Biting the Hand?

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Got this from Wrestleview.com.

Hogan is, once again, talking out of his ass. Hogan's trying to think of a reason to why he hasn't drew the big number's he promised so he's gonna blame Spike. Newflash douchebag, RAW was on Spike and was getting triple the rating's and viewer's TNA's getting.

It would make sense that since you post on this forum that you read the headlines on the news site itself here on WrestleZone. Something tells me that if this is the case a good portion of your ignorant and smarkish opinion is based on that tactless "internet newsreporter" or "yellow journalist" as we should call him, Nick Paglino. Just because WWF/E and TNA have BOTH been on the TNN/Spike Network doesn't mean that TNA has been hyped the same way as WWF/E. Also keep in GREAT mind that TNA did not have the same audience coming over to Spike that the World Wrestling Federation did, they've really had to create an audience this time and not buy one like they did in the early 2000s there Mr. Armchair Expert.

It's called marketing and getting your product out there. The only time I saw the most TNA preview's was for Hogan's debut in TNA, I'm not surprised. Since then, I haven't seen anything on TV previewing TNA. No, I do not think it's good at all to blame the network for TNA's misfortune. TNA need to market thier product, Spike can't do it for them.

So that's Hogan's fault completely that Spike so openly emphasized his debut but not much since? Yeah, right. Spike and TNA are the ones that have to work that out and despite the fact they got Hogan only he is capable of doing so much when considering that despite his influence he does not OWN the company. The markdom is seriously getting annoying by now, it's obvious you got nothing positive to contribute to this topic but considering how annoyed you've gotten myself and other posters I just can't stand back and not say something to call you out on your bull.

Hogan, just admit you not the draw you were anymore nand move on with your life, your constant blaming everybody else and bitching is making my repect for you get in the negative's.

Totally right there, but Hogan is not BLAMING anyone, he's just giving us insight on a situation he's a lot closer to than we are. Leave it to people like Nick Paglino to lure people to a newslink by giving it a cute little title and giving people preconceived notions. Paglino does not have a single bit of journalistic integrity in him.

And you are no better especially when reading your signature. Not denying your freedom of speech kid, but you're really not inspiring me to show you a damned bit of respect considering what you bring to most of your posts here on this forum.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

lol you know what people i was talking about this kind of stuff in another thread last week. Look Spike Tv is a good channel, but its not one of the big-4 channels (ABC, CBS,NBC and FOX) in the States. How many people in the States have Spike TV on their cable channels, compared to the big-4 channels? I don't know but i'm willing to bet that more people in the states have the big-4 channels. TNA can market itself all it wants but, if people don't have Spike Tv on their cable its no wonder TNA can't have the same ratings that WWE has.

 

[shattered dreams]

He isn't "blaming" SPIKE for anything. You just think that because of the stupid headline WZ used to get attention. Read what he said. He is saying that the average viewership size is much less there and that contributes heavily, which it does. If he was blaming them why would he be talking about them both growing together and how that is the goal that would be mutually beneficial?

 

[Sinister Shadows]

lol you know what people i was talking about this kind of stuff in another thread last week. Look Spike Tv is a good channel, but its not one of the big-4 channels (ABC, CBS,NBC and FOX) in the States. How many people in the States have Spike TV on their cable channels, compared to the big-4 channels? I don't know but i'm willing to bet that more people in the states have the big-4 channels. TNA can market itself all it wants but, if people don't have Spike Tv on their cable its no wonder TNA can't have the same ratings that WWE has.

I think I'm one of maybe 3 people in the states that has Spike but not the networks....

 

[Dr.Metalhead]

A lot of the lack of good ratings is the fact that Spike TV, with the exception of UFC has a lot stupid and pointless shows that not many families sit together and watch. USA Network has its own sitcoms, which helps get ratings. If Spike were to reform their broadcasts to that similar to USA, the ratings most likely will increase.
Another reason why TNA's rating's suck is the fact that their marketing sucks.

As far as Hogan's statement is concerned, He has no room to talk, he said he'll get TNA 3.0 ratings and we all know that never happened. Hogan really needs to go, he's just a burden.

