Bischoff Puts Ignorant Radio Host in his Place

[Zeven_Zion]

Source: PWInsider.com

Eric Bischoff took issue yesterday to something was posted on his Facebook page where a fan said that if he were in any other business and had not delivered for them the way that he hasn't delivered for TNA, he would have been fired by now. Bischoff actually called the audio blog that the poster does and took him to task for what the blogger posted. It was an interesting exchange that featured Bischoff harping on every incorrect statement that the poster made, as well as repeatedly asking him if he knew confidential company numbers. A few interesting points come out of the exchange. One was that Bischoff totally distanced himself from the creative process, at one point largely implying that it was an area that needed fixing. I found this interesting because it was only a few months ago that Bischoff was posting about being a part of the process with Vince Russo and Matt Conway. He even thanked them for covering for him when he took his long siesta back in June (while the Paul Heyman to TNA talks were ongoing). Unfortunately the blogger didn't know that and thus didn't call Bischoff on it, letting him off the hook. The other interesting thing that came out of it was that when the blogger would make statements like "TNA has lost more money this year than they have lost in the last seven combined", Bischoff asked him how he knew that. The blogger said it was on the internet and anyone could find it. Ouch dude, really bad stance to take. Bischoff pointed out that is BS and that TNA's numbers are not public knowledge because they are a private company. It gave him the perfect out because folks, estimates may be on the internet but no true TNA financial numbers are. When asked to divulge some of these numbers, Bischoff repeatedly fell back on the stance that it was proprietary information. He did say that Reaction has been a financial boon to TNA, and also said that merchandising deals have risen due to Hulk Hogan and himself joining the company. Bischoff also said he wasn't there to give the guy information but rather to have him defend the statement that Bischoff should be fired from TNA. It's just a shame that the blogger made statements that were easy to refute because that is what Bischoff focused on. Had the blogger been able to put a more cogent argument out there, it would have been very interesting to see how Bischoff would have reacted. Honestly, I was shocked that Bischoff would even bother calling into a show like this but it made for an interesting piece.

You can listen to it here :http://www.blogtalkradio.com/michaelbarton/2010/12/18/episode-003--wrestling-mma-radio--covering-all-the

--------------------------------------------------------​

 

[Genius_Deadman]

Bischoff called a blogtalkradio show?

am i stupid to assume this could've been a work? mainly because the fan didn't defend himself really well, Bischoff might have cleared the air on something (where it would've looked like he was being attacked), like the TNA numbers. he basically said TNA's made a profit with him & Hogan there. if he said it on TV, we'd think "just a work". if this is a work shoot, it might help out TNA's image that it's not on a free fall. although he did contradict himself on statements he made in the past (like the creative process), that could've been to help it too.

but if it's a shoot, dude had to be really bored to do that

 

[realdealasshole]

Unfortunately though, he has failed. Ratings have not moved up. That's what he was brought in to do: raise ratings. That hasn't happened. In fact, they've probably lost more fans than they have gained. What I HAVE noticed since Bischoff has come in is a hard push for horrible names like Abyss, Jeff Jarrett, and Jeff Hardy while the X division gets buried further and further into the ground and great wrestlers like Daniels, Homicide, Hernandez, etc. have been fired. He's moving TNA in an ass backwards direction. It looks more and more like WCW every day. What a shame.

If I brought up how the creation of immortal was nothing more than a poor attempt to replica the creation of the NWO, I wonder how he would refute that one. I'd love to hear it.

 

[dizzle1119]

It's easy to say things like "Bischoff has an influence on pushing terrible guys like Abyss, JJ, and Hardy while "GREAT" wrestlers like Daniels, Homicide and Hernandez have been fired", but let's face facts.

Chris Daniels = never drew a dime.
Homicide = never drew a dime.
Hernandez = never drew a dime.
Homicide & Hernandez = really good tag team that never drew a dime.

Abyss = never drew a dime, but for some odd reason TNA is high on him.
JJ = obtained moderate success in both WWE and WCW, and played a hand in the birth of TNA.
Hardy = Arguably one of the most recognized workers in the world.

ANY wrestling company would let JJ and Hardy take center stage as opposed to Homicide, Hernandez and Chris Daniels. That's just how it is. I'm not saying the "great" guys that've been fired weren't entertaining, but none of them stand to make TNA as much money as a Jeff Hardy.

I dislike TNA a great deal, but the company is no worse off since the introduction of Hogan and Bischoff. If anything, the experiment was worth a try. You want as many recognizable people as possible on your TV show, right?

 

[Zeven_Zion]

If I brought up how the creation of immortal was nothing more than a poor attempt to replica the creation of the NWO, I wonder how he would refute that one. I'd love to hear it.

No worries, I'll do it for you. First of all, the creation of the nWo did not come about at Bash at the Beach, that's when Hulk Hogan joined it. Before there was an nWo, there were "The Outsiders". The group simply changed its name when Hogan joined in and went to the next level.

NWO/The Outsiders started out with only two members, Hall and Nash, who just came from another company. They would run around the joint and cause trouble, talking about taking over the company from the get-go.

Immortal started out with Abyss' ramblings about "them" coming to take TNA over. Immortal revealed themselves at the same location where Hogan joined the nWo. This is where the similarities end to a screeching halt. It consisted of Jeff Jarret, Bischoff, Hogan, Abyss and Jeff Hardy, later joined by Fourtune.

Immortal did not run around with black and white T-Shirts, their name doesn't even hint to the nWo, they don't run vignettes, they don't sell themselves as being a separate entity from TNA.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but if TNA is trying to re-create the nWo by creating Immortal then they're doing a horrible, horrible job. People automatically assume that since a big stable is trying to take over a company - it's an nWo rip off. Wrong. People said it about Nexus and they could not be more wrong, they say it about Immortal and again - so wrong.

The reveal happened at Daytona Beach for one reason and one reason only -- to sell more PPV buys. People thought something huge was going to happen, especially after the long winded build up, and having it Daytona Beach made people think that it was going to be something special and maybe controversial. It was special, but not the latter. The place is symbolic to change, to contraversy, just like to wrestling fans, Madison Square Garden is symbolic to the WWE.

If we automatically assume that Immortal is a reincarnation of the nWo, then why not go all the way?

