Could TNA survive without the "rejects"?

[My$terio_Fan]

You hear people bitching all the time about guys like Angle, Sting, Booker, Nash, *insert former WWE star's name here* always being on the top and in the mainevent. People get mad when originals like Styles, Joe, Abyss, Daniels, Roode, are all on the undercard.

So my question is simple, without these so called "rejects" would TNA survive? I honestly don't think so, personally. Well they might survive but I think TNA's rating would go down. Like it or not, general fans still want to see guys like Angle, Sting, Booker, ect.

And I don't know if Joe or Styles or Hernandez could really keep the viewers tuned in. I think TNA has grown as much as it did because of key promotion and because they hired some big guns.

TNA without the rejects? A better promotion that would make a slew of new fans, or Dead.on.arrival?

 

[Christian Battlez]

No I honestly feel that without these talents like Angle and Booker and Nash etc. TNA would not be where they are today. Its plausible to think that the majority of TNA fans are also WWE fans because a large portion of their main event roster is WWE "rejects". So if these men never came to TNA then TNA wouldn't have that portion of the audiance. Also if they didn't come to TNA its plausible to think that they'd still be employed to WWE. Which means higher ratings for WWE lower ratings for TNA. People like to see these big stars. But having guys like Styles,Daniels,Joe,Roode,etc. feud with these former WWE stars helps the WWE fans discover these talents so when Angle and Book and Sting hang it up they will become fans of the originals of TNA.

 

[ProWrestling'sBrain]

Let's look at TNA prior to when they went on a WWE-rejects signing spree... back in the summer of 2006. Their PPV buys were more than double than the current buyrates. Occasionally iMPACT! would draw a 1.0 however on average it was drawing 0.8 but hey back then iMPACT! was only one hour long and it was on at a later time every Saturday. On average iMPACT! draws a 1.1 or 1.2 which is better but you'd think they would do even better seeing 3 years later their top star is someone who was in one of the main events of WrestleMania in 2006 and iMPACT! is on Thursday nights at an earlier time.

Could TNA survive without the "rejects"? Based on the past, yes. Hell from a business perspective they were doing better. Well they had Rhino, Raven and Shane Douglas at the time but back then these WWE rejects or WWE quitters didn't take over the entire promotion.

 

[Christian Battlez]

Let's look at TNA prior to when they went on a WWE-rejects signing spree... back in the summer of 2006. Their PPV buys were more than double than the current buyrates. Occasionally iMPACT! would draw a 1.0 however on average it was drawing 0.8 but hey back then iMPACT! was only one hour long and it was on at a later time every Saturday. On average iMPACT! draws a 1.1 or 1.2 which is better but you'd think they would do even better seeing 3 years later their top star is someone who was in one of the main events of WrestleMania in 2006 and iMPACT! is on Thursday nights at an earlier time.

This is also a time where ppv streaming has become very popular and TNA doesn't bother shutting down streams of their ppv's while WWE does forcing people to order theirs. Impacts ratings have also improved since bringing in said "rejects" by your facts.

Could TNA survive without the "rejects"? Based on the past, yes. Hell from a business perspective they were doing better. Well they had Rhino, Raven and Shane Douglas at the time but back then these WWE rejects or WWE quitters didn't take over the entire promotion.

Noone cares to watch guys like AJ and Joe yet. At least not in the main segments of the show. The Mafia carries those segments and carry the show. Hell Foley was the most watched champion in TNA history and he is a WWE "reject" so there goes your logic.

 

[ProWrestling'sBrain]

This is also a time where ppv streaming has become very popular and TNA doesn't bother shutting down streams of their ppv's while WWE does forcing people to order theirs. Impacts ratings have also improved since bringing in said "rejects" by your facts.

I disagree. While iMPACT!'s ratings were rising, their PPV buys were decreasing a little after they signed Kurt Angle.... back in early 2007 and ever since then it's going down the drain further and further. This was before the popularity of some of the streaming websites we have today. I remember the best stream you could find back around that time period was something shitty you had to watch in Windows Media Player that looked pixelized and that would buffer frequently to the point it was unwatchable.

But I must admit you have a point... somewhat. The fact their buyrates to this day are still decreasing (didn't Slammiversary draw only 7,000 buys?) can partially be credited to the popularity of streaming websites.... as well as our economy but it's not like their PPV buys just started to decrease in recent timing. No. This traces back to a couple months after TNA signed Angle so there are no excuses, although their buyrates didn't take as big of a dip but still their PPV buys weren't doing as good as they were in the glory days of TNA. This is not an opinion nor is this something to debate over. This is accurate information based on credible sources.