 

[blackmetalbuick]

Lol those stats are pretty funny that Spike is actually just as widely available as USA. Hogan is just BSing and placing blame. And yeah I almost forgot that RAW was on Spike for a while too and did just fine. I think Spike has lost some of its initial popularity since its launch, the whole "guy channel" thing is kinda cheesy, I'm a guy in their key demographic and I pretty much never watch anything on Spike unless I torture myself with Impact. USA is another kind of "niche" channel like Spike, USA isn't one of the major American networks either, so it's stupid to act like the WWE has some advantage. They have a better product (sad to say) and a more well-known name. That's all there is to it. Sure, I can't really say I've ever seen Impact really advertised anywhere, and I live in a major city, but I can't say I see a ton of ads for RAW either. TNA could be on CBS primetime and it would still be miserable.

It should NOT be this hard to compete against the current WWE product and all the complaints issued against it. TNA has good ideas (be more mature if WWE is PG, focus on WRESTLING if WWE is scared to even use that word), but their execution sucks. There are so many wrestling fans like me right now who are bored to death with WWE, yet still choose to watch it rather than get a headache from watching the trailer park circus that is TNA. They have older star power AND amazing young talent, they have a full television deal, and so many fans are sick of WWE right now, it's pretty pathetic that TNA can't get the upper hand or at least start to catch up. I'm not sure where the problem lies, but in a perfect world, I would get rid of Jarrett. He sucks, he has never drawn, and I just feel like so much of the cheesiness and crappiness of the show comes from him and his involvement in the company.

Everything about TNA just reeks of cheapness, from everyone's terrible entrance music, to the writing (goofy shit like Winter or whatever her name is). Focus on wrestling, focus on being more mature than the PG crap, it sounds like a good foundation. It sounds great on paper. "Hey, are you tired of WWE? What if I told you there was a wrestling company out there not afraid to refer to themselves as wrestling, and aren't trying to maintain a TV-PG rating?". Sounds great, but that would be such a dirty trick to entice a fellow wrestling fan like that and then have them sit down and watch an episode of Impact.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

And yeah I almost forgot that RAW was on Spike for a while too and did just fine.

blackmetalbuick, dude its not the same thing. Raw was already on USA network before it went to TNN/Spike-Tv so they already had the necessary following. TNA on the other hand,was in the same situation that ROH is now until they went to Spike-Tv so they had to build up a following from the ground up. By the way USA is part of NBC-Universal, so USA is considered a big network.

 

[Syborgg]

Raw did well on Spike because before Raw moved from USA to TNN/Spike, it promoted the hell out of the move. Which led their fans to follow them to Spike. Raw already had a huge viewership and even if some didn't follow them, they still had a strong following. This is also why Smackdown has survived it's constant changing of the networks.

If you read in it's entirety what Hogan said, he's not putting blame on Spike as a network. He's simply stating that the network itself isn't strong enough as a whole.

Let's put it in simple terms. People are creatures of habit. If they are flipping through the channels looking for something to watch, you know that most of them are going to flip through the major networks first, in the U.S. those are CBS, NBC, USA and then to a lesser extent Fox. Hogan talked about the list of top 10 and Spike isn't even in that list. Which means that for the average person Spike isn't even 10th on their list of channels to watch. If they aren't watching Spike, then they aren't watching TNA simple as that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Spike have financial interest in TNA? As in partial ownership? Because if they do, then wouldn't it be in their best interest to help grow their network? Which in turn would help grow TNA? Which is what Hogan wants. Of course he wants the network to grow which would help grow HIS bottomline, and if there's anyone that thinks that the network execs don't want to grow THEIR bottomline, then they should go back to grade school.

See TNA is in a totally different situation than WWE. WWE has been around for decades and already has a solid base of viewers. Sure their numbers shrink and grow and they are faced with the challenges of keeping those numbers high. However, they have billions of dollars to invest in marketing in order to garner those numbers. TNA is a company that started from ground zero and has worked their way up. If you look at where they began as compared to where they are now, they've done a damn good job so far. But now it seems they are stuck as Hogan insinuated and to get to that next level, they need to work with the network and grow the viewership of the network altogether.

This may be off the topic, but perhaps that is why they sign alot of the WWE "rejects". They are hoping that even some of those WWE fans follow their favorite superstar to TNA and become fans of their product. Something to think about.

 

[Oderus_Urungus]

I have been enjoying reading these forums for a while now. I check WZ daily, and part of that is reading these forums. This is my first post, or reply. I just have one question, how did ECW do in the ratings when they were on TNN? They had about the same following if not less than TNA, and the internet wasnt as prominent as it is now. Just wondering how they did in comparison. WWE on TNN or Spike is non comparable because of the legendary following theyve had for so long before that deal, and of course that RAW was already on a big channel. I think ECW would be more of an argument. Anybody know those numbers?