TNA switched from a six sided ring to a four sided ring - they're trying to be like the WWE. Wrong, but I'm using your logic.

They're airing iMPACT from Universal Studios, just like WCW used to - so they're trying to be like WCW.

Jeff Hardy is all gothic and weird - he's trying to be like Raven.

They have casket matches - they're trying to copy WWE's casket matches.

James Storm drinks beer - he's trying to be like Steve Austin.

Robert Roode's last name sounds like Rick Rude - he's trying to be like Rick Rude.

Eric Young is brain dead - he's trying to be like Eugene.

The list goes on and on. People constantly try to pin ex-storylines to TNA's product, making it seem like a bad thing. It's not. I WISH TNA had its own version of the nWo. It was the greatest faction of all time, and if TNA had the ability to re-create it, that would've been great.

Face it, wrestling's been around for quite some time. Storylines, factions, wrestlers, approaches are BOUND to seem like something done in the past. One faction's agenda does not make them an immitation of another one. Immortal and nWo's inception was totally different, the members are different [bar Hogan and maybe Bischoff], the agenda is the same. Unfortunately, nWo had ONE reincarnation in TNA and it was not Immortal. It was "The Band", and that one sucked major balls.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

This is where the similarities end to a screeching halt.

I'm not going to quote everything you said because that would be long and annoying, but you left out one key competent: the heel turn of a super over baby face. In the nWo's case it was, obviously, Hulk Hogan. In Immortal's case it's Jeff Hardy.

 

[DangerousDave]

Bishoff sure put that radio jobber in his place. The fact is that TNA is a private company and financials aren't released. The IWC for some reason has it stuck in their head that TNA is loosing money even though there is no solid proof of it. The IWC speculates on poor buy rates for PPV's, how do you know? They aren't published. Everyone talks about poor TV ratings, but if you do your research you will find TNA brings in more viewers than the average Spike program. TNA gets paid by Spike to air their show, adding Reaction has increased revenue. Oh by the way, Reaction came from that useless guy Bishoff.

Bottom line, no one knows for sure what TNA's financial condition is, but I'm betting they are at least making a profit.

 

[QBall111]

I'm not going to quote everything you said because that would be long and annoying, but you left out one key competent: the heel turn of a super over baby face. In the nWo's case it was, obviously, Hulk Hogan. In Immortal's case it's Jeff Hardy.

So let's compare Hogan's heel turn and Jeff Hardy's heel turn to every other babyface's shocking heel turn. Heel turns are going to happen. It does not mean they are copying the nWo.
I said this on a forum the other day and I'll say it again, we've been used to years and years of professional wrestling. How much longer can they go and still do something original? It's very hard and it's causing a major writer's block in the WWE and TNA. Problem is, there are still way too many fans from over 10 years ago who remember the birth of the nWo or DX or Corporation, and any other faction. So the first thing is we assume that everything is copy cat. Trust me, 10 years down the road will come a long a new nWo that will be the greatest thing in professional wrestling because it's a new generation being brought in to view the product. They'll never remember the old school stuff.

 

[harrythem]

TNA might be a private company with no cement numbers on the net but, I'm going to quote an exactly from a Jeff Jarrett promo on Impact from Nov.18th. "This company is run correctly now. Bischoff, Hogan, Hardy, Abyss, Fortune, Flair. We're going to make it profitable".

Now, while I'll probably hear people say that it was just a line in a promo but, for me, I see it more as confirmation that the promotion hasn't been turning a profit. For the record I hope he's right and they do make the company hugely profitable as I quite enjoy watching aspects of TNA now.

As for Bischoff, fair play to him for calling the twat out. If you're going to go and insult someone on their personal page/to their face, then you should at least have the sense to know all your facts so you can defend your points or pull the person up on things they say that aren't true (same can be said for the divvy ***** that led the US Government's inquest into drugs in wrestling)

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Bottom line, no one knows for sure what TNA's financial condition is, but I'm betting they are at least making a profit.

They have to be. I mean, saying that TNA isn't making and even losing money is as ignorant as saying that they are making a truck load of cash. We can only assume and use our logic.

So, logic would lead us to the thought that the chance of them making more money is better than the chance of them making less and losing more, simply because they have a lot of big names on their roster, people who sold 10 years ago, and people who sold a year ago. Hogan, Bischoff, Hardy, Anderson are, I believe, the guy who could've brought some financial benefits.

But like Bischoff said, the company isn't worse or better than previous years - it's the same. Some might find this to be unsatisfying, I'll choose to remain neutral because it'd be unrealistic to think that improvement can be made over a night, and in pro wrestling "over a night" equals years. TNA won't have any numbers leap for the next at least 2-3 years, and I'm 99% sure of that. Buiding a company is a sloooow process. WWE didn't become what it is in a short period of time, nor did WCW and TNA is not an exception.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Sorry dude, can't even listen to it — this guy has no education and has no business as a radio host—"blogger" or not. He sounds like what I'd imagine he absolutely is: an uneducated, rhetoric regurgitating simpleton IWC smark who reads pro-wrestling dirt sheets and thinks he's the only one "in the know" because of it.

Frankly, I have no idea why Eric wasted his time defending himself to someone who he never had to justify his decisions to.

Christ, I hate hate hate fake-ass "journalist" bloggers. Especially fake-ass "journalist" bloggers like this fucking nerdy, uneducated smark who probably still lives with his fucking parents. Die, you insignificant little gnat.

 

[JJYanks121]

Well, that was interesting. First, I must question why this guy who has a blogtalkradio show (which anyone could have btw) gets Eric Bischoff as a guest, while I, a journalist employed by a legitimate sports media outlet, has a career highlight of interviewing Shannon Moore! Not to diss Shannon, because he was incredibly supportive and an excellent interview, but man, would I love to have a few minutes with Eric Bischoff.

With that said, I have to question whether this guy knows EB. I say this only because Bischoff's role in the interview sounds really rehearsed and you have to wonder how a random ass guy gets an Eric Bischoff on his show. If the rest of us can't get wrestlers on the phone when we want to, why would this guy get one of the bigger names to call in "unannounced" for his nothing show. Clearly, something more is at play.