But to be fair... iMPACT! got the advantage with higher ratings, still below my expectations for a wrestling show with Angle, Sting, Booker, etc. however the PPV's gets the disadvantages which is where money comes from.

Noone cares to watch guys like AJ and Joe yet. At least not in the main segments of the show. The Mafia carries those segments and carry the show. Hell Foley was the most watched champion in TNA history and he is a WWE "reject" so there goes your logic.

How about this? Before making a remark like "there goes your logic", make sure you read what I actually typed.

Hell Foley was the most watched champion in TNA history and he is a WWE "reject" so there goes your logic.

Umm... okay? In my 2nd paragraph to my previous post, it had no mentions of who was the most watched guy in iMPACT! history. It went something more like the fans were more willing to pay to watch guys like AJ & Joe. Like I said, it's a proven fact, it's not an opinion. So I don't know where the entire "who is the most watched guy on iMPACT!" came from but sweet. How is that going to help TNA recover from their on-going decline with PPV buys?

EDIT: The real debate is what is more important? iMPACT! getting slightly better ratings on prime time every Thursday versus being on Satutdays at a later time (looking back, getting a 0.8 on a Saturday night is impressive)... or the fact people are unwilling to pay to watch guys like Kurt Angle? I could care less about your opinion but you can come to your own conclusion.

 

[HartDynasty=Ratings]

TNA sucks....PERIOD!! If TNA really wants to improve ratings and ppv buys then they will go back to what got fans watching in the first place and put all of the focus back on the X-Division. The only reason that I ever watched TNA was because of the X-Division and with all of the focus on the ex-WWE guys, the X-Division has gone down the shitter.

Honestly, TNA needs to get rid of Booker, Steiner, Nash, The Dudley's, Sting, & Mick Foley if you ask me. They are all past their primes by more than a few years and they really don't draw as much as people think they do. I personally know several people that stopped watching TNA as soon as they started this whole crazy spree of signing anyone and everyone that left the WWE, and then pushing each one of them as they came in rather than giving their own guys the pushes they deserve. TNA signing Christian and Angle was just fine, very good moves on their part. Then they just got crazy with it and it just became dull. Christian realized what was going on and got the hell out and is back in the WWE and Kurt Angle with probably do the same and head back to the WWE when his contract expires in a few months (or so we can hope).

So to answer your question. YES!! TNA could survive without all of the ex-WWE guys and Sting. In my opinion, they would not only survive, they would probably be much better off. Now don't get me wrong, their ARE some ex-WWE guys that TNA would be stupid not to sign....but they are young and haven't been around for 20+ years so, and some were only in the WWE for a couple years so it's not so bad. Guys like Elijah Burke, Ken Anderson, Umaga could and would be good fits in TNA but they will never get a fair shake as long as all the dinosaurs are still around hogging up all of the spotlight.

 

[SavageTaker]

I honestly think that TNA could survive without some of the former WWE superstars, but only some of them. If top guys who were former WWE superstars like Kurt Angle were to leave then I think TNA would start slowly dying until they found or built someone up to replace him. However, if all of the former WWE superstars left then I think TNA would start dying a little more swiftly. Let’s face it, the former WWE superstars are the ones with the star power, not the TNA originals.

Before Kurt Angle joined TNA, they were getting ratings below the 1.0 mark. They did get a rating that were over 1.0 but that was only a couple of times. They ended up averaging a .89 rating for that year (2006). In 2007, they started getting ratings above 1.0 frequently. They were only below the 1.0 a couple of times. It’s obvious that once Angle joined there was an increase in ratings, so if he and other former WWE superstars left TNA then they would probably go back to doing the ratings they were doing before Angle joined them. TNA just doesn’t have any superstars that would be able to carry them with good ratings. They haven’t built up anyone enough to replace Angle or anyone else that is a main eventer that might leave and it would probably cause to start dying. I think TNA could survive, but only if they start building up their talent in case any of the current main eventers leave. If they don’t do that then they probably wouldn’t be able to survive for many years after those former WWE superstars left.