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

I have been enjoying reading these forums for a while now. I check WZ daily, and part of that is reading these forums. This is my first post, or reply. I just have one question, how did ECW do in the ratings when they were on TNN? They had about the same following if not less than TNA, and the internet wasnt as prominent as it is now. Just wondering how they did in comparison. WWE on TNN or Spike is non comparable because of the legendary following theyve had for so long before that deal, and of course that RAW was already on a big channel. I think ECW would be more of an argument. Anybody know those numbers?

ECW had shit ratings. I don't know the numbers but having a wrestling show on a Friday Night is not a good idea.


Let's put it in simple terms. People are creatures of habit. If they are flipping through the channels looking for something to watch, you know that most of them are going to flip through the major networks first, in the U.S. those are CBS, NBC, USA and then to a lesser extent Fox. Hogan talked about the list of top 10 and Spike isn't even in that list. Which means that for the average person Spike isn't even 10th on their list of channels to watch. If they aren't watching Spike, then they aren't watching TNA simple as that.


Syborgg exactly what i meant. Look people, if Spike-Tv was viewed in the same light as the big-4 networks and was on basic cable more people would watch it. Since it isn't, TNA can't grow. Say TNA somehow would be on CBS, if they had the same ratings that they have now you could blame TNA's product for the poor ratings. But if suddenly by being on CBS they had 2.3 in ratings what would you say?

 

[blockanWo]

Hes not really insulting Spike.

The way it comes across to me atleast is he is saying. Spike is not a widely recieved channel. We want to help Spike get into those top 10 cable ratings and perhaps then, not only will our product TNA gain more viewers, but Spike itself will benefit. It sounds like a wrestling company and a television network working together to both further their own brands, which is fantastic.

Really sounds like people are just taking what Hogan said way out of context or misunderstanding it completely.

 

[blackmetalbuick]

Really sounds like people are just taking what Hogan said way out of context or misunderstanding it completely.

I didn't really apply any context to what Hogan said, I just read his comments and then read the statistic that both USA and Spike TV are available in 85-65% of homes, so it's not that TNA isn't "out there". And to say that if Spike was in the top 10 cable networks would get them more viewers, well that's putting the cart before the horse. You get into the top 10 networks by having good programming. No network puts out crappy shows, somehow gets to the top 10, and then those shows get more exposure. That's backwards. So if Spike ever wants to be a more successful network (or TNA a successful company), they need to work on their stuff first. Good programming = successful network, not the other way around. That's like saying an athlete gets to the top of the rankings first and then actually becomes a skilled athlete. You work hard and do good and then you get to the top.

I do stand corrected on one thing though, I didn't think USA was that far ahead of Spike, but I just came across an article that says USA was actually the #1 cable network last year. Be that as it may, I don't factor in the success of a network to how much I enjoy whatever show I'm watching.

Bottom line, TNA and WWE could switch networks and I don't think much would change.

 

[blackmetalbuick]

Excuse the double post but I can't edit my previous one any longer. I'm watching NHL playoffs on Versus and just saw a new ad for Impact Wrestling. Lots of emphasis on "wrestling matters" with Robert Roode saying "If I want entertainment, I rent a movie, if I want professional wrestling, I tune to Spike". So, Spike is getting some new advertising out there and I think it's a smart move to try to attract more unhappy WWE fans.

 

[sfury2005]

I didn't really apply any context to what Hogan said, I just read his comments and then read the statistic that both USA and Spike TV are available in 85-65% of homes, so it's not that TNA isn't "out there". And to say that if Spike was in the top 10 cable networks would get them more viewers, well that's putting the cart before the horse. You get into the top 10 networks by having good programming. No network puts out crappy shows, somehow gets to the top 10, and then those shows get more exposure. That's backwards. So if Spike ever wants to be a more successful network (or TNA a successful company), they need to work on their stuff first. Good programming = successful network, not the other way around. That's like saying an athlete gets to the top of the rankings first and then actually becomes a skilled athlete. You work hard and do good and then you get to the top.

I do stand corrected on one thing though, I didn't think USA was that far ahead of Spike, but I just came across an article that says USA was actually the #1 cable network last year. Be that as it may, I don't factor in the success of a network to how much I enjoy whatever show I'm watching.