Still, it's interesting how both parties handled the interview. Because Bischoff works in the industry, he took over the questioning and basically made this guy admit that he doesn't know things. That's fine and good, and I do respect private company's rights to certain information, but at no point did Bischoff address what actually is the issue in raising ratings, perhaps raising buyrates (which aren't public knowledge but I'm sure they aren't staggeringly high), and in general getting the business to boom. Had this guy taken control of his own show and asked Mr. Bischoff for certain answers rather than playing a game of "you don't know because you don't work in the industry", we might have had a little more substance to this interview.

As it stands, what we have is that we still don't know TNA's financials (nor should we), we don't know their PPV buyrates (perhaps we shouldn't, though I'll bet if they broke a buyrate record, Dixie would be the first to tweet about it), and we don't know why ratings are essentially the same in one year's time. Eric Bischoff can use semantics all he wants, but TV ratings are the one thing that ARE public knowledge, and those, while seeing some temporary spikes, have on average (even removing the treacherous 3 month run opposite Raw) been worse than the previous year.

In journalism, it's incredibly stupid to write about facts if you do not know something to be a fact. This man made that mistake. However, we do know TV ratings as a fact, and whether TNA wants to admit it or not, ratings have not increased the way they would have liked it to happen. Perhaps it's marketing, perhaps its the stories, perhaps it's the booking within the stories, or perhaps it's a plethora of other factors, but ratings are staying the same. We could speculate that the talent roster costs more now and it may be draining them of money. Hell, we could read a report saying they are strapped for cash. It still doesn't justify as a legitimate news piece.

With all that said, Eric Bischoff really didn't do TNA or himself any favors here. It's clear that he went into this thing with a goal to make TNA and himself (and Hogan really) look better by dismissing some "facts", but I'm not sure that happened. Bischoff came off bitter, almost childish, and basically made it seem like internet fans are all morons who shouldn't bother trying to understand the business. Nice sentiment, but since his business is predicated strongly on internet fans, it might have been an ill-advised shot.

Those of us here on Wrestlezone and other wrestling news forums, we come to these sites to learn a little more than just what we see on TV. This world is an amazing place these days, and one where knowledge is readily accessible. Simple searches on the computer can land us inordinate amounts of information about anyone and anything. Thus, for those who want to, we can learn quite a bit. Actually being inside the business is a bit tougher though. I know from experience.

Like I said, I am a journalist who covers wrestling. If I haven't PM'ed with you, then you don't know where to find me. However, I'm happy to talk to anyone about that privately. Anyway, as such with my job, I have been sent to wrestling shows in my area by my company. They pay for my tickets and I cover the show. However, despite many efforts by our company lawyer and myself, WWE has been unrelenting in saying no to giving me press credentials. They are VERY protective of their business and do not trust just anyone to enter into their world, no matter what else is on your resume. Perhaps one day I will get that privelege, but it's not easy is the point here.

What we can understand from this largely meaningless "interview" is that TNA, Eric Bischoff, and other people who seem to have a little power (don't let Eric fool you, he produces Reaction with Jason Hervey and has more to do with the product than just "on air talent") are certainly at an impasse. I'm sure when they made the deal a year ago to come into TNA, they felt like they would have a quicker impact on the company, no pun intended (is it me, or is it really hard to not use the world impact when talking about wrestling? It's so common, and because it's the show name, you have to say "no pun intended now"......anyway) A year into this thing, with a lot of ideas tried, and a lot of talent on the roster, and things haven't changed all that much. Perhaps they are making some money from licensing for their bigger names. Perhaps there are some profitable avenues that the company has. Reaction might be profitable as it is a low cost show (based on the fact that it is single camera, interview only footage combined with highlights and such from a show that just aired), but clearly, this is not where they wanted to be. If you say otherwise, you just aren't being fair.

Mr. Bischoff, while someone I usually do not defend, is certainly trying, along with others, to make this thing work. It is not. It is in the same place it was a year ago in terms of ratings, which are the only tangible measurements we can go on. We don't know anything else, so we look to the ratings, and they are largely the same. If they were largely profitable at those ratings, power to them, but I get the feeling that they want more. I get the feeling that they want to compete with WWE for global product supremacy, but they are not close. If this regime with the current group of people involve want to make that happen, they clearly have to do something different. I don't know what that is since I don't know outside the television product what they are doing, but it's gotta change.

The fact remains though, that Eric Bischoff went on a no name internet radio show to talk to a blogger about points in his article. Why him and WHY NOT ME???? Certainly I would have done a MUCH better job that that guy! GIVE ME A CHANCE BISCHOFF, BRING IT ON!!!!

 

[Stunner=RKO]

Ahhh you TNA marks are just so blind. It's like watching a fat guy tryna find his balls lol. Let's start from the beginning. When Eric B and Hogan first came to TNA, they said.. no PROMISED for an all around better program. It's was like they were taking the lead, and dixie was there to give the green light. Right before EB and Hogan, we had a face aj styles as World champ I THINk or he just turned heel. Regardless we had a TNA star as champ. Not a WWE hand me down. Is it just me but as an all around wrestling fan, I was really enjoying it. Obv we had to have hogan feud wit flair juz it was the most logical way to go. But they have ABYSS aka Rtard's version of Kane/mankind. Ok a lil iffy on that but I'll bite. Uh oh curve ball to a clusterfuck hogan gives abyss a "power" ring... Eh? Now let's fast forward. Hardy, Rvd Shannon Moore( LOL how do people actually LIKE this guy!?!? Ahhaahah). We get a Impact titled "Hogan's heroes" gee full of urself much? Neway.. They try to fight off flair and a couple others and get the company under control of Dixie again or whatever. This is all and good but if I wanna see the old
"good vs evil" thing I'll just watch the "E" cuz .. I know it's gonna sound simple minded.. But LOOKS better haha. Ok fast forward again.. Jeff hardy turns heel with hogan and Eb. But weren't they try to HELP Dixie. Ok at the next impact they said they were using her. So TNA creative team, its that easy to write the "biggest heel turn" of your company. So primitive that you drop the past year with just one statement lol like the fans should be ANGRY. Do they really consider us to be THAT thick headed. I mean, yes wrestling is fake but TNA makes it embarrassing. Like it's just epic /facepalm lol. So Eric bischoff says he is leading the charge for TNA, then changed his story when we ask for results? If that ain't cold feet I dunno what is...