 

[jrumpi]

Look we all know that TNA is getting those EX-WWE guys just so to get new fans . but the truth is they are only getting casual fans who some times watch like almost once every month (I know that cause I have been talking to some casual fans) . These fans will watch and say : hey thats nash and stiner COOL . then later on they will go Boring this is like watching raw or a WWE brand. Iam telling you I know allot of people who think that TNA is a WWE brand (hmm I wonder why ?). In my respective TNA are using these 60 year old power names all wrong , How many years left till nash ,stiner,booker retire? Not much , hell sting is retiring this year . Now here is the question : All these years sting has been with TNA has he ever put any tna young star on the map ? I cant think of any one can you ? .
What I am trying to say is TNA should use these names to get fans to inspect it then TNA should start showing these fans there young talent and what makes them different than wwe like the x-divi. and not have these 60 year old guys beat a young hot AJ , have them as managers , can you imagine if you are watching TNA and you see booker T promoting jay lethal and saying that he is the future he is going to be bla bla bla .. then fans will start to have interest in these tna guys to see how rely good they are .
But if TNA keeps going they way they are with these old guys 5 years later they are going to end up in a big miss .

 

[Nate DaMac]

Ok, I will admit I stole this from Sly, but to whoever says the PPV buyrates are dipping, what are your sources? Before you start presenting things as "facts" make sure they are indeed facts. TNA does not disclose their buyrates, so whatever you here is purely speculation. No, TNA would not survive without the rejects. If they were to keep going the way they were, those 0.8 ratings would have dropped or stayed level, thus not getting that oh so important extra hour. Also, consistantly maintaining ratings in a primetime slot around 0.8 runs the risk of the program being cancelled. With the UFC as popular as it is these days, Spike wouldn't need a shitty wrestling program lingering around. And there isn't any damn 60 year olds in TNA. Get a clue man. Sometimes over exagerating things makes you look ridiculous. They do draw, because if they didn't, TNA wouldn't exist. You really think Joe and AJ could pull 1.2 ratings? Right. Without Angle and Sting, TNA would be ROH.

 

[TellMeWhy]

To the person that made this thread, do not include Sting's name with reject or former WWE star because he doesn't fit the category of either.

Secondly, to Prowrestling's Brain, 1 of TNA's biggest buyrate was Genesis 2006 when Kurt Angle faced Samoa Joe. That PPV drew very well for TNA so what you're talking about is BS.

The buyrates started to go down for a number of reasons. To try and point the fingers at a group of stars is not logical whatsoever. 1) We have to realize the economy is suffering 2)PPV streaming didn't start getting hot until late 2006-early 2007 which is when Angle came in. 3)TNA completely changed their booking team around from what was working when they took out Mike Tenay & Scott D'Amore and replaced them with Vince Russo, Jeff Jarrett, and Dutch Mantel. It just so happened that when TNA signed Kurt Angle, they decided to shake up the booking team and some fans did not like the changes and the lack of focus from the X-div. so it strayed people away. So that is what I feel maybe the main reason.

 

[TellMeWhy]

Honestly, TNA needs to get rid of Booker, Steiner, Nash, The Dudley's, Sting, & Mick Foley if you ask me. They are all past their primes by more than a few years and they really don't draw as much as people think they do.

ol

Lol at 3D being past their prime when they're still in their prime. I didn't know guys were past their prime at age 37 & 38. If that's the case, then Edge & Christian might need to hang it up as well.

And lol at saying those guys can't draw. How do you expect them to draw in new viewers when TNA doesn't advertise? That's something you people don't think about. If TNA put money into promotion and bought ads to air with faces like Sting, Booker T, Angle and Lashley all over it during RAW, Smackdown, and any other WWE programming, maybe the WWE viewers or viewers of old would know about TNA and decide to check it out. Did that ever run through your brain. You can't draw if you're not being advertised.

 

[jspivez91]

TNA surviving without the so called "rejects" hmmm interesting is ridiculous for crying out loud the founder of TNA is a WWE reject so where would the survival while people like Joe, Styles, and Roode etc. are doing very well they had high profile programs with these rejects Angle vs Joe, Angle vs Styles, Booker vs Roode the "rejects" give TNA what it needed and that is star power

if you walk down the street and ran a survey who is kurt angle and who is samoa joe the survey would over whelmingly favor angle. Think if you took Angle, Booker, The Dudleys, Nash, Steiner, Rhino, Morgan, Taz, Tara (just to name a knockout lol), Lashley and Foley who all for the most part are in high profile feuds if you took them out who is there Styles, Joe, Storm etc left the survival of TNA would be in serious question.