Bottom line, TNA and WWE could switch networks and I don't think much would change.

I would think with WWE having been around for decades and having a huge built in fan-base that you're right WWE would do fine on Spike. If WWE were to be new with no real fan-base it would take them some time to build one on spike and they might not be able to get much better than TNA has. It's just hard to draw fans on a station that is catering towards one certain demographic. Look at Smackdown on syfy as it's barely drawing over a 1.7 rating. You would think it would do much better but it's not and some other WWE shows were drawing a lot lower ratings then IMPACT was.

TNA on USA with the same marketing the WWE gets would I believe build some higher ratings then they have now because USA has a lot of high rated shows and loyal viewers. Would it have ratings like RAW? Who knows for sure as they might if TNA will get out of that IMPACT Zone they would look more professional and I think people would like them and be more inclined to keep tuning in. Spike on the other hand has no high rated shows as IMPACT wrestling is it's top show I believe. .

Since I never liked Hogan and probably never will it's hard for me to say this but he is right in what he said. Whether or not it could be taken wrong by Spike executives is another question. It is possible.

 

[Weems2k]

Remember when Spike first rebranded/debuted, it was promoted as The First Network for Men. Pretty much all their shows were targeted to that 18-30 deuchbag, dirtball, loser knob guy crowd. So when a wrestling company called TNA comes along, not a lot of people are going to take it seriously at first. Of course ratings aren't going to be over a 2.0 if that's the only crowd you're marketing too. Spike has to expand thier audience, and for the most part, the past few years they have. Like everyone else has said, Impact has to scratch Spike's back, and they have to do the same. Pro Wrestling from the very beginning was about marketing, and expanding thier regions.

 

[JJYanks121]

I want to try and play a little counterpoint here and see if I can offer some insight. While Hogan isn't totally wrong here in thinking that as Spike grows, so too can TNA, he might be missing something obvious. TNA can grow regardless of Spike's growth.

Let's take Sly's example of Buffalo Wild Wings. The chain is Buffalo Wild Wings and they have, let's say 100 stores in the country. If one store is in bumblefuck, Kansas, it might do shitty business. If it's not turning a profit, that branch would close. In TV terms, if a show on a network doesn't do well, it gets cancelled.

Now, if a branch is in Tampa, Florida and does very well due to commercials, billboards, newspaper ads, word of mouth, etc., that branch is going to stay open. Again in TV terms, a show doing well will stay on the network. Let's say TNA is like the Tampa branch since it's the highest watched show on Spike. If it were to promote itself, it would still be the highest watched show, but would have more viewers. In turn, the chain (Spike) looks better because of the growth of one single store (show).

The point is that TNA can help itself with the right marketing campaigns and the right exposure. Spike can and should help with that considering they have some sort of stock in the company. That said, they can't do it all. TNA's marketing hasn't been good and that can't be denied. Remember that when you point a finger at someone, 3 point back at you. I agree that Spike could help more, but I also think TNA can help itself more. If Spike's growth can help TNA, so too can TNA's growth help Spike. It goes both ways, and TNA might want to do their part as well, because we certainly haven't seen much of an effort on their part to increase exposure to their product.

 

[sfury2005]

I want to try and play a little counterpoint here and see if I can offer some insight. While Hogan isn't totally wrong here in thinking that as Spike grows, so too can TNA, he might be missing something obvious. TNA can grow regardless of Spike's growth.

Let's take Sly's example of Buffalo Wild Wings. The chain is Buffalo Wild Wings and they have, let's say 100 stores in the country. If one store is in bumblefuck, Kansas, it might do shitty business. If it's not turning a profit, that branch would close. In TV terms, if a show on a network doesn't do well, it gets cancelled.

Now, if a branch is in Tampa, Florida and does very well due to commercials, billboards, newspaper ads, word of mouth, etc., that branch is going to stay open. Again in TV terms, a show doing well will stay on the network. Let's say TNA is like the Tampa branch since it's the highest watched show on Spike. If it were to promote itself, it would still be the highest watched show, but would have more viewers. In turn, the chain (Spike) looks better because of the growth of one single store (show).

