on the air. Then once they realized what the talent base was, they probably went oh shit (among other factors). They actually made ads for the return of WCW. Jim Ross stated they had tentative plans for the TV taping schedule and gave dates.

They knew damn well the main talent wasn't going to opt out of their guaranteed contracts with Turner before they bought WCW. They might have tried but it just a futile effort. It was all about acquiring the video library.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Oh god... it's another one of these Makavelli ranty posts...

Amazingly in some parts he is right, Turner execs didn't even want WCW, long before they started losing money. Wrestling was and to an extent still is considered low brow entertainment and many who worked with Ted didn't even want him to buy Crockett out, much less use TBS for it. Scott Sassa famously got told to "Give Eric 2 hours on TBS on Mondays" Primetime" by Ted...and it was many at the companies worst nightmare.

Indeed part of the ATM Eric revolution may well have been certain people in the organisation above him wanting to see WCW fail, so they allowed this basically unproven middle manager show largesse that would be guaranteed to get the company shut down, except it backfired to an extent and it got big... as soon as numbers dropped and losses came back in they had all the ammo they needed to get it out of their company and off their TV all together.

 

[therockiswwf]

So why weren't they killed off in the early '90's genius, if 'losing money" was the only barometer.

Did AOLTW literally kill WCW? Yes. That ignores why WCW was in a position to die. WCW put themselves in that position.

Think critically.

Well we can only go by they said because I don't know and you don't know and both have said they constantly had to deal with meddling executives even during 1996-1999. Why do you think Bischoff was burned out at the end of 1998 and had to take a sabbatical? Those were the profitable years yet he had to constantly deal with meddling executives trying to undermine WCW.

I'm pretty sure Bischoff was fired and wrestling is a 24/7, 365 job. It's shocking that more people don't get burned out.

As far as whether WCW would've been sold that's pure speculation. Profitable business have been sold before so it's not unheard of. If WCW was valued at 100 million in 1998 and someone came in with a 200 million offer to buy, who knows whether Siegel (if he was in charge at the time) would've sold or not. I would bet they would considering Brad Siegel had no ties whatsoever to WCW. He just put in charge of the company similar to Kip Frey and Jim Herd before him. He didn't own WCW like McMahon owned the WWE so why wouldn't he sell if given the opportunity.

Speculation.

News flash: They were in that "position" for most of their existence as you pointed out in your first answer. The only difference is Ted Turner was willing to eat the losses. AOL was not.

Again, did AOLTW literally kill WCW? Yes. That ignores why WCW was in a position to die. WCW put themselves in that position.

News flash: You need to acquire content for the network. It doesn't just happen overnight and WWE 24/7 and the DVD's featuring WCW/NWA material started soon after the acquisition.

You said specifically it was for the Network. A Network that didn't exist yet. I get wanting it for the future but that is not what you said.

Unless you meant WWE 24/7. Unknown if they had the idea for WWE 24/7 yet.

They knew damn well the main talent wasn't going to opt out of their guaranteed contracts with Turner before they bought WCW. They might have tried but it just a futile effort. It was all about acquiring the video library.

They probably were not 100% aware of what wrestlers WCW had at the time. They probably weren't watching nor paying a whole lot of attention to them (or at least the top brass were not). But glad to see you admit you were wrong about them never trying to get WCW a TV deal. Still need to get you to admit the conspiracy about Brad and Snyder is pure bullshit.

 

[Makaveli31]

Did AOLTW literally kill WCW? Yes. That ignores why WCW was in a position to die. WCW put themselves in that position.

Think critically.

It was in that position because AOL TW was also in that position. If AOL TW were making billions of dollars WCW would not have been sold. You think critically.

I'm pretty sure Bischoff was fired and wrestling is a 24/7, 365 job. It's shocking that more people don't get burned out.

Bischoff took a leave of absence in Feb of 1999 and handed the reins to Kevin Nash. He was not fired. He was not fired until Sept. of 1999 when they brought in Bill Busch.

You said specifically it was for the Network. A Network that didn't exist yet. I get wanting it for the future but that is not what you said.

Unless you meant WWE 24/7. Unknown if they had the idea for WWE 24/7 yet.

Well 24/7 started just a few years after the acquisition of WCW so obviously they had the idea for it well it advance and they certainly had the idea for the DVD's.

They probably were not 100% aware of what wrestlers WCW had at the time. They probably weren't watching nor paying a whole lot of attention to them (or at least the top brass were not). But glad to see you admit you were wrong about them never trying to get WCW a TV deal. Still need to get you to admit the conspiracy about Brad and Snyder is pure bullshit.

I bet they were aware considering they had lost a bunch of talent to WCW (and also acquired talent from WCW). I didn't say I was wrong about that. They gave a half-assed effort knowing they wouldn't take the deal. It's the same as not trying.

Why is it bullshit? Siegel wanted to sell to his friend Snyder who was in charge of WWE, Snyder says the ONLY way WWE will re enter negotiations is if all WCW programming is cancelled on Turner stations then *POOF* ALL WCW programming is cancelled on Turner stations. Sounds pretty factual to me. More like your theory about "ad revenue" is bullshit

 

[stingray11214]

That is pure speculation. I deal with facts.

