When is TNA a "success"?

[shattered dreams]

Many have been down on TNA for some time. My question is what would it take for you personally to call them a success? Or are they one already? Is it making money, reaching certain ratings, reaching a certain market share, entertaining you, staying viable, reaching that vague word "potential" or anything else? Whatever it is, from being a success just for still being in business to not being a success until they surpass raw (talk about high standards), explain why you feel this way. If you want to pick something like potential, own identity or direction it would be nice if you gave some tangible examples. It may be interesting to see if some of the differences of opinion lie in the expectations. If you want to take the varying levels of success cop out (no shame I am considering it myself), then answer what constitutes reaching the next level of success in your opinion?

 

[Captain Jive]

I would say they are a success when they can take Impact and all PPVs on the road and can rely on themselves financially. They don't need to have everything WWE has to be a success. The reason Isay they need to go on the road is because, I feel that if you can make money anywhere you go, then you have yourself a successful company.

 

[a0161613]

I would say live shows with a multitude of interesting storylines and better PPVs. This would lead to better ratings and buy rates. Impact should aim for a regular 2.0 and a consistent PPV buy level too.

Everything else will come from this. Bigger house show attendances, more international tours, more advertising and merc revenue. There is no doubt that any great wrestling company needs to rely and focus on their wrestling product first of all. ECW didnt do it.and their rabid fan base wasn't enough to keep them going.

Course it would be ideal if TNA could ever be self-sufficent, but I doubt that.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

I think that Tna is a success in 8 years they have managed to get a Tv deal, solid Tv ratings. They have gone from the small company back in the Asylum days with a weekly PPV they now have monthly PPV's. They have toured the world and have had successful tours in Uk. I would also call them a success because they are Now adding more programming to Spike Tv with the Debut of Reaction next week and the Show Xplosion in the Uk is pulling good ratings and that show may also be added soon so that would give Tna three shows sounds like a successful company to me. In 8 years they have gotten National Tv deal with Impact that gets solid ratings they are adding more programming, they have toured the world and they have also have signed some of the biggest wrestling stars. So what more could you ask for form a company thats been around only 8 years.

 

[Rayne]

Professional wrestling is about making money. Until TNA can turn a profit, how can you call them a success?

Of course, a business that turns a profit for a quarter isn't a success either. They have to built their company to have a future and continue turning a profit. Thus far, TNA's strategy seems to be to cause short-term shock in hopes that the viewers that see it will stick around for the next week's show, and so far, that hasn't been happening. There is no plan for the future, merely a series of publicity stunts in the hopes that one of them will catch lightning.

When will TNA be considered a success? I think you'll start seeing the signs when there aren't five threads on any given TNA forum page asking what you'd do to fix TNA.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Professional wrestling is about making money. Until TNA can turn a profit, how can you call them a success?

Of course, a business that turns a profit for a quarter isn't a success either. They have to built their company to have a future and continue turning a profit. Thus far, TNA's strategy seems to be to cause short-term shock in hopes that the viewers that see it will stick around for the next week's show, and so far, that hasn't been happening. There is no plan for the future, merely a series of publicity stunts in the hopes that one of them will catch lightning.

When will TNA be considered a success? I think you'll start seeing the signs when there aren't five threads on any given TNA forum page asking what you'd do to fix TNA.

You said it. As Rayne said until they can turn a profit and stop throwing money down the drain they cannot be seen as a success. Sure TNA has decent ratings for a television show (1.0 isn't that bad matched up against every show on network television) but they still have been unable to actually make money. WCW always had better ratings and buyrates than TNA ever did, but it wasn't until 95-96 when they actually made some money that they were considered successful. Even though they were the number 2 company for 6-7 years prior, they weren't a success. Success is measured in dollars plain and simple and if you can't turn a profit, you aren't successful.

 

[Schizophrenic]

They have clearly been somewhat successful. They have gotten a television deal and monthly PPV's which you really can't say for many other companies in the US or the World for that matter. I would consider them more of a success if they were able to hit a 2.0 weekley with very little change from week to week and being able to produce quality television like weekly. Those are the only things I would need to see in order to more of a success. Hell Iconsider them one right now due to the fact that I can sit and watch the show and be entertained the entire two hours. I can really only say that about one of the other companies shows.

 

[damnreal83]

When people are talking about you, even in a negative fashion and you are in show biz you have a level of success most likely. TNA has done very impressive things for a company that just started 8 years go. One person in this thread mentioned house show attendence having larger numbers would be a success? Last year when TNA was in Salem, VA I believe they had around 600 in attendence, this past weeks house show drew around 2500. Thats impressive.
What I'm interested in knowing is how so many people on here know exactly how much money TNA is making due to to the fast that they arent a public traded company?

 

[Rayne]

What I'm interested in knowing is how so many people on here know exactly how much money TNA is making due to to the fast that they arent a public traded company?