 

[shagonzalez]

First off may i start off by saying that the radio host is just another idiot-jerk,someone who doesn't have his facts right and started watcthing tna not long ago.Tna imo were doing ok before Easy E and Hogan came aboard but now they can only do better.Ratings haven't skyrocketed and neither have ppv buys,it is gonna take time to build Tna they are just beginning to pick up the pieces now they just gotta figure out how or if they fit.Correct me if i'm wrong but Hernandez hasn't been fired

 

[Derrtown]

The dude sounds a lot like a lot of people who post on this forum and other forums. A IWC nerd who believes everything Meltzer says and runs with it. People like that are whats wrong with wrestling and why TNA cant seem to get off the ground. They constantly bash a product to no end and casual fans read this and interpret it as fact. Its quite sad really... then the guys like "why is Bischoff saying hes not at liberty to say?" well I think Bischoff made it quite clear that TNA was a private company and Im sure Bisch can answer questions with a yes or no, like he did, but he can not get into specifics about it.

Not to mention Dixie said TNA was making over 75% more revenue than they were in 09 and that was during the summer. I tend to believe her over a bunch of uneducated bashers who have a serious Issue with anyone not named Vince Mcmahon. IE Bischoff and Russo for whatever reasons.

 

[ABMorales787]

Ahhh you TNA marks are just so blind.

What, you an optometrist or something?

It's like watching a fat guy tryna find his balls lol.

Glad to know we're blind and you're talking about penises.

Let's start from the beginning. When Eric B and Hogan first came to TNA, they said.. no PROMISED for an all around better program.

This is true.

It's was like they were taking the lead, and dixie was there to give the green light. Right before EB and Hogan, we had a face aj styles as World champ I THINk or he just turned heel. Regardless we had a TNA star as champ.

Yes.

Not a WWE hand me down.

Ah, stereotypes ahoy! Here we go. Hey, buddy. Little known fact for ya. Jeff Hardy's singles career took off in TNA before WWE took him back. Other known fact. Steve Austin, Triple H, The Undertaker, Mick Foley, Diesel, Psycho Sid and Ric Flair were all from WCW first before becoming WWE Champions. Yet another known fact. Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels, originated from AWA. Not WWE. CM Punk was a major in ROH. Your point is moot. Being a World Champion should not be about being home bred. It should be about being the best person for the job at the moment. Final fact. It's a standard that wrestlers have experience in different companies. But with WWE being with no direct competition for about 10 years, people ignore that fact.

Is it just me but as an all around wrestling fan, I was really enjoying it. Obv we had to have hogan feud wit flair juz it was the most logical way to go. But they have ABYSS aka Rtard's version of Kane/mankind.

juz? Rtard? Obv? The fuck am I reading? Your opinion is terrible and naive to begin with and now to add to it, you can't bother yourself with expressing your words correctly. You say Abyss is a Kane/Mankind hybrid. Here's two things to know. Number 1, FOLEY IZ RTIRED. Number 2, KANE NO MASKY ON. We can deal with the hybrid replacement.

Ok a lil iffy on that but I'll bite. Uh oh curve ball to a clusterfuck hogan gives abyss a "power" ring... Eh?

Green Lantern. Starring Ryan Reynolds. In theaters eventually. So if somebody gave you a priceless heirloom, you wouldn't be motivated? Damn. I'd hate to be your wife.

Now let's fast forward. Hardy, Rvd Shannon Moore( LOL how do people actually LIKE this guy!?!? Ahhaahah).

lololololololololololololololololololololoololololol

Try this: More coherent.

We get a Impact titled "Hogan's heroes" gee full of urself much?

One show out of the 54 in the year. WOW!!! Nice of you to argue about TNA's stature by bringing the title of Impact's episodes to light.

Neway.. They try to fight off flair and a couple others and get the company under control of Dixie again or whatever. This is all and good but if I wanna see the old
"good vs evil" thing I'll just watch the "E" cuz .. I know it's gonna sound simple minded.. But LOOKS better haha.

Looks are deceiving, brother. Not everybody share's your likings. Or ability to butcher English literature.

Ok fast forward again.. Jeff hardy turns heel with hogan and Eb. But weren't they try to HELP Dixie.

Yes. But Dixie kept doing things here way and compared Hulk Hogan to ECW. Yes, it was that damn practical.

Ok at the next impact they said they were using her. So TNA creative team, its that easy to write the "biggest heel turn" of your company.

To quote Jeff Hardy from this weeks Impact. "We're wrestlers. We're con men". You say this as if TNA were the only one's to do sudden heels turns. You talk about TNA fan's being blind, but it seems you don't pay attention to your favorite company.

So primitive that you drop the past year with just one statement lol like the fans should be ANGRY.

Well yeah, one statement. The fuck do you want? A damn State of the Union address?

Do they really consider us to be THAT thick headed.

No, you're doing a good job by yourself. How cute, you going through every layer of detail to find something to criticize because you just hate TNA. You HATE it! Lovable goof.

I mean, yes wrestling is fake but TNA makes it embarrassing.

Like it's just epic /facepalm lol.

Nah, I'm sure WWE has it's own share of embarrassments too. I mean why would we create a power stable when we can just pretend to blow up someone in a comedy angle and then he comes back the next week. Or we can have a laptop instant message (because there's no way in hell that's an email) the show and tell them what to do from a computer.

As a disclaimer, I'd gladly criticize other companies, but they aren't on TV.

So Eric bischoff says he is leading the charge for TNA, then changed his story when we ask for results? If that ain't cold feet I dunno what is...

I'm pretty sure it's the latter.


From what I understand, Eric ran the production of TNA Reaction and had an occasional eye on TNA creative. Not necessarily involved with the creative process. Meanwhile Hulk Hogan would strike deals and stuff like that. True or not I can't tell. As Eric says, it's a privately owned company. We can't tell what really goes on backstage, so it's hard to tell fact from fiction. However, as I've said before, it took WCW 2 years after Hulks arrival to actually turn things around. Also, I really doubt these guys would actually try to go with tricks they've seen fail before. So far, they've been going with what once worked. Factions and realism. We'll just have to keep hope to the fact they'll be able to sort what works in today's field and what doesn't.

 

[A Mod's Best Friend (aka Bitch)]

This has to be a work.

