WWE Network Thread

SureYWouldntYa · 09-01-2014 5:17pm

They'll hardly get rid of the PPV's on SBO ? At least until the contract is up in August.

If BT gets WWE after that, maybe they'll do the PPV's free like BT does with UFC

gerrybbadd · 09-01-2014 5:37pm

I'd be delighted to see Sky tank. They've had it far too good for far too long in Ireland, charging way more than subscribers pay in the UK.

SimonQuinlank · 09-01-2014 5:43pm

WWE won't be getting rid of PPV in the states or over here in the short term,though if the network is successful I could see it happenning in a year or two.

Sky contract isn't up until November,negotiations begin in August.Can't see BT bothering to get into a bidding war with Sky over something fairly insignificant ratings wise like WWE,and can't see WWE breaking their partnership with Sky,who have far more subscribers/reach than BT.

SimonQuinlank · 09-01-2014 5:44pm

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I'd be delighted to see Sky tank. They've had it far too good for far too long in Ireland, charging way more than subscribers pay in the UK.

That people have the choice to pay or not.Never understood that mentality.

JrdanB · 09-01-2014 6:23pm

I don't have sky sports and the only PPV I buy is Wrestlemania, so depending on how long the delay is for Raw and Smackdown. ie, could I be up to speed if there's a PPV on Sunday, then I'd gladly pay for this as it's a pretty good deal. Along with getting a good, reliable stream - well worth it.

My position of only buying Wrestlemania is not unique so for anyone like me they're making a profit!

Agent Coulson · 09-01-2014 6:23pm

SimonQuinlank wrote: »

WWE won't be getting rid of PPV in the states or over here in the short term,though if the network is successful I could see it happenning in a year or two.

Sky contract isn't up until November,negotiations begin in August.Can't see BT bothering to get into a bidding war with Sky over something fairly insignificant ratings wise like WWE,and can't see WWE breaking their partnership with Sky,who have far more subscribers/reach than BT.

The only reason I think BT will go for the rights and I could be wrong it will be to show there financial muscle over Sky just like Sky have done to their competition over the last twenty years. There are also very few rights up for grabs this year and BT will want to add something like WWE to get the younger members of the family envolved.

As BT Sports is free to BT customers and only something like 20% have activated it on their boxes. Kids screaming at their parents to turn it on to see WWE might work in BT's favor.

Maybe I'm overthnking the whole thing

gerrybbadd · 09-01-2014 7:42pm

SimonQuinlank wrote: »

That people have the choice to pay or not.Never understood that mentality.

It simple. If you wanted to watch WWE, you had to get Sky. No choice. And they charge an arm and a leg for it. And the cost is more than the same sub in the UK. Not everyone has or had the option of streaming WWE content via torrents, so Sky was the only alternative. Then they began adding more and more events to Box Office, where almost all were free before. More greed

rovert · 09-01-2014 8:39pm

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I'd be delighted to see Sky tank.

What about Sky Tank 3D and Sky Tank +1?

Saturday Morning Slam repeats for little Jimmy:

For those who have asked how the WWE Network will be able to show racier material such as ECW and the Attitude Era WWF Raw telecasts during a time period where the company has cultivated themselves as a PG Friendly entity, here's how.

The WWE Network will have a parental control feature that will allow parents to block certain rated materials from being played, according to a Variety article that was released today on the Network.

rovert · 09-01-2014 10:34pm

Is Vince drunk here?

LOTD · 09-01-2014 10:37pm

rovert wrote: »

Is Vince drunk here?

I saw on dirtsheets who were reporting from Meltzer's site, who was at the event. That there was a "lot of liquor" at the event.

rovert · 10-01-2014 12:36am

As a total NXT nerd holy **** at this:

Triple H just announced at the #NXT tapings that when they return to Full Sail on February 27th, the show will air LIVE on the WWE Network!

cian68 · 10-01-2014 12:41am

So many people who are green as grass will be thrown on to live (Internet) tv

JrdanB · 10-01-2014 12:46am

Just wondering, will there be ads!?

rovert · 10-01-2014 12:47am

I know what you mean but everyone that appears on NXT (besides the nameless jobbers) are considered main roster ready.

rovert · 10-01-2014 12:48am

JrdanB wrote: »

Just wondering, will there be ads!?

Yes but on a limited basis. Kind of like the RTE player.

Product placement too.

JrdanB · 10-01-2014 12:58am

As long as they're not as bad as dailymotion - or maybe I got unlucky the one time I was on there - interrupting ads all the time!

grames_bond · 10-01-2014 9:38am

rovert wrote: »

Is Vince drunk here?

From my experience, any time WWE have a big announcement or want to impress partners/media - there is a free bar! and it gets HEAVILY used!

(the only exception is the business partners summit at wrestlemania weekend but that starts at 9am so they give free breakfast instead of free booze - the cocktail reception the night before is where the booze flows!

)

rovert wrote: »

I know what you mean but everyone that appears on NXT (besides the nameless jobbers) are considered main roster ready.

and the match quality on NXT far surpasses 90% of the stuff we see on the main shows - and characters are fleshed out alot more, and an affinity is created with them far better than on Raw or SD!

JrdanB wrote: »

As long as they're not as bad as dailymotion - or maybe I got unlucky the one time I was on there - interrupting ads all the time!

Daily Motion are f*cking headwrecking, if the video is longer than 10 minutes you can guarantee the stupit ads will appear - constantly!

rovert · 10-01-2014 9:59am

FIGHT!