It's pretty simple math coupled with a few logical deductions. By not having a road show, they reduce expenses significantly, as it's unlikely the costs of a continuing tour (stage transportation, arena rental) would be equalized at this point by gate receipts. Then you have to take a guess at what their wrestlers would take as pay vs. what they could get in the WWE. Yes- it's an apples and oranges comparison, the work schedule and company culture is quite different. Give a professional wrestler enough money and he starts reexamining his options. Kurt Angle couldn't have been cheap. Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff are professional con artists and I'd be surprised if they haven't weaseled their way into a percentage of the gross. Jeff Hardy probably got a decent sum to pull him out of his supposed retirement. Same with RVD. Desmond Wolfe had leverage at the time he signed, as both organizations were pursuing him. What did TNA give him to make him give up on waiting for the WWE? Kevin Nash is most likely working off of the backend of a loaded contract right now.

There are some guys, like Pope and Anderson, who signed with TNA as "the next best thing they could get", and TNA probably got them for cheaper than they otherwise would have. But there are a bunch of guys in that list who definitely did not come cheap.

Now, you take expected sources of income. TNA needs Spike as much as Spike needs TNA, so I doubt that TNA's TV deal is all that impressive. They don't get gate receipts in Orlando. Merchandising follows ratings, and ratings suck. PPV buys are abysmal. In short, they have no major sources of income right now, and for every knockout that thinks they're getting a deal at $600 a match, there's a fading star who's getting mid-six figures.

Add to that the fact that TNA officials, including Dixie Carter, who can't keep her mouth shut over anything, have yet to say that TNA Wrestling has turned a profit in a quarter. Turning a profit isn't something you keep a secret in America unless you're a church.

Doing the math, it's easy to tell TNA is unprofitable and has poor prospects for the future. If it were publicly traded, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it.

 

[underdog217]

What I'm interested in knowing is how so many people on here know exactly how much money TNA is making due to to the fast that they arent a public traded company?

Exactly! I would definitely consider a company that in 8 years has gone from local shows in the Asylum to being on national TV a success. Do they have room to improve both from a financial and booking stand point? Sure, but when they are able to leave the impact zone a couple times a year, are doing house shows, have multiple shows on a national network, and some of the top wrestling stars in history (Angle, Hogan, Flair, Sting, Hardy), then I think they are quite successful.

I think TNA has also made some big strides in the industry by leading the social networking movement by having a lot of their employees on Twitter from early on and consistantly posting to youtube which WWE is now following suit with.

Lastly, damnreal made a good point, their numbers are private so I don't understand how people can say they need to boost buyrates when no one knows what they are in the first place past whatever (insert dirt sheet) is speculating. I distinctly remember an interview with Jarrett from about 2 years ago where he was celebrating the fact that TNA had started to turn profit for once, so I would assume in that time with the increase in house show attendance and higher ratings for impact that the trend has continued.

 

[EffinSaySo]

When will TNA be considered a "success". Hmmm.

When they don't need to rely on Spike TV and Panda Energy to sign the likes of Sting, Hogan, Flair, etc..

When they start touring Live TV/PPV around the United States.

When they develop a Superstar more popular or at least toe-to-toe with their competitor (WWE). When WCW were prominent, Sting, Goldberg, DDP, etc. were as popular as Bret, HBK, Taker, Austin, etc..

 

[damnreal83]

When will TNA be considered a "success". Hmmm.

When they don't need to rely on Spike TV and Panda Energy to sign the likes of Sting, Hogan, Flair, etc..

When they start touring Live TV/PPV around the United States.

When they develop a Superstar more popular or at least toe-to-toe with their competitor (WWE). When WCW were prominent, Sting, Goldberg, DDP, etc. were as popular as Bret, HBK, Taker, Austin, etc..

That is a good way for them to measure there success with developing there on stars like WCW did with Sting, Goldberg and DDP.

 

[Reddannihilation]

It's pretty simple math coupled with a few logical deductions.

Yo can do math with imaginary numbers? You must be magic.

By not having a road show,

First incorrect statement. TNA does have a road show. Their next international one is in 2011.

they reduce expenses significantly, as it's unlikely the costs of a continuing tour (stage transportation, arena rental) would be equalized at this point by gate receipts.

Considering their touring schedule, it would seem your assumption is incorrect. Unless a company not turning a profit would keep touring anyway?

Then you have to take a guess at what their wrestlers would take as pay vs. what they could get in the WWE.

You admit you're guessing, then continue spouting it like fact anyway? Ok.

Give a professional wrestler enough money and he starts reexamining his options. Kurt Angle couldn't have been cheap.

Doesn't mean you know how much he cost.

Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff are professional con artists and I'd be surprised if they haven't weaseled their way into a percentage of the gross.

I'm sorry is this the logic you mentioned at the start of your post? What is this even based on?

Jeff Hardy probably got a decent sum to pull him out of his supposed retirement.

Hardy's pay-per-appearance.

Same with RVD.

considering he hadn't been seen on telelvision for years, doubtful.