One, i follow Eric on facebook and he has had his wall shut from posting comments on it for the last two months. Im not quite sure how Michael Barton was able to post these financial facts (false or not), on to the page in the first place.

Secondly, if you listen to the radio show he answers his phone after one phone call. It sounded extremely suss and if a radio program answered phone calls throughout their show whenever someone rang in, there would be no time to talk any logic.

 

[Rayne]

Why does the IWC (and dear sweet lord, it is humorous when people who post here cry about the IWC, like they're somehow outside of it) have the idea that the Hulk + Eric Show isn't profitable currently?

It's easy for Eric to go "well, you can't know what I know, so you can't know for sure, so shut up!" And technically correct; no one outside of Hulk + Eric Show management can know with 100% certainty what their financials are. But here's the kicker- when you come along with the promise of improvement and success, you don't get to tell people "well, since you can't know for 100% sure, shut up about it" if the field starts looking less than rosy.

Add that to the internet's general insistence on "yes or no" answers to problems that are more appropriate on a scale, and here we are. Is the Hulk + Eric Show making tons of money? No. Are they going bankrupt? No. The last they announced they were turning a profit was a couple of years ago, and since then, they have taken on much more expensive contracts (not WWE expensive, but the Hulk + Eric Show isn't on a WWE budget) and increased the cost of their TV production. Ratings are flat, which means merchandising is flat. (Again- the Hulk + Eric Show could be the very rare exception to that rule of television, but they aren't.) Over the past few months several of their stars have left television as they renegotiate their contracts, all of them accepting less money than they had been receiving previously, and the Hulk + Eric Show has never been known for providing luxurious contracts to their performers in the first place.

So no- no one can know for absolutely sure that the Hulk + Eric Show is either making a net gain or loss. If your requirement is 100% certainty or "shut up!", you're going to find it very easy to stick your fingers in your ears. But if there was someone in the world who'd give an honest, accurate answer to that question, I'd put a big bet on the Hulk + Eric Show coming pretty close to even right now; not turning in any significant profit, but certainly not "going broke".

To the "it takes time to build" crowd; yes, it does; and it's been nearing nine years now. WCW was beating the WWE in the ratings at this point of its existence. "Time to build" is no longer an effective cop-out for the Hulk + Eric Show; they've had it. Their problem right now is that they're building for a few months only, and that only within their main event picture. There doesn't seem to be much thought about what the Hulk + Eric Show will look like two years from now, except in the roughest "we're going to grab the WWE by the hair and kick them in the balls!" sense.

 

[shattered dreams]

Eric Bischoff can use semantics all he wants, but TV ratings are the one thing that ARE public knowledge, and those, while seeing some temporary spikes, have on average (even removing the treacherous 3 month run opposite Raw) been worse than the previous year.

Not trying to hatchet job your post but I am interested in discussing the TNA finances speculation with someone that can have a productive conversation about it rationally. That is why I am cutting straight to some of the points that come up often. The first being that I put in bold two different times that you said the ratings were basically the same, so i am wondering why you led with this piece which seems to suggest the ratings have been significantly worse?

but ratings are staying the same. We could speculate that the talent roster costs more now and it may be draining them of money. Hell, we could read a report saying they are strapped for cash. It still doesn't justify as a legitimate news piece.

With all that said, Eric Bischoff really didn't do TNA or himself any favors here. It's clear that he went into this thing with a goal to make TNA and himself (and Hogan really) look better by dismissing some "facts", but I'm not sure that happened.

The main thing I might criticize Bischoff for is that sometimes he conveniently over or underplays his role in creative. He obviously has influence but I think his point probably is that people say it is ALL Hogan/Bischoff. That is a misguided assertion because they do not have the power to control everything, so why are they to blame for everything? Just like Russo over the years they could easily be blamed for ideas that didn't work they had nothing to do with. They do not have final say on business decisions, they do not have final say on the entirety of creative, they do not write the show.

What we can understand from this largely meaningless "interview" is that TNA, Eric Bischoff, and other people who seem to have a little power (don't let Eric fool you, he produces Reaction with Jason Hervey and has more to do with the product than just "on air talent") are certainly at an impasse. I'm sure when they made the deal a year ago to come into TNA, they felt like they would have a quicker impact on the company, no pun intended (is it me, or is it really hard to not use the world impact when talking about wrestling? It's so common, and because it's the show name, you have to say "no pun intended now"......anyway) A year into this thing, with a lot of ideas tried, and a lot of talent on the roster, and things haven't changed all that much. Perhaps they are making some money from licensing for their bigger names. Perhaps there are some profitable avenues that the company has. Reaction might be profitable as it is a low cost show (based on the fact that it is single camera, interview only footage combined with highlights and such from a show that just aired), but clearly, this is not where they wanted to be. If you say otherwise, you just aren't being fair.

Isn't this just speculation? Somewhat odd after you spent so much time talking about the pratfalls of the guesswork done by the IWC. Even if they would like to be better, how would that make where they are bad? I imagine most shows would like to get better ratings. Basically it is hard to say that just because the ratings are the same that the entire company is stagnant. Many credible people, even in TNA, basically said there is only one way to grow ratings, slowly by a consistently good product. Some with the other viewpoint won out and TNA had a rough three months. What I do not get is that after such an approach was shown to be a questionable idea why are people criticizing TNA for not blowing up with a snap of the fingers? These "critics" are guilty of the same misguided thinking that led TNA to a bad spot earlier this year.

What bothers me about the "perhaps" many put forward is that they conveniently only attempt to use common sense on the negative sides and often do not even mention reaction, merchandising, foreign markets etc. You did not in this post and I give you credit for that. It is speculation as far as spending more money of contracts just as it is speculation that TNA does have improved performance in certain areas. I think you still fall victim to extremely questionable idea that one piece of one part of the the company can be extrapolated to represent the whole thing just because we only know that one thing.

Mr. Bischoff, while someone I usually do not defend, is certainly trying, along with others, to make this thing work. It is not. It is in the same place it was a year ago in terms of ratings, which are the only tangible measurements we can go on. We don't know anything else, so we look to the ratings, and they are largely the same. If they were largely profitable at those ratings, power to them, but I get the feeling that they want more.

