|
|
Post by CandyKANE on Oct 1, 2002 8:15:13 GMT -5
WWE is planning on expanding their pay-per view schedule in the year of 2003. WWE is discussing the possibility of running up to as many as 19 pay-per views on a yearly basis.
The current plan would be to have RAW have their own pay-per views, and SmackDown! to have their own. Both RAW and SmackDown! would then combine rosters for the 5 "big" pay-per views each year including WrestleMania, Royal Rumble, King of the Ring, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series.
WWE represenatives have had preliminary talks with InDemand officials earlier this year about the possibility of expanding their pay-per view schedule, but discussions ceased when business started to go down.
Early speculation is WWE will run the first split pay-per view in February between Royal Rumble and WrestleMania.
If this is true they better lower the price of each PPV. $34.95(Canadian) per PPV is steep enough plus Wrestlemania is $49.95. For the year that would cost me $679.05. Holy Sh*t!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Bolt on Oct 1, 2002 8:17:49 GMT -5
I think this is not a good idea. It sometimes seems like 12 PPVs are too many!
|
|
|
|
Post by CandyKANE on Oct 1, 2002 8:21:58 GMT -5
I think this is not a good idea. It sometimes seems like 12 PPVs are too many! Exactly! Going back to my point about better storylines. Fueds would last longer if there was only a PPV every 2 months. Say Brock defeats Undertaker at Survivor Series for example he wouldn't get a re-match until the Royal Rumble. That's how the wwf used to be before they introduced all these In Your House PPV's every 3-4 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Bolt on Oct 1, 2002 8:32:45 GMT -5
That's how the wwf used to be before they introduced all these In Your House PPV's every 3-4 weeks. Exactly! I miss they days when they just had Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series. It was also okay when they added King of the Ring. Feuds went on for months. Of course that might not work now considering wrestling has changed a lot since then. With all the weekly shows now, feuds might seem too drawn out. Back when there was only a few PPVs, guys didn't fight each other every week on TV for four weeks just to face each othger AGAIN at the PPV. But in any case, 12 seems like too many now. Increasing the number would hurt what quality the WWE has left right now. |
|
|
|
Post by CandyKANE on Oct 1, 2002 10:38:48 GMT -5
I think 6 PPV's a year is sufficient. 1 every 2 months. Here is my idea. The big 5 are: Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, King Of The Ring and SummerSlam. They could add Armaggedon as one of the big 6 for example. For this to work the big name PPV's would have to be moved to a different month.
January - Royal Rumble
March - Wrestlemania
May - King Of The Ring
July - SummerSlam
September - Survivor Series
November - Armaggedon
|
|
|
|
Post by Genetic_Freak on Oct 1, 2002 16:24:52 GMT -5
I think 6 PPV's a year is sufficient. 1 every 2 months. Here is my idea. The big 5 are: Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, King Of The Ring and SummerSlam. They could add Armaggedon as one of the big 6 for example. For this to work the big name PPV's would have to be moved to a different month. January - Royal Rumble March - Wrestlemania May - King Of The Ring July - SummerSlam September - Survivor Series November - Armaggedon I think that is perfect.. That is the way I always wanted it.. Except swap SS with Armeggedon.. It is hard to get excited and want to spend $30-40 a month to see stuff you probably already saw on Raw or Smackdown, or even the last PPV.. So imagine if there were 24 PPV's a month, I seriously think these guys need to rethink this strategy before they go broke.. |
|
|
|
Post by 2REAL on Oct 1, 2002 18:52:25 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]I thiought when they had less ppvs' it was better cause they meant so much more! Its like the heavyweight title they defend pretty much every show and it used 2 be that the champ would not defend until a ppv. [/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by CandyKANE on Oct 2, 2002 5:15:50 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]I thiought when they had less ppvs' it was better cause they meant so much more! Its like the heavyweight title they defend pretty much every show and it used 2 be that the champ would not defend until a ppv. [/glow] That's right. Back in the old days when Hogan was champ he RARELY defended his title except on PPV. Maybe on the occassional Saturday Night's Main Event or something. They really should use that now I think. Just have graet matches BUT make them non-title. |
|
|
|
Post by The~Next~Big~Thing on Oct 2, 2002 5:24:15 GMT -5
Except swap SS with Armeggedon SummerSlam in November? ;D LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by CandyKANE on Oct 2, 2002 5:39:47 GMT -5
SummerSlam in November? ;D LOL! I think he means Survivor Series.  |
|
|
|
Post by The~Next~Big~Thing on Oct 2, 2002 5:43:02 GMT -5
 Someone PLEASE tell me these things......
|
|
|
|
Post by CandyKANE on Oct 2, 2002 5:48:48 GMT -5
Someone PLEASE tell me these things...... HAHAHAHAHAH Don't worry about it. It's still the morning where you are. It's about 20 to 12 there isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by The~Next~Big~Thing on Oct 2, 2002 5:49:53 GMT -5
Near enough..... It's 5 to 12.............
|
|
|
|
Post by CandyKANE on Oct 2, 2002 17:56:47 GMT -5
Credit: www.wrestlingdotcom.comWDC Reported a rumor earlier this week concerning the WWE planning on running 19 PPV's a year. Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter did some research and said on Wrestling Classics Message Board "Just checked. No plans. They recognize this is not the right business environment to start running more PPV events." |
|
Someone PLEASE tell me these things......