Desmond Wolfe had leverage at the time he signed, as both organizations were pursuing him.

He failed a physical at the WWE. Leverage, non-existent. Also, Wolfe is pay-per-appearance.

What did TNA give him to make him give up on waiting for the WWE?

a job.

Kevin Nash is most likely working off of the backend of a loaded contract right now.

"most likely" this is your "logical deduction" based on what? Certainly not fact.

Now, you take expected sources of income. TNA needs Spike as much as Spike needs TNA, so I doubt that TNA's TV deal is all that impressive.

Yeah 2 hours primetime with advertising cuts. Must be shit.

They don't get gate receipts in Orlando.

they recieve a cut from theme park admission.

Merchandising follows ratings, and ratings suck.

Merchandising follows ratings? Where'd you pull that from? If it were true then last week a million people felt lilke buying merchandise.

PPV buys are abysmal.

PPV Buys are unavailable to the public, so you have no idea what they are or aren't.

In short, they have no major sources of income right now

And this has been based on mindless assumption. Oh hi house shows and international tours apparently you don't make money, but you keep running which would question how a company with no money keeps renting places. Your assumptions are terrible, law of television, advertisements for products and services during a prime-time tv show cost a ton of money. The money is paid to the network who then divulge a percentage of the profits to the show the commerical ran during. Money, money, money...money.

and for every knockout that thinks they're getting a deal at $600 a match, there's a fading star who's getting mid-six figures.

ahaha, how do you know this? What is it based on? Nothing. The majority of TNA's roster is pay-per-appearance, that's the company's official statement.

Add to that the fact that TNA officials, including Dixie Carter, who can't keep her mouth shut over anything, have yet to say that TNA Wrestling has turned a profit in a quarter.

privately traded company, not required to release information to the public.

Doing the math, it's easy to tell TNA is unprofitable and has poor prospects for the future.

Doing the math, in which you utilized no actual numbers, had no basis for any claims you made and proved you know little to nothing about TNA's actual operations you came to a conclusion that they aren't making money? Herpa derp, you are the definition of a ******.

If it were publicly traded, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it.

As if you could. Maybe you can buy it with your imaginary check book.

 

[Rayne]

Are we really going to do the "I can intuit that you're wrong if I be ULTRA literal and answer your post in half-sentence segments at a time", are we? One thousand individual statements doesn't bring a logical proof.

I don't do the whole quote wars thing, because I'm not going to get dragged into the whole "OMG you're WRONG!!!!" thing when your statements have no more validity than mine. Going on the road for a few weeks of a year is not a "road show". Merchandising follows ratings? Only an idiot would assume I meant "every time someone watches the show, they buy a t-shirt". TNA did not score in the 2.0 range; they've never scored in the 2.0 range. Don't try and convince me a million people are watching. Merchandising follows ratings? That's Business 101. TNA says a majority of their wrestlers are pay-per-appearance? No shit, sherlock. They've got something like 80 wrestlers on staff now, it's the ones who aren't pay-per-appearance that are costing them loads of money.

Hey, if your trendy little organization isn't doing so hot, don't blame me for pointing out the unmistakable signs. People only do the quote wars thing when they get mad. But if you're insisting on official statements from professional wrestling people about how their business is doing as your only acceptable truth, this business has already left you WAY behind.

 

[Reddannihilation]

Are we really going to do the "I can intuit that you're wrong if I be ULTRA literal and answer your post in half-sentence segments at a time", are we?

Does me using multi-quote bother you? wanna cry abou it.

One thousand individual statements doesn't bring a logical proof.

And math without numbers isn't math.

I don't do the whole quote wars thing, because I'm not going to get dragged into the whole "OMG you're WRONG!!!!"

Quote wars? It's a common forum tool. Not some massive conspiracy.

your statements have no more validity than mine.

They do, becase you hadn't/haven't posted a single fact.

Going on the road for a few weeks of a year is not a "road show".

a few weeks a year? http://www.tnaliveevents.com/

Merchandising follows ratings? Only an idiot would assume I meant "every time someone watches the show, they buy a t-shirt". TNA did not score in the 2.0 range; they've never scored in the 2.0 range. Don't try and convince me a million people are watching.

2.0 is not 1 million. "As of September 1, 2009, there are an estimated 114.9 million television households in the United States. A single national ratings point represents one percent of the total number, or 1,149,000 households for the 2009–10 season."

TNA says a majority of their wrestlers are pay-per-appearance? No shit, sherlock. They've got something like 80 wrestlers on staff now, it's the ones who aren't pay-per-appearance that are costing them loads of money.

And again, how do you know who gets paid what?

Hey, if your trendy little organization isn't doing so hot, don't blame me for pointing out the unmistakable signs.

What signs? You haven't shown anything concrete. You made a bunch of assumptions based on nothing, you said things about the company that I've shown you, were incorrect. You have nothing to base your argument on.

People only do the quote wars thing when they get mad.