Sure they want more but like I said what is so bad about that? I get the feeling some people think TV ratings are tied directly to money every week and that isn't true. The contract with the network is where the TV money comes from. Ratings do play into that in negotiations and other ways but the money from it isn't something that is subject to great variability like people want to think. Impact is, and has been for a while now, the highest rated show on spike. Depending on when the most recent deal was put together it is entirely possible they made more money off of impact this year than last based on the Hogan hype. Even if everything is simply the same about the ratings, I think it is borderline obvious the company has improved in several ways. So maybe some parts of some areas this year have been disappointing in the lack of growth but there have been improvements and signs of promise. I have a hard time ignoring that just because the ratings are the same.

 

[Derrtown]

This has to be a work.

One, i follow Eric on facebook and he has had his wall shut from posting comments on it for the last two months. Im not quite sure how Michael Barton was able to post these financial facts (false or not), on to the page in the first place.

Secondly, if you listen to the radio show he answers his phone after one phone call. It sounded extremely suss and if a radio program answered phone calls throughout their show whenever someone rang in, there would be no time to talk any logic.

He made a political comment about Obama or something and the dude posted a comment off of that statement. I think Bischoff opens his wall anyway on Thursday nights, not really sure im not huge on FB but I know hes done that a couple of times.

 

[JJYanks121]

Not trying to hatchet job your post but I am interested in discussing the TNA finances speculation with someone that can have a productive conversation about it rationally. That is why I am cutting straight to some of the points that come up often. The first being that I put in bold two different times that you said the ratings were basically the same, so i am wondering why you led with this piece which seems to suggest the ratings have been significantly worse?



The main thing I might criticize Bischoff for is that sometimes he conveniently over or underplays his role in creative. He obviously has influence but I think his point probably is that people say it is ALL Hogan/Bischoff. That is a misguided assertion because they do not have the power to control everything, so why are they to blame for everything? Just like Russo over the years they could easily be blamed for ideas that didn't work they had nothing to do with. They do not have final say on business decisions, they do not have final say on the entirety of creative, they do not write the show.



Isn't this just speculation? Somewhat odd after you spent so much time talking about the pratfalls of the guesswork done by the IWC. Even if they would like to be better, how would that make where they are bad? I imagine most shows would like to get better ratings. Basically it is hard to say that just because the ratings are the same that the entire company is stagnant. Many credible people, even in TNA, basically said there is only one way to grow ratings, slowly by a consistently good product. Some with the other viewpoint won out and TNA had a rough three months. What I do not get is that after such an approach was shown to be a questionable idea why are people criticizing TNA for not blowing up with a snap of the fingers? These "critics" are guilty of the same misguided thinking that led TNA to a bad spot earlier this year.

What bothers me about the "perhaps" many put forward is that they conveniently only attempt to use common sense on the negative sides and often do not even mention reaction, merchandising, foreign markets etc. You did not in this post and I give you credit for that. It is speculation as far as spending more money of contracts just as it is speculation that TNA does have improved performance in certain areas. I think you still fall victim to extremely questionable idea that one piece of one part of the the company can be extrapolated to represent the whole thing just because we only know that one thing.



Sure they want more but like I said what is so bad about that? I get the feeling some people think TV ratings are tied directly to money every week and that isn't true. The contract with the network is where the TV money comes from. Ratings do play into that in negotiations and other ways but the money from it isn't something that is subject to great variability like people want to think. Impact is, and has been for a while now, the highest rated show on spike. Depending on when the most recent deal was put together it is entirely possible they made more money off of impact this year than last based on the Hogan hype. Even if everything is simply the same about the ratings, I think it is borderline obvious the company has improved in several ways. So maybe some parts of some areas this year have been disappointing in the lack of growth but there have been improvements and signs of promise. I have a hard time ignoring that just because the ratings are the same.

I'm not going to go line by line but I'll try to address some of the issues you brought up.

1) At no point did I try and discuss financials, nor do I really care if the company is profitable. I'm sure that TNA under the larger 5 Panda Energy Umbrella is finding ways to try to stay out of the red. We won't know how exactly their financials look for the same reason I won't let you look at my financials. Unless it is a publicly traded company where stockholders need to know, they won't release that stuff. I did say that something like buyrates MIGHT be released by Dixie out of pride if it was a solid number, but the fact is, financials are incredibly irrelevant and I'm not sure why wrestling fans get caught up in them.

2) Let me clarify my facts in terms of ratings. Ratings are down SLIGHTLY from last year as an overall average. Thus, the are basically the same, certainly have not increased as an average, and certainly have not shown a positively upward trend. Since this is the only public knowledge that we can judge the company on, I think it's safe to say that based on these facts, no one in TNA should be all that happy. If they are, power to them, but I would hope that those in the company have much higher aspirations and certainly had higher goals when they signed Hogan in the first place. Then, Hogan's first appearance drew a 1.5 against Raw and Bret Hart, so expectations had to be high. For a plethora of reasons, ratings have returned back to the comfortable 1.1 area, so if you were to analyze 2010, you'd find overall that the trend is not a great one. Certainly you could agree that officials in TNA or whoever the hell we usually talk about were hoping that bringing in all this new talent and trying this new direction with the company would put them in an upwardly trending ratings analysis.

3) Just to expand on 2, I don't care if the same ratings mean more money due to licensing or whatever. Irrelevant because we don't know. However, you are pretty wrong about how television works. Yes, TNA makes money from their TV deal with Spike, but Spike makes more off of them. Where TNA makes MORE money is when their ratings go up and advertisers come to Spike and want to advertise in Impact or Reaction's time slot. That's when TNA gets advertising residuals. Since the ratings haven't improved, new advertisers surely haven't come in. I work in advertising (sports ad network), and I know that the better you are doing, the more money advertisers are willing to pay to get their product advertised on yours. That's where TNA wants to be and aren't there yet. Not criticizing, just stating fact.