The point is that TNA can help itself with the right marketing campaigns and the right exposure. Spike can and should help with that considering they have some sort of stock in the company. That said, they can't do it all. TNA's marketing hasn't been good and that can't be denied. Remember that when you point a finger at someone, 3 point back at you. I agree that Spike could help more, but I also think TNA can help itself more. If Spike's growth can help TNA, so too can TNA's growth help Spike. It goes both ways, and TNA might want to do their part as well, because we certainly haven't seen much of an effort on their part to increase exposure to their product.

I think you basically agree with Hogan on what he said then. Here's a line out of the story about what he said.

"That's what it is - it's creating awareness, a marketing plan we have to work with Spike TV and boost them up the ladder. I don't know how many cable networks there are in the States if it's 25 or 35 but in the paper it shows you who the top ten are so if we can get Spike up to that number one position the whole equation would change on how many people are buying it.

He's saying they have to work with Spike and boost them up the ladder. In my opinion they can start by getting out of the Impact Zone and getting to more fans live. Spike could help by going a little more mainstream with there programming.

 

[Brian in Austin]

I think you basically agree with Hogan on what he said then. Here's a line out of the story about what he said.

"That's what it is - it's creating awareness, a marketing plan we have to work with Spike TV and boost them up the ladder. I don't know how many cable networks there are in the States if it's 25 or 35 but in the paper it shows you who the top ten are so if we can get Spike up to that number one position the whole equation would change on how many people are buying it.

He's saying they have to work with Spike and boost them up the ladder. In my opinion they can start by getting out of the Impact Zone and getting to more fans live. Spike could help by going a little more mainstream with there programming.

I agree with you about the live shows angle. I really believe that the perception is, because they are taping, and in some cases re-taping certain segments, that they are a 'little' company who either can't afford to go bigger, or don't know how to go bigger. It makes it seem as though the folks running the show are afraid to compete and advertisers know that. Look at some of the programming we see out there like, for example, Tough Enough. I know it's taped, but a lot of what we see is almost unwatchable, while other parts of it keep you watching. But overall, it shows that WWE wasn't afraid to put itself out there with this type of programming, adding SCSA was obviously a huge get, and having the special guests come in also doesn't hurt. The overall product is well done given what it is, and so I watch it each week. I do with the same with The Big Break on The Golf Channel. Overall pretty well done so it keeps me engaged.

So it will be with Impact Wrestling. If they produce more quality and excitement, they'll keep the fans engaged. But if they never venture out of 'The Impact Zone' I fear they are destined to be no better in the future than they are today. At some point, they're going to have to take that risk. The fact they haven't yet, I believe, says a LOT about their lack of confidence in doing so.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Yes they have to get out of the impact zone. They should try it at least once a month to test the waters so to speak. As for going live its a good idea, but its a question of timing with the talent. I guess the reason they don't go live all the time is because TNA talent unlike WWE talent, work for other companies (except of course WWE) around the world. Imagine having Impact Wrestling live with half the talent missing that wouldn't be good right?

 

[Brian in Austin]

Yes they have to get out of the impact zone. They should try it at least once a month to test the waters so to speak. As for going live its a good idea, but its a question of timing with the talent. I guess the reason they don't go live all the time is because TNA talent unlike WWE talent, work for other companies (except of course WWE) around the world. Imagine having Impact Wrestling live with half the talent missing that wouldn't be good right?

You bring up a valid point and at the same time a flaw in how TNA does business. If it's true they allow their talent to work with other organizations, that's a weakness in their business model and how they structure their contracts. That's on them to structure it so their brand is the one that gets the bulk of the time from their talent and not other organizations.

And on second thought, if this really is true, how badly are they really running things if they can't even get their talent signed to exclusive deals?

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

You bring up a valid point and at the same time a flaw in how TNA does business. If it's true they allow their talent to work with other organizations, that's a weakness in their business model and how they structure their contracts. That's on them to structure it so their brand is the one that gets the bulk of the time from their talent and not other organizations.

And on second thought, if this really is true, how badly are they really running things if they can't even get their talent signed to exclusive deals?

Oups i should have claryfied things a little. TNA talent can work for other companies around the world (of course not WWE) but TNA dates take precedent. That means that yeah they could go live more, just not like WWE does.

And on second thought, if this really is true, how badly are they really running things if they can't even get their talent signed to exclusive deals?

Brian in Austin, well like i just said TNA dates take precedent, but allowing their talents to work for other companies isn't that bad because its some sort of talent scouting at the same time. Where do you think they found Crimson, Gunner, Murphy, Robbie-E, The Bucks, Anarquia etc.?