Seriously, quote wars? I'm sure this makes sense in your very warped mind. But knowing how to use coding doesn't actually make people angry.

But if you're insisting on official statements from professional wrestling people about how their business is doing as your only acceptable truth, this business has already left you WAY behind.

Yes, instead I should rely on the assumptions of someone with absolutely no way of backing up anything they've said. Hmm, now why is it that it would seem, I'd be better off listening to the wrestling company then the guy who's not from the wrestling company? More to the point the guy who's already made a bunch of statements proven incorrect? I think I'll stick with TNA on this one.

 

[hatehabsforever]

When would TNA be considered a success? My knee jerk reaction to this would be: when pigs fly.

All sarcasm aside, in my opinion, judging TNA's success is difficult but it was brought on by the TNA guys themselves. A year or two, TNA was plodding along as an alternative to WWE, rather than a competitor to them. Barely cracking the 1.0 barrier, but with their own style, their own identity, their own strengths (and of course their own weaknesses). A clear number two alternative in terms of professional wrestling, but at least a well defined product. At this stage, I considered them to be successful, albeit in relative terms.

Then Jan 04 came and the Hogan regime started. TNA's identity was gone. Their Knockout division tanked. Their vaulted X-division evaporated. Rather than being an altenative to WWE, they became a cheap rip-off of them, a more dilute version without the talent, the production value, or the quality. As this occurred, I now no longer consider TNA to be a success.

Had TNA stayed in their own little niche, they could have been a successful number two product. But because they took the fight to the WWE, and chose to put themselves, or at least attempt to, on their level, they chose to be viewed in the same light by the same standards. They cannot come on with all of their bravado (we're going to own Monday nights, etc.,) then wimper and whine when they cannot back it up. They wanted to be seen like WWE, well, be careful what you ask for because you just may get it. And what they got was slaughtered, and as such, can no longer be viewed as a success in my eyes.

 

[shattered dreams]

When would TNA be considered a success? My knee jerk reaction to this would be: when pigs fly.

So all TNA needs to do is sign Mickie James and have her do a top rope move or get on an airplane? Easy enough. Success here we come! Although the last time I saw a hog splash out of the air on wrestlemania it was not exactly considered a success ...

A clear number two alternative in terms of professional wrestling, but at least a well defined product. At this stage, I considered them to be successful, albeit in relative terms.

As someone who has been a TNA fan for a while I have to question this concept that they used to have a well-defined product. Honestly, they never had a "well-defined product" while they were doing around 1.0 in the ratings, especially in the main event scene.

Then Jan 04 came and the Hogan regime started. TNA's identity was gone. Their Knockout division tanked. Their vaulted X-division evaporated. Rather than being an altenative to WWE, they became a cheap rip-off of them, a more dilute version without the talent, the production value, or the quality. As this occurred, I now no longer consider TNA to be a success.

How in the world do you get TNA as "more dilute" than WWE? That makes zero sense. If anything TNA has been excessively non-diluted over this period. I do not think many believe there is some huge talent gap. The production problem, while still a big difference from WWE standards, has been on the uptick since Bischoff came in.

Had TNA stayed in their own little niche, they could have been a successful number two product. But because they took the fight to the WWE, and chose to put themselves, or at least attempt to, on their level, they chose to be viewed in the same light by the same standards. They cannot come on with all of their bravado (we're going to own Monday nights, etc.,) then wimper and whine when they cannot back it up. They wanted to be seen like WWE, well, be careful what you ask for because you just may get it. And what they got was slaughtered, and as such, can no longer be viewed as a success in my eyes.

So basically they were a succesful number two that was not exactly making money but they should have stayed there? Instead they decided to not be content with that and try to take the next step. I agree they have not succeeded there yet. However, not immediately having the production values of the WWE, and their vastly superior resources, hardly makes them a failure. Are you going to answer as to what they have to do now to be considered a success again?

In a sense, the fact that people feel it is necessary to compare them to the WWE is a success in its own way. Even if it does make them look second rate in a lot of ways, it is an accomplishment just to be in the conversation IMO. It has been over 9 years since someone was in the conversation. The way I look at it is that TNA is in the middle of a push to shed the indy alternative label that had a smaller audience potential and become a viable mainstream alternative. They have not succeeded in that yet but I think some of their "failures" since Jan 4th are wildly exaggerated.

 

[goodlay]

Clearly TNA has been somewhat of a success already. I mean look at how far they have come in just a mere 8 years time. But I would say they are a complete success when they are a legitimate threat to the WWE and are pulling fans away from the WWE brand. I would also say TNA is a success when they are consistently pulling in 2's and doing live iMPACT shows and doing iMPACT all around the country.

That's probably my biggest gripe with TNA right now besides the shoddy booking. I loved the live iMPACTs on Monday, it got rid of the possibility of spoilers (even though I don't read them), and it gives you a level of excitement due to the show being live and anything can happen. I hate that iMPACT is 100% pre-taped now and that they only do iMPACT from the iMPACT zone in Florida. Though it probably is hella expensive to constantly move iMPACT around, but at least do it like they do PPV's. Have some iMPACT's throughout the year be from different locations, and maybe even do some live shows.