The Kaotic One,
J. Spivez

 

[ProWrestling'sBrain]

I'd like to correct myself. When I said TNA's buyrates were taking a dip after TNA signed Kurt Angle was inaccurate. If my memory is working correctly this was in late 2007/early 2008. We all make mistakes so yeah.... my bad

And another thing.... TNA does not disclose their PPV buys to the public however like everything we base our knowledge and discuss about, other sources throughout time were able to provide information on the status of their PPV buys and sometimes approximate numbers.

I hope that clears the air for some people.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

This is a trick question, mainly because of the title "rejects". Obviously TNA has survived and made it this far, off little to no "known" talent for years. When they went Mainstream, they brought in Kurt Angle - who by the very definition - is anything but a reject.

Before Angle, it was the likes of Christian, whom left the WWE on his own for TNA, and Rhino, who was released for trashing a hotel lobby. All in all, those two did pretty well for themselves and remade their characters in TNA, which also brought in a good enough fan base that kept them as the second largest promotion in the Industry, behind WWE but ahead of ROH.

The following individuals I see threads about, and read harsh comments regarding.. Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner, Booker T, Mick Foley, Jeff Jarrett, Matt Morgan, & Sting.. amongst others.

While I won't speak on Morgan's behalf, because I, myself, make harsh comments regarding him. The rest serve a valuable purpose that can not be replaced or duplicated. Each individual is a "known" Superstar in this business, for a reason. That is the same reason they're currently still surviving in this Industry, when others have fallen, retired and just not been used any longer.

Anyone who claims Nash needs to go, clearly doesn't realize how much pull he has with fans who adore him. Booker T still has actual talent inside him, same goes for Steiner. Foley I was harsh on to begin with, but hes being used more for his promo skills than his Wrestling ability. Sting is an icon, if their were ever a Wrestler to fit the term, and anyone who thinks Angle needs to be let go is just plain talking pure shit.

All in all, to answer the question.. Yes, but no.

TNA would survive, because this industry needs a "#2" to add some difference to the mix. TNA is not the WWE. They offer a similar product, but do have quite a bit of difference. Enough so, that its kept them alive and making a profit every year.

Would they survive without the top level names, like an Angle, Nash or Sting? Yes. But not greatly. People who love watching Wrestling will watch. People who're interested will give them a chance. But anyone not familiar with the product, or the Wrestlers, may not give it enough time to prove they're worth watching.

In the end, however, the Company would survive because this type of Industry needs an alternative.

 

[Kanye South]

Everytime I hear a "die hard" TNA fan talk about how the company needs to drop the WWE/WCW "rejects", I just laugh to myself. TNA would just be ROH with fireworks if they dropped these people. When that poster who listed TNA's ratings from a couple of years ago without the "rejects", at that time they still had Christian, Rhino, Raven, and Shane Douglas. And also at that time, just as Slick said, PPV streams wren't as prevalent as they are now. If these "die hard" TNA fans really wanted the product to suceed, then they would embrace the way TNA is recruiting former WWE/ECW/WCW talent. That's how WCW succeded back in the day, and that's how TNA is going to succeed in the future.

 

[MisterRob]

The question isn't "could TNA survive without WWE rejects", because that is clearly yes. They survived without them just fine long before anyone like Christian, Rhino, or Kurt Angle came along. They would still survive and be around today without all of those more well known stars. The question is; "would TNA be where they are now without WWE rejects", and the answer is no. There is no way TNA, the way they go about business, would be where they are now without the bigger, more established names. And really, they aren't striving forward much as it is with those WWE rejects. Their television ratings are not exactly great and they're certainly not growing leaps and bounds, and they're not making any money in buyrates which is key to any successful wrestling promotion at that level.

Without the WWE rejects they'd be much like Ring of Honor or maybe it would surprise people and they'd be close to the same as they are right now, just with a smaller television rating or with a bit less expansion. Truth be told I find the idea of that, of seeing how things would've turned out for all the original talent in TNA now, those young guys who aren't getting the spotlight or are being misused, far more interesting then the horrible product TNA presently has with all the known talent at the top. It's not going to make TNA competition for the WWE, but TNA isn't competition now and won't ever be from my perspective.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

The Dudleys and Booker are still in their primes and if Booker would get rid of that rediculous accent he would be looked at as more than he currently is. Big named stars are always needed to get the product over with the fans. Young exciting performers are great but that doesn't always draw fans. I mean would the Chicago Bulls have drawn so many fans without Michael Jordan? or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers without Warren Sapp? The big names draw the fans which introduces the fans to the overall product. Kurt Angle, The Dudley's, Sting, and Booker do that. Hell I still find Kevin Nash highly entertaining until he has a match that goes over 5 minutes. But as I said they are names and names draw initial viewers.