4) The bottom line is that Hogan and Bischoff didn't come in to TNA to keep ratings the same. They know that big ratings means big advertisers and big dollars. That's what they want. Whether they are on screen talents, part of creative, or whatever other roles they have (again, Bischoff and Hervey DO produce Reaction, look it up), they work for the company to help it succeed and to make money. It's a money driven industry, but it's driven based on a written product executed by talent. Thus, whatever is holding back this written product from generating more viewers on a weekly basis and from paying for Pay Per Views (speculating, but you have to figure based on WWE's TV Ratings as compared to their PPV buys an approximate percentage of fans that would buy a PPV) is still a work in progress. It would be hard for anyone to argue that at the very least, investing money and resources into a lot of new talents and a new direction should have at least yielded an upward trend in ratings and that isn't evident. It's either on the same plane as years past or slightly downward. Thus, work is to be done, and perhaps a lot of it.

5) I do want to close with a little speculation. Keep in mind I am NOT telling you I have any inside information or even remotely have figures, but I want to add something to the mix. Bischoff mentioned in this little argument different ways to generate income, be it licensing, merchandising, foreign markets, etc. What he did not take into account is salary. Let's take RVD for example. By signing Rob Van Dam, you do open yourself up to selling RVD products, seling his name on marquees, etc. However, you must look at RVD's salary to see if spending the money on him is generating a profit. You may be making REVENUE off of him, but if he is paid a ton (I have no idea if he is), you might in in the red in regards to this single star. Essentially, he needs to bring a return on investment. I don't know if he is, but you need him to. The same goes for any of the bigger stars that are most likely bringing in the largest salaries. The speculation ends here because we don't have the facts, but the point stands that making REVENUE and making PROFIT are two different things.

My conclusion is that Eric Bischoff wanted to shed a little light on common misconceptions about the wrestling business, but in doing so, he avoided certain things as skillfully as a politician. Still, the interviewer wasn't good enough to control the interview and really try and understand what he wanted. These two argued for a half an hour over a moot point when they could have used that time to talk about relevant, public information like ratings and how Bischoff and the rest of TNA felt about their current position and how they planned to improve. THAT would have been a much better conversation.

 

[shattered dreams]

Let me clarify my facts in terms of ratings. Ratings are down SLIGHTLY from last year as an overall average. Thus, the are basically the same, certainly have not increased as an average, and certainly have not shown a positively upward trend.

For the year strictly speaking that is true. Is that the whole picture? Not exactly. TNA tried a lot of experiments for short-term gain that never really panned out in the beginning of the year that led to a lot of variability in the ratings. Over the last 6 months I calculate the ratings average as essentially the exact same as it was over this period last year. From a somewhat arbitrary 7/8 on TNA has actually had almost a full tenth of a point higher average than 09. TNA also put up its 4 highest ratings ever this year. It hasn't been a great year ratings wise but the idea that the current trend is slightly down is misleading IMO.

Since this is the only public knowledge that we can judge the company on, I think it's safe to say that based on these facts, no one in TNA should be all that happy.

The problem is that those in charge of TNA have more info than just the ratings. They could want the ratings to grow more but still be happy with company generally because of the success of some of these things we have to speculate about.

I don't care if the same ratings mean more money due to licensing or whatever. Irrelevant because we don't know. However, you are pretty wrong about how television works. Yes, TNA makes money from their TV deal with Spike, but Spike makes more off of them. Where TNA makes MORE money is when their ratings go up and advertisers come to Spike and want to advertise in Impact or Reaction's time slot. That's when TNA gets advertising residuals. Since the ratings haven't improved, new advertisers surely haven't come in. I work in advertising (sports ad network), and I know that the better you are doing, the more money advertisers are willing to pay to get their product advertised on yours. That's where TNA wants to be and aren't there yet. Not criticizing, just stating fact.

I do not think I said growing the rating was irrelevant just to be clear. Obviously significant improvement leads to more money one way or another in the long-term but I was more saying short-term slight decreases are essentially irrelevant. I am no expert but I think attracting advertisers etc. is a process that involves other factors than just ratings. I was also pointing out not all money from impact is tied directly to the ratings. If you have any other info on how the process works I would be interested to hear about it because I have always been interested and have never really found a good overview.

The bottom line is that Hogan and Bischoff didn't come in to TNA to keep ratings the same. They know that big ratings means big advertisers and big dollars. That's what they want. Whether they are on screen talents, part of creative, or whatever other roles they have (again, Bischoff and Hervey DO produce Reaction, look it up), they work for the company to help it succeed and to make money.

Just like you can look up that they do not produce impact, which is the show we are talking about ratings etc for. Reaction I have a hard time not speculating as a good source of some money for TNA. Although that is mostly because impact foots the bill for the talent essentially so we begin the spiral of overlap that shows why it should be viewed as TNA, instead of separating and isolating various aspects. I do not know what they get out of reaction but I would guess that this has been an improvement that helped TNA financially compared to last year. Especially if all you need is ratings to suggest success. Reaction under normal circumstances adds another half hour in the .7-.9 range which is nothing to scoff at. If that is Eric's baby he deserves some credit for it IMO.

I do want to close with a little speculation. Keep in mind I am NOT telling you I have any inside information or even remotely have figures, but I want to add something to the mix. Bischoff mentioned in this little argument different ways to generate income, be it licensing, merchandising, foreign markets, etc. What he did not take into account is salary. Let's take RVD for example. By signing Rob Van Dam, you do open yourself up to selling RVD products, seling his name on marquees, etc. However, you must look at RVD's salary to see if spending the money on him is generating a profit. You may be making REVENUE off of him, but if he is paid a ton (I have no idea if he is), you might in in the red in regards to this single star. Essentially, he needs to bring a return on investment. I don't know if he is, but you need him to. The same goes for any of the bigger stars that are most likely bringing in the largest salaries. The speculation ends here because we don't have the facts, but the point stands that making REVENUE and making PROFIT are two different things.

This is just such an unknown. My opinion is that to speculate on one and not the other isn't the best approach. Either speculate on all or none. I do agree that this is a possible question. However, it shouldn't all be on RVD. It should be about the resources in general. TNA had people like Lashley, Steiner and others last year. If RVD is a better use of those funds than they would have been than he is still an improvement even if that doesn't necessarily mean "worth it." Sometimes these guys are an investment in possibility. They might not be directly worth it but they open the door to give you a chance to get there. You can only mortage the future that never comes so many times but since we do not know how deeply, or if at all, this practice runs.

Yes, TNA could probably run "stagnant" for cheaper but that is not the goal as you point out. Obviously not everything they have tried has worked but some has and I think that they haven't given up is a sign their finances might not be as dire as some like to speculate.