I feel like if TNA wants to be a big success, then they need to try to expand, and not just please the current fanbase.

 

[One to Remember]

TNA needs a few things to truly be a success.
A new set would help. I am not really willing to watch a company whos main show looks like/feels like WCW Saturday Night c. 1998, no no even worse WCW Worldwide circa whenever.

When TNA can actually afford to make the PPV sets look different from each other.

When TNA originals can stand equal in value from the fans and the brass to WWF/E, ECW, and WCW alumni.

When Titan Towers attempts to hold a secret meeting with a TNA talent.

When a TNA wrestler cn come into WWE either equal in card status as he was in TNA or with serious recognition of his accomplishments in TNA (yes i know that diddnt usually happen for NWA, AWA, WCW, ECW, or WCCW guys but still)

When TNA can go maybe an entire month with shows consisting of home bred TNA stars.

When TNA can produce a mere single household name.

When it can create atleast a regional (interstate) base.

When they can afford to tour arenas instead of armories. I love the troops as much as the next guy but come on.

And success in wrestling is beating WWE success in buisness is not falling prey to WWE.. TNA as well as the fanatics here should learn the dff.

a job.

what a fuckin wise ass. i think i will like these forums

 

[Mustang Sally]

Ultimately, the measure of success for a business is making money. Breaking even might also be considered a success.

Why? Because if a business doesn't make money, it can't last. Maybe it can go on for a long time even while losing money if they have a foolish investor who's willing to throw good money after bad. In the end, though, the business has to be able to justify it's own existence by paying for itself.

Look at WCW. Many people on this forum would consider them a huge success at the beginning because of their spectacular productions, big ratings and mega-stars. But the Wall Street Journal reported they were losing $60-80 million dollars a year. If they hadn't had a rich backer (Time-Warner) they would have folded long before they did. But that's the point; even though Time-Warner was willing to keep WCW afloat for awhile, they dildn't put up with those losses forever.

I don't care if TNA never gets ratings much higher than 1.0. If they're paying for themselves (a great big "if") and have created their own niche on Thursday nights as an alternative to WWE, they're a success. It's good for the industry that TNA should exist; they employ people and create the competition that keeps WWE on their toes.

But with decisions like the one TNA made where they felt they had to try and take the #1 slot away from WWE, I seriously wonder if they've got the wherewithal (or the brains and common sense) to keep themselves in business.

 

[Rayne]

Reddannihilation, it's not that I have problems with your leet vBulletin coding skills. It's not that hard, brackets are easy. It's that when you play quote wars, you take a balanced, coherent argument and break it down into isolated chunks that can be attacked independent of any supporting information. It's a bullshit debate tactic, used by spazzes who can't think in terms of more than a half-sentence at a time. It's like me saying I have a table, and then you saying it's not a table, it's four legs and a flat surface. If you weren't so obsessed with the half-sentence at a time tactic, you'd have noticed that a lot of the questions you asked were answered elsewhere in my posts.

You're absolutely right I don't have concrete information. How long have you been watching professional wrestling? You NEVER have concrete information unless the company is required by law to disclose it. Estimating the health of a company can only be done by inference. If you want to sit and go "you can't prove that! You CAN'T PROVE THAT!", that's fine, well, and good, but I don't see much of a supporting argument out of you stating that TNA's healthy.

BTW, stating "you can't prove that!" is not "proving someone wrong". There isn't even an attempt at making a proof of your own in either of your posts; they are a series of assaults on individual points based on me not having absolute concrete knowledge, which I've already stated. Having my logic insulted by someone who missed this basic deduction takes the sting out of your statements.

But go ahead and take TNA's word on their health. They are absolutely counting on suckers like you if they hope to turn around the fortunes of their company.

 

[Reddannihilation]

A new set would help. I am not really willing to watch a company whos main show looks like/feels like WCW Saturday Night c. 1998, no no even worse WCW Worldwide circa whenever.

What? They need a new set because that's totally what makes you succesful, the iMPACT Zone is fine.

When TNA can actually afford to make the PPV sets look different from each other.

Lethal Lockdown, held in Gainesville Georgia, looked nothing like the iMPACT zone. Bound For Glory to be held in Daytona Beach, will look nothing like the iMPACT Zone. And I still fail to see how this makes you a success or not. If there's a ring it's wrestling.

When TNA originals can stand equal in value from the fans and the brass to WWF/E, ECW, and WCW alumni.

What do you call guys like AJ, Joe and Matt Morgan going over guys like Kurt Angle, Booker T, Kevin Nash and Sting?

When Titan Towers attempts to hold a secret meeting with a TNA talent.

What? What sort of bullshit are you trying to pull here?