DirecTV may cancel future WWE PPV events

In WWE's release sent out earlier today, it noted that they would continue to offer PPVs via traditional televised means, but said that it is possible companies may not continue to carry them.

The contracts that inDemand and DirecTV have with wrestling companies, boxing companies and UFC are that the PPVs can't be put on the Internet for a lower price than is being charged by the cable companies, so they aren't undercut.

Obviously, putting PPV's as part of the new WWE network package would significantly undercut the price, and if they allowed WWE, a third place competitor in the pay-per-view market to violate that longstanding agreement, they would be powerless against the big two, the major boxing events and UFC.

DirecTV released a statement today to the Los Angeles Times which stated:

"Clearly, we need to quickly re-evaluate the economics and viability of their business with us, as it now appaers the WWE feels they do not need their PPV distributors."

DirecTV claimed in the release that the WWE has been in a steady decline on PPV (actually the first half of this year was far stronger than in past years, but the last few months have been down).

They noted the network "will only accelerate this trend."

Vince McMahon claimed it would be foolish for cable companies to no longer carry WWE events, saying it is "found money for them."

jaykhunter · 10-01-2014 10:08am

It sucks to have options being limited. I'm sure WWE didn't appreciate the jabs at them either. Boxing and their one big PPV a year followed by a drought. DirecTV neglected to mention they take the equivalent of about 80,000 PPV buys just to host WWE's PPV.

rovert · 10-01-2014 10:16am

jaykhunter wrote: »

It sucks to have options being limited. I'm sure WWE didn't appreciate the jabs at them either. Boxing and their one big PPV a year followed by a drought. DirecTV neglected to mention they take the equivalent of about 80,000 PPV buys just to host WWE's PPV.

Thought they took 50% no?

Cianan2 · 10-01-2014 1:08pm

gerrybbadd wrote: »

It simple. If you wanted to watch WWE, you had to get Sky. No choice. And they charge an arm and a leg for it. And the cost is more than the same sub in the UK. Not everyone has or had the option of streaming WWE content via torrents, so Sky was the only alternative. Then they began adding more and more events to Box Office, where almost all were free before. More greed

Mostly Channel 4's fault. Every PPV was on Sky Sports up until Channel 4 tried to jump in and purchase the monthly PPV's, Sky had to offer WWE more money to rid C4 from the market, hence why they have had a majority of PPV's on SBO since then.

jaykhunter · 10-01-2014 1:47pm

I blame Stacy Carter (Miss Kitty) for baring her trailer trash t***ies on live PPV right before Sky renegotiated their deal with WWF. Of course ultimately Vince is to blame for ok'ing that spot.

Charisteas · 10-01-2014 2:13pm

jaykhunter wrote: »

I blame Stacy Carter (Miss Kitty) for baring her trailer trash t***ies on live PPV right before Sky renegotiated their deal with WWF. Of course ultimately Vince is to blame for ok'ing that spot.

That spot got three thumbs up from me too :pac:

LOTD · 10-01-2014 2:27pm

Cianan2 wrote: »

Mostly Channel 4's fault. Every PPV was on Sky Sports up until Channel 4 tried to jump in and purchase the monthly PPV's, Sky had to offer WWE more money to rid C4 from the market, hence why they have had a majority of PPV's on SBO since then.

Can hardly blame C4 for buying a product that was red hot at the time, that's the nature of a competitive tv market.

Charisteas · 10-01-2014 2:38pm

What was the story with the Channel 4 deal? I seem to remember it only lasted a few months. I thought WWF tv deals would be at least yearly contracts. And why did they only purchase Sunday Night Heat (not even the real Sunday Night Heat, a fake international version) and a couple of PPV's, why not Raw's and Smackdown's?

LOTD · 10-01-2014 2:45pm

I'm just looking it up now, Sky and Channel 4 signed a joint deal, Channel 4 had the rights to 4 PPVs while Sky had the rest.

cena · 10-01-2014 2:55pm

Channel 4 ppv where not even live and than they took breaks just as someone was going through a table etc. It was so edit that it came to a point to was annoying to watch

The Ayatolla · 10-01-2014 2:55pm

The C4 arrangement was horrible.

I remember Royal Rumble 2000 on C4, and they cut to ads just as Big Show made his surprise return.

Shocking!

Cianan2 · 10-01-2014 4:35pm

jaykhunter wrote: »

I blame Stacy Carter (Miss Kitty) for baring her trailer trash t***ies on live PPV right before Sky renegotiated their deal with WWF. Of course ultimately Vince is to blame for ok'ing that spot.

Reading Bob Holly's book he implied she did it of her own accord to tryget over and got in a lot of trouble after?

Wompa1 · 10-01-2014 4:48pm

Loughc wrote: »

24. Will all content on WWE Network be PG?
WWE Network will contain a range of programming suitable for various audiences. Content rated TV-14 or TV-MA will be preceded by appropriate advisory messages recommending viewer discretion. Parental controls will be available for on-demand content.

25. Can parental controls be set-up on WWE Network?
Yes, parents will have the ability to block content that is rated TV-14 and TV-MA for on-demand content only. Viewer discretion is advised for live 24/7 streaming programming.

Best part of the story! I was worried they would have the entire network set as PG. I hope they have the right people on the job for setting this up and are able to meet the demand...it would be a shame if it was plagued with problems.

WWE Network Thread

Comments