The fact was WCW lost $60 MILLION in 2000. The Fact was they still had a bunch of "safe harbor" contracts that were killing the company. The fact was AOL and Time/Warner wanted nothing to do with pro wrestling, either WCW, WWE, or ECW. The fact is that Bischoff's offer was contingent on WCW still being on TNT or TBS. The fact is that the job of a PUBLIC company is to protect the fiduciary interests of their shareholders. How long do you think AOL/Time Warner was gong to hold on an entity hemorrhaging money before their shareholders start squawking?

Face it: WCW got put out of its misery.

 

[therockiswwf]

It was in that position because AOL TW was also in that position. If AOL TW were making billions of dollars WCW would not have been sold. You think critically.

So AOLTW made WCW put on a shit product? Not oh say, Vince Russo.

I bet they were aware considering they had lost a bunch of talent to WCW (and also acquired talent from WCW). I didn't say I was wrong about that. They gave a half-assed effort knowing they wouldn't take the deal. It's the same as not trying.

Why is it bullshit? Siegel wanted to sell to his friend Snyder who was in charge of WWE, Snyder says the ONLY way WWE will re enter negotiations is if all WCW programming is cancelled on Turner stations then *POOF* ALL WCW programming is cancelled on Turner stations. Sounds pretty factual to me. More like your theory about "ad revenue" is bullshit

They got really close to WWE WCW becoming a thing. TV schedule, logos, ads, announcers, etc.

That's not exactly what happened. You still misunderstand my point about ad revenue. Read through my previous posts to get a better understanding.

Unless you can show a firm grasp of my points, then we are done here.

 

[harrythem]

I have a horse....that horse used to win me lots of races and make lots of money.....that horse is now lame with three legs....it just costs me money to keep it going with no return whatsoever on my outlays....I have the choice between turning the horse into glue or keep paying it's stable bills...I kill that horse and try to keep my loses as low as possible.

(BTW, WCW was the horse, and I am AOL/Time Warner.)

 

[#tamale]

But a company that just a couple of years ago was making millions of dollars. Let's see I could either sell for a measly 2.5 mil and get nothing or I could invest in a company with the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars? I would take that risk.

So bankrupt companies can't make a comeback? Maybe you should look up Apple.

What happened to Yahoo, Laura Ashley, Blackberry, Nokia? In business if you have one mis step it can ruin the entire company. It is very hard to save a business. Especially one that is losing millions and millions in 2 years.

Bischoff loves to talk about AOLTW taking away the distribution rights from the deal, but Bischoff still didn't go through with sale because no other major network wanted WCW. It was a toxic brand. Bischoff and co. love to use the excuse that the big bad execs at AOLTW killed WCW, but if WCW was worth anyhing somebody would have seen the value in it, and tried to save it.

 

[Darbicus]

AOL/TW (and more specifically, Jamie Kellnar) just happened to be the person who signed the death warrant for WCW. The Company had been hemorrhaging money for years, and was basically a laughing stock by the time 2001 rolled around. The bloom was well and truly off the rose at that point (and, for the record, the bloom was starting to drop off the TV ratings for wrestling as a whole anyway; it would be a couple years before that was clear, but the highest points of the Attitude Era were behind us in 01).

So what exactly was WCW worth in 2001? Basically you had the IP itself (which was so toxic that nobody wanted a piece of it, not even Fox Sports who was just negotiating with the nearly bankrupt ECW for a stripped syndication show just a couple of months earlier) and a few of the midcard talents floating around. All the big names had fat Time Warner deals that they were content as a cucumber to sit on and collect, simply biding their time (a fact which panned out with the Invasion, with the exception of guys like DDP and Booker T). You had the video library which had value, certainly, but really its value is more weighted in retrospect than it was at the time (before streaming networks became technologically feasible).

So you have a toxic IP with bit players (comparatively speaking, and especially to the financial backers Bischoff was using to form Fusionent), no distribution to speak of (and thus no way to make money in the short-term, without further investment beyond the purchase price) and no momentum to speak of either. In short, the Fusionent deal was always on shaky ground, without distribution it was no sale.

Point to note: WWF actually had looked at buying WCW before the Fusionent deal was announced, back around November of 2000 (having the right of first refusal from the Razor/Diesel IP lawsuit settlement a few years prior), and they passed on it. Bischoff only got his deal so close to passing through because they were literally the only people interested in buying it at that point, and once distribution was lost, even they backed out. WWF then only got interested again because TW was selling the whole thing for a song.

 

[V/CV/]

The bottom line is very very simple AOL Time Warner are the reason WCW went out of business,not losing money,almost 90% of all the major companies on the planet lose money but WCW was in control of their product although not at the highest quality near the end,the reason why WCW died was not because of bankruptcy WCW was not bankrupt many companies are in the negative,WCW was in the negative at that time yes but it does not matter that is not the reason why it ended,it had nothing to do with financial misfortunes it was about simply put Time Warner AOL not wanting it on TV anymore because of some of the racyness that was going on and they didn't want anything to do with wrestling that's why they sold it for the amount that they did.. very stupid and tactless.
****ADVERTISEMENT REMOVED****
Since then there's been much talk about its return and why not.