When a TNA wrestler cn come into WWE either equal in card status as he was in TNA or with serious recognition of his accomplishments in TNA (yes i know that diddnt usually happen for NWA, AWA, WCW, ECW, or WCCW guys but still)

This isn't even something TNA can control, TNA could put out the best product in years, that's not gonna stop Vince McMahon from doing his best to cut them down. How would this measure TNA's success? If anything, the fact that the WWE never acknowledges accomplishments in TNA, but was quite happy to talk about CM Punk being from ROH says that TNA has had success.

When TNA can go maybe an entire month with shows consisting of home bred TNA stars.

What? Oh yeah the WWE does that all the time, I mean none of their stars came from other promotions. Oh wait yes they did, this is just stupid, Not to mention that years ago TNA did this all the time, every week for years. Oh so that means they've fulfilled that criteria.

When TNA can produce a mere single household name.

AJ Styles.

When it can create atleast a regional (interstate) base.

a regional base? Do you mean a fanbase? If that's the case they've got an international one.

When they can afford to tour arenas instead of armories. I love the troops as much as the next guy but come on.

Google their highest attendance record, it was at a baseball stadium, looks like you fail again.

And success in wrestling is beating WWE success in buisness is not falling prey to WWE.. TNA as well as the fanatics here should learn the dff.

I'm sorry, what the fuck does this even mean? What TNA has to put the WWE out of business to be a success? So the whole time during 96-98 when the WWF was getting their ass served to them on a weekly basis they weren't a successful company? Seriously, this is just pathetic on your part.

Reddannihilation, it's not that I have problems with your leet vBulletin coding skills.

Well you certainly seem to like whining about it, bitch.

It's not that hard, brackets are easy. It's that when you play quote wars, you take a balanced, coherent argument and break it down into isolated chunks that can be attacked independent of any supporting information.

I've yet to see this balanced coherent argument of yours, what I have seen is total bullshit.

It's a bullshit debate tactic, used by spazzes who can't think in terms of more than a half-sentence at a time.

You know you've not been able to offer a single counterpoint this entire time. Which makes me think that multi-quote bothers you because I can tear your arguments to shreds and you can't do shit about it.

It's like me saying I have a table, and then you saying it's not a table, it's four legs and a flat surface. If you weren't so obsessed with the half-sentence at a time tactic, you'd have noticed that a lot of the questions you asked were answered elsewhere in my posts.

No they weren't, you see I read your entire posts, then I go through with a fine-toothed comb and cut them to bits. You haven't answered anything, you've just spouted a bunch of opinionated bullshit that means nothing.

You're absolutely right I don't have concrete information.

Hey we're getting somewhere. First step is admitting it.

How long have you been watching professional wrestling? You NEVER have concrete information unless the company is required by law to disclose it.

Exactly, which would then mean that everything you say is baseless? Wow, I'm liking this new you, it's like you're admitting how terrible you are at everything.

Estimating the health of a company can only be done by inference.

Hey that's funny, inferences are educated guesses based on observation. Here's the thing you don't have any hard-stats to observe, so you can't infer anything. Not to mention that the keyword is an "educated" guess, from everything you've posted so far I'd have a hard time believing you have any education whatsoever, you sure as hell have no clue about TNA.

If you want to sit and go "you can't prove that! You CAN'T PROVE THAT!", that's fine, well, and good, but I don't see much of a supporting argument out of you stating that TNA's healthy.

Really you need a supporting argument? I've given you one ages ago. But here it is again; TNA runs national and international tours each year. TNA has a 2 hour prime time television show. TNA has an exclusive content deal with Youtube, TNA is broadcast in over 20 different countries. TNA's Xplosion 1 hour show is about to air in the US and has already begun airing in International markets, including Australia in which it was the 4th highest rated show broadcast on a sports network, the same week the Fifa World Cup was running, TNA is also set to debut their show Reaction, given TNA a grand total of 4 hours of programming on Spike TV, TNA has signed big name stars.

Clearly all of this is the makings of a near-dead company right? So yeah, suck a dick.

BTW, stating "you can't prove that!" is not "proving someone wrong". There isn't even an attempt at making a proof of your own in either of your posts; they are a series of assaults on individual points based on me not having absolute concrete knowledge, which I've already stated.

Are you familiar with court law? It works like this, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You make blatant accusations against TNA without anything to support your claims. Therefore you fail.

But go ahead and take TNA's word on their health.

See that big list of stuff I posted up top, that doesn't seem like the sort of thing a company in bad shape would have.

They are absolutely counting on suckers like you if they hope to turn around the fortunes of their company.

Again see that list up there, how is that representative of a company in dire straits?

 

[Rayne]

1) I'm not really "offering counterpoints" for two reasons. One, you don't really say much. You attack my credibility a lot, and toss out a lot of cheap insults, but beyond that, you really don't have much to say. Two, I don't care enough to play the quote wars game, because you aren't attacking my arguments. You're attacking individual points, saying that there's room for doubt, and since the idea is absolute, it obviously must be false.