 

[Brian in Austin]

Oups i should have claryfied things a little. TNA talent can work for other companies around the world (of course not WWE) but TNA dates take precedent. That means that yeah they could go live more, just not like WWE does.

And on second thought, if this really is true, how badly are they really running things if they can't even get their talent signed to exclusive deals?

Brian in Austin, well like i just said TNA dates take precedent, but allowing their talents to work for other companies isn't that bad because its some sort of talent scouting at the same time. Where do you think they found Crimson, Gunner, Murphy, Robbie-E, The Bucks, Anarquia etc.?

I understand what you're saying but the WWE manages to scout, and find talent, without giving their current talent the flexibility to freelance. I'll give you an example. Just read where "The Beautiful People" are going to reuinite for an appearance with a different organization coming up next month. Now let me understand this. Angelina Love is "brainwashed" and is feuding with Velvet Sky. But for one night only, they are going to reunite for an independent?

Let me take that a step further. I remember reading commentary from a veteran wrestler some months back, I believe, on this site. One of the things he talked about was how important it used to be to live out the characters off screen, to some extent, in order to get the fans to buy into what they were as characters. He went on to say that sometimes that meant that rivals couldn't be seen together at dinner, a bar, the movies, etc. It was important to "sell" that aspect of their character to the public.

I think that's what's wrong with this scenario with Love/Sky. Why allow this when you are in the middle of this huge storyline with the two of them? It just doesn't make sense and I think shows a flaw in how they structure not only their contracts, but to some extent, their characters.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Brian in Austin, you have a point there. The problem is long are gone the days of wrestlers/knockouts showing animosity towards eachother outside of the ring. Everybody knowes they are friends in real life, remember MSG incident? If you are over the age of 9 years old and you don't know that already, you need to get checked.

 

[Brian in Austin]

Brian in Austin, you have a point there. The problem is long are gone the days of wrestlers/knockouts showing animosity towards eachother outside of the ring. Everybody knowes they are friends in real life, remember MSG incident? If you are over the age of 9 years old and you don't know that already, you need to get checked.

Well I understand that time changes things and how things are done. And for the four of them, maybe they saw this as an important moment in all of their professional lives and wanted to be sure to show each other, and the fans, how much they respected each other as professionals.

 

[sfury2005]

I understand what you're saying but the WWE manages to scout, and find talent, without giving their current talent the flexibility to freelance. I'll give you an example. Just read where "The Beautiful People" are going to reuinite for an appearance with a different organization coming up next month. Now let me understand this. Angelina Love is "brainwashed" and is feuding with Velvet Sky. But for one night only, they are going to reunite for an independent?

Let me take that a step further. I remember reading commentary from a veteran wrestler some months back, I believe, on this site. One of the things he talked about was how important it used to be to live out the characters off screen, to some extent, in order to get the fans to buy into what they were as characters. He went on to say that sometimes that meant that rivals couldn't be seen together at dinner, a bar, the movies, etc. It was important to "sell" that aspect of their character to the public.

I think that's what's wrong with this scenario with Love/Sky. Why allow this when you are in the middle of this huge storyline with the two of them? It just doesn't make sense and I think shows a flaw in how they structure not only their contracts, but to some extent, their characters.

I agree but when they tape or work as little as they do for TV these wrestlers have a lot of time on their hands between shows. They are doing more and more House shows which is a good thing but I remember how much better the product looked when they were in the Arena in North Carolina a little while back. So if they allow them to work for indies they can earn some money and could also get exposure for TNA if they announce them as a TNA wrestler when they bring them out.

I believe that match you are speaking of where Sky and Angelina are back together is in Mexico and is only 1 match for AAA wrestling. It is really a TNA vs AAA match so I guess it does make sense in that aspect. It also includes Mickie James as their team mate and I had read Sarita too, but it seems now they are listing an AAA wrestler named Sexy Star as the 4th member for an 8 woman tag match. It really might be played more as the 2 being forced to work together even though they have issues between them.. If that is the plan I don't see an issue as wrestling organizations have used that formula of enemies forced to work together whether they like it or not many times over. The team itself has 2 faces and a Heel Angelina along with Sexy Star whom I'm not sure if she's heel or face. Say they have Angelina knock out Velvet and AAA pins her for the win, it adds to the feud and if that's how it's booked I don't see an issue with it.