 

[realdealasshole]

It's easy to say things like "Bischoff has an influence on pushing terrible guys like Abyss, JJ, and Hardy while "GREAT" wrestlers like Daniels, Homicide and Hernandez have been fired", but let's face facts.

Chris Daniels = never drew a dime.
Homicide = never drew a dime.
Hernandez = never drew a dime.
Homicide & Hernandez = really good tag team that never drew a dime.

Abyss = never drew a dime, but for some odd reason TNA is high on him.
JJ = obtained moderate success in both WWE and WCW, and played a hand in the birth of TNA.
Hardy = Arguably one of the most recognized workers in the world.

ANY wrestling company would let JJ and Hardy take center stage as opposed to Homicide, Hernandez and Chris Daniels. That's just how it is. I'm not saying the "great" guys that've been fired weren't entertaining, but none of them stand to make TNA as much money as a Jeff Hardy.

I dislike TNA a great deal, but the company is no worse off since the introduction of Hogan and Bischoff. If anything, the experiment was worth a try. You want as many recognizable people as possible on your TV show, right?

I love how your reasons for Daniels, Homicide, and Hernandez were that they never drew a dime, but then you immediately defended pushing a 40+ year old Jeff Jarrett. Jarrett is the definition of someone who was pushed but never drew a dime. And as for your whole birth of TNA thing, yeah, he did great in starting the company. But no one tuned in to watch Jeff Jarrett vs Ken Shamrock. People watched because of the X division, which, was coincidentally helped tremendously by people like Christopher Daniels. And LAX was one of the hottest tag teams in TNA for a long time and one reason that more people began watching when the show first came to Spike TV.

As for Jeff Hardy, while I could go off about how that star power is nearly completely gone, I won't. He's still worth at least something to TNA. Just not in the way TNA expects him to be. He's not a megastar anymore. Regardless though, what kind of an idiot takes a company that grew solely because of the X division, and completely dismantles that division as soon as they get control of the company?

 

[realdealasshole]

No worries, I'll do it for you. First of all, the creation of the nWo did not come about at Bash at the Beach, that's when Hulk Hogan joined it. Before there was an nWo, there were "The Outsiders". The group simply changed its name when Hogan joined in and went to the next level.

NWO/The Outsiders started out with only two members, Hall and Nash, who just came from another company. They would run around the joint and cause trouble, talking about taking over the company from the get-go.

Immortal started out with Abyss' ramblings about "them" coming to take TNA over. Immortal revealed themselves at the same location where Hogan joined the nWo. This is where the similarities end to a screeching halt. It consisted of Jeff Jarret, Bischoff, Hogan, Abyss and Jeff Hardy, later joined by Fourtune.

Immortal did not run around with black and white T-Shirts, their name doesn't even hint to the nWo, they don't run vignettes, they don't sell themselves as being a separate entity from TNA.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but if TNA is trying to re-create the nWo by creating Immortal then they're doing a horrible, horrible job. People automatically assume that since a big stable is trying to take over a company - it's an nWo rip off. Wrong. People said it about Nexus and they could not be more wrong, they say it about Immortal and again - so wrong.

The reveal happened at Daytona Beach for one reason and one reason only -- to sell more PPV buys. People thought something huge was going to happen, especially after the long winded build up, and having it Daytona Beach made people think that it was going to be something special and maybe controversial. It was special, but not the latter. The place is symbolic to change, to contraversy, just like to wrestling fans, Madison Square Garden is symbolic to the WWE.

If we automatically assume that Immortal is a reincarnation of the nWo, then why not go all the way?

TNA switched from a six sided ring to a four sided ring - they're trying to be like the WWE. Wrong, but I'm using your logic.

They're airing iMPACT from Universal Studios, just like WCW used to - so they're trying to be like WCW.

Jeff Hardy is all gothic and weird - he's trying to be like Raven.

They have casket matches - they're trying to copy WWE's casket matches.

James Storm drinks beer - he's trying to be like Steve Austin.

Robert Roode's last name sounds like Rick Rude - he's trying to be like Rick Rude.

Eric Young is brain dead - he's trying to be like Eugene.

The list goes on and on. People constantly try to pin ex-storylines to TNA's product, making it seem like a bad thing. It's not. I WISH TNA had its own version of the nWo. It was the greatest faction of all time, and if TNA had the ability to re-create it, that would've been great.

Face it, wrestling's been around for quite some time. Storylines, factions, wrestlers, approaches are BOUND to seem like something done in the past. One faction's agenda does not make them an immitation of another one. Immortal and nWo's inception was totally different, the members are different [bar Hogan and maybe Bischoff], the agenda is the same. Unfortunately, nWo had ONE reincarnation in TNA and it was not Immortal. It was "The Band", and that one sucked major balls.

Or maybe it's because at that show, they went to the same city it happened at. Maybe it's because it involved Hulk Hogan coming out to take the spotlight just like back then. Maybe it's because Mike Tenay used the same language as back then, "Jeff Hardy is supposed to be a role model to kids everywhere!" (I still laugh at that line) Or maybe it's because it was a group talking about outsiders coming in to take over an established company. Nice try, though. You're a mark though, so anything I say, I'm sure I'm wasting my time.

 

[Calderownz]

The fact of the matter is that Bischoff and company have tried some different things here and there. Some of it has worked, some of it hasn't really found it's footing and some has just failed miserably.

It happens. The difference is that Bischoff is a Heat Seeker, he gets the blame of it. People forget that WCW took a solid 4 years to turn around. People expect the same thing here. It's insane. This could take even longer. He has less money. Less leverage with the stations as well, as TNA doesn't own them.

Regardless, it's impossible for TNA to be losing money, honestly. It's virtually impossible.

Spike pays them more then they pay any other show. TNA budgets itself, I'd bet, around that, along with merchandise and PPV revenue. Which, I'd have to assume are well over the 25,000 mark they need to make a profit. They get paid to have their shows in their Impact! Zone, as well.

If they are losing money, they'd have to be royally fucking up. I just don't see it happening, as they have a big watch-dog company overhead.

Bischoff was right to call this douche out, as he was simply an ill-informed hater, cliche in his remarks, and horrible in his arguments.