2) "Court law"? Are you fucking serious? We aren't in court. I'm not trying to put someone in prison or deprive them of their freedom, I'm trying to make a suggestive case that TNA is in a bad way right now. The standards of proof are just a wee bit different. And, yes, I am quite familiar with court law. If this were any court proceeding, it would certainly be a civil court as opposed to a criminal one, where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence". You aren't the smartest kid on the internet, bucko, don't act like it.

3) The only argument supporting your position that you've made:

TNA runs national and international tours each year. TNA has a 2 hour prime time television show. TNA has an exclusive content deal with Youtube, TNA is broadcast in over 20 different countries. TNA's Xplosion 1 hour show is about to air in the US and has already begun airing in International markets, including Australia in which it was the 4th highest rated show broadcast on a sports network, the same week the Fifa World Cup was running, TNA is also set to debut their show Reaction, given TNA a grand total of 4 hours of programming on Spike TV, TNA has signed big name stars.

This boils down to "TNA can spend money". Duh. They've got a large company behind them (WCW spent plenty of Time Warner's money- we've seen this movie before.) In business, this is what's called "seed money". You've heard the expression, "you have to spend a buck to make a buck?" That's what TNA is trying to do right now, but I can see no tangible evidence that they are making a return on that investment. You say they don't have to announce you're making a profit? You're right. But they have every reason in the world to announce that they're turning a profit, and the only solid reason I can come up with as to why they wouldn't announce they're turning a profit is if they weren't. You even say it yourself- "they've signed big stars". Big stars cost big money, and I don't need to see a contract to understand that. When someone tells you they're a teacher, you have an idea of how much they make; you can even refine that by finding out what kind of teacher. Wrestling isn't much different. What would TNA have to offer a wrestler to get them to sign with them instead of the competition? It varies greatly depending on how much leverage they have at the time of their contract signing, but not so widely that it's impossible to make an educated guess based on how the market was when they signed their contract. Ken Anderson didn't sign for $1000 a match, for instance. Hulk Hogan isn't working for tips and the opportunity to "get back" at Vince McMahon, he's making enough money to make it worth it to him.

If you want to do the half-sentence at a time thing, feel free, but understand that I think you do it because you don't have any real arguments of your own to offer, merely individual criticisms of individual points, which serve to form no coherent logic of your own. I eagerly await you to isolate the "you're right" in this post and jump up and down like it was meant as a complete endorsement of your argument. BTW, I am *raking* in that +rep for that original "quote wars" post. Seems there are a lot of other people who don't think the tactic proves anything.

Professional wrestling is about denying concrete information, from the turnstile to the boardroom. If the only standard for the proof you'll accept is an absolute, airtight one with irrefutable numbers that aren't available, you'll never have to change your mind and will always be able to tell yourself that you're right, right on up until the day Panda Energy sells TNA for far less than they put into it.

 

[AttitudeAJM]

I agree with everyone that says TNA needs to turn a profit to be successful. Currently they are relying on other people's money to stay afloat. Take Panda Energy out of the equation and TNA is done.

TNA buyrates have been horrendous for quite sometime. The rumor is that Slammiversary and Sacrifice only pulled in 8,000 buys each!!!! Survival is never a barometer for success. They've been able to find benefactors to keep them afloat. However they eventually need to figure out how to make money on their own before those benefactors disappear.

 

[Reddannihilation]

1) I'm not really "offering counterpoints" for two reasons.

My guess, you can't and won't ever be able too.

One, you don't really say much.

I say plenty.

You attack my credibility a lot, and toss out a lot of cheap insults, but beyond that, you really don't have much to say.

Question of thread; "is TNA a success" my answer: Yes. What else do I need to say there?

Two, I don't care enough to play the quote wars game, because you aren't attacking my arguments. You're attacking individual points, saying that there's room for doubt, and since the idea is absolute, it obviously must be false

Last I checked your points are part of you argument, unless they're mutually exclusive in which case you're ******ed. Allow to me to break it down for you, when you're arguing an opinion you make points to support it. Me taking each point you've made and proving it wrong is an effective way to slaughter your arguments, which if you could back up in any way, shape or form you would.

2) "Court law"? Are you fucking serious? We aren't in court. I'm not trying to put someone in prison or deprive them of their freedom, I'm trying to make a suggestive case that TNA is in a bad way right now. The standards of proof are just a wee bit different. And, yes, I am quite familiar with court law. If this were any court proceeding, it would certainly be a civil court as opposed to a criminal one, where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence". You aren't the smartest kid on the internet, bucko, don't act like it.

You're accusing TNA of being a failure, yet you offer no proof to support your claim. Therefore your point is moot.

This boils down to "TNA can spend money".

Somehow I have this strange feeling that if in the 8 years TNA's been around they haven't made any money, someone would've cut the cord a while ago.

Duh. They've got a large company behind them (WCW spent plenty of Time Warner's money- we've seen this movie before.) In business, this is what's called "seed money". You've heard the expression, "you have to spend a buck to make a buck?"

So, in your opinion the people at Panda Energy are somehow smart enough to run a major company that makes money, but are dumb enough to waste money for 8 years with no return? Sure thing there.

That's what TNA is trying to do right now, but I can see no tangible evidence that they are making a return on that investment.

No evidence? Do you really think the money-grubbers at Spike would've gone from giving TNA one hour a week to four hours primetime if TNA was already doing badly? I mean does that sound like the logic of an experienced network board? "Hey, this show isn't making us money, lets make it bigger. Hey lets give the guys making the show more shows." Do you honestly expect me to believe that the guys at Spike have run with TNA for 5 years and instead of canning them, they've given them more airtime? That's not how tv networks make money.

You say they don't have to announce you're making a profit? You're right. But they have every reason in the world to announce that they're turning a profit, and the only solid reason I can come up with as to why they wouldn't announce they're turning a profit is if they weren't.

Why would they need to announce it? What benefit would it have? The agreement with Panda maintains TNA's place as a privately traded company. They're not looking for stockholders or shareholders, they have literally no need to announce their financial situation.

If TNA were a public company trying to get people to buy shares then yeah, infoming the general public that they were turning a profit would benefit them. How would a private company, that cannot be bought into, benefit from announcing profit margins?

You even say it yourself- "they've signed big stars". Big stars cost big money, and I don't need to see a contract to understand that.

Answer me these questions three, question the first; How can a company not making money afford people who cost lots of money? For questions two and three, refer to question one.

When someone tells you they're a teacher, you have an idea of how much they make; you can even refine that by finding out what kind of teacher.

LOL, as the son of a teacher you're very off. Teachers are paid according to their general role within schools, seniority and faculty rankings. Not what kind of teacher they are.

Wrestling isn't much different. What would TNA have to offer a wrestler to get them to sign with them instead of the competition? It varies greatly depending on how much leverage they have at the time of their contract signing, but not so widely that it's impossible to make an educated guess based on how the market was when they signed their contract. Ken Anderson didn't sign for $1000 a match, for instance. Hulk Hogan isn't working for tips and the opportunity to "get back" at Vince McMahon, he's making enough money to make it worth it to him.

Go back to that question I asked before, "How can TNA afford big stars if they aren't making money?" and before you try to insinuate that the money comes from panda, stop and think to yourself "I'm Bob Carter, TNA has cost me money for 8 years, better spend even more, because clearly 8 years is not enough time to turn a profit", now unless you're telling me the CEO of Panda Energy is dumb enough to fund TNA for 8 years with no return on his investment and then to give them even more money, then TNA's got to be doing rather well.

If you want to do the half-sentence at a time thing, feel free, but understand that I think you do it because you don't have any real arguments of your own to offer, merely individual criticisms of individual points, which serve to form no coherent logic of your own.

If you identify them as individual points then why am I required to address them as a group? Oh right, that's stupid.

I eagerly await you to isolate the "you're right" in this post and jump up and down like it was meant as a complete endorsement of your argument. BTW, I am *raking* in that +rep for that original "quote wars" post. Seems there are a lot of other people who don't think the tactic proves anything.

Seriously? Oh look I got some green rep la-di-da. What are you on, two bars? Fuck man that must make you the king of the forums.

Professional wrestling is about denying concrete information

No actually that's just your approach to debating. Allow me to perform an impression of you "TNA just went from 2 hours of primetime programming to 4...that means they're going to go out of business!!!!"

If the only standard for the proof you'll accept is an absolute, airtight one with irrefutable numbers that aren't available, you'll never have to change your mind and will always be able to tell yourself that you're right, right on up until the day Panda Energy sells TNA for far less than they put into it.

Ahhh, yeah not gonna happen. Unless you can provide some logical reasons that support your side of the argument, regarding the following;

TNA has existed for 8 years, according to you for those 8 years they've not made any money, yet the CEO of a major corporation is apparently dumb enough to keep spending money on it, despite being an intelligent businessman. Explain that.

TNA has managed to sign a broadcast deal with Spike TV originally airing 1 hour of television a week. This has since risen to 2, then 3 and soon 4. Yet Spike TV executives are apparently so dumb that even though TNA, according to you, isn't making any money they continue to give them more air time. In what would be essentially a money drain. Explain that.

The various PPV providers, who make money based on how many people buy the PPV's are willing to broadcast TNA's PPV's despite them, according to you, not making a profit. Why a PPV provider would be dumb enough to allow 8 years of PPV's to be run without a cent in return is something that I'd love for you to explain?

TNA, running more live shows, more international tours, breaking their attendance records, but apparently not making money, yet somehow managing to keep doing more and more.

TNA, able to sign major names and highly paid stars, yet somehow they make no money, yet are still able to pay for people who, according to you, wouldn't be there if they weren't guaranteed a paycheck?

Explain all of that logically and you can have some more of that precious rep you desire so badly.