As for would they survive without former WWE guys. Yes, no doubt about it. The question should be "Would TNA be as successful without former WWE Performers?" and the answer to that question as much as I dont like to admit it would be no. Because name recognition to draw in the tv audience wouldn't be there.

 

[Kane666]

yeah they probably could but not for long.certain people on here don't seem to understand that you need that older talent to give the young guys a rub.otherwise no one would give a damn about joe or aj styles.and just to set the record straight,most of the guys that left WWE left on their own terms.so how exactley are they rejects?if a major WWE star unexpectedly quit WWE then joined TNA would you consider him a reject?

 

[Enigma]

TNA sucks....PERIOD!! If TNA really wants to improve ratings and ppv buys then they will go back to what got fans watching in the first place and put all of the focus back on the X-Division. The only reason that I ever watched TNA was because of the X-Division and with all of the focus on the ex-WWE guys, the X-Division has gone down the shitter.

Honestly, TNA needs to get rid of Booker, Steiner, Nash, The Dudley's, Sting, & Mick Foley if you ask me. They are all past their primes by more than a few years and they really don't draw as much as people think they do. I personally know several people that stopped watching TNA as soon as they started this whole crazy spree of signing anyone and everyone that left the WWE, and then pushing each one of them as they came in rather than giving their own guys the pushes they deserve. TNA signing Christian and Angle was just fine, very good moves on their part. Then they just got crazy with it and it just became dull. Christian realized what was going on and got the hell out and is back in the WWE and Kurt Angle with probably do the same and head back to the WWE when his contract expires in a few months (or so we can hope).

So to answer your question. YES!! TNA could survive without all of the ex-WWE guys and Sting. In my opinion, they would not only survive, they would probably be much better off. Now don't get me wrong, their ARE some ex-WWE guys that TNA would be stupid not to sign....but they are young and haven't been around for 20+ years so, and some were only in the WWE for a couple years so it's not so bad. Guys like Elijah Burke, Ken Anderson, Umaga could and would be good fits in TNA but they will never get a fair shake as long as all the dinosaurs are still around hogging up all of the spotlight.

I hope you never run a wrestling company because you would fail. As a fan you may not want to see Ex-WWE guys or Ex-WCW guys but the most fans do want to see those guys. Half of the Impact Zone has on a Sting shirt or Mick Foley shirt.

Who really cares if several people stopped watching? They are idiots to do that. While several stopped, I'm sure 100 more started.

Fact is, these "Rejects" are the reason why TNA is successful today and they can't get rid of people for no reason. You seriously expect to get rid of your Top Wrestlers for a bunch of new faces and expect to get Good Ratings? You must be dreaming.

The point of signing Ex-WWE/WCW wrestlers are to not only get more ratings and make your company known. They can easily put over new talent like Matt Morgan, Hernandez which they can eventually be the main wrestlers on the roster. Right now, TNA doesn't have a large talent pool of guys who are ready to take over other than Morgan and Hernandez.

 

[smalltownfan]

No, TNA cannot survive without Angle, Booker, Nash, and Steiner and anyone else who was a "reject". I don't even like that word because to me it doesn't fit. These 4 guys have done plenty in wrestling and only Angle needed the WWE to get him going. Booker and Steiner were WCW mainstays and Nash really made his name in WCW as part of the NWO. Every locker room needs that good blend of veterans and young guys and TNA has that right now and until Styles, Joe, and Roode step up to lead the locker room, it's vital to have the MEM in there.

By the way, this past week's IMPACT was perhaps the best show they've ever done. The riots and gang warfare will work for them.

 

[Da Blind Man]

You guys don't get that wrestling not only attracts fans but other wrestlers...

Sting admitted it "I went to TNA because I liked the moves they did, the finishes, it was something new and exciting to watch." Mick Foley said" I just wasn't having fun anymore." Bubba Ray said "Me and my brother got tired of facing the same tag teams every year."

You guys can't sit there and say "TNA needs the WWE rejects" and not admit they have ruined the X Division and all the glory all the young guys had made and earned. The high-flying,risk-taking made TNA and what makes different from the WWE. It appeals to the eye and makes you want tune in and see people put their body on the line.

While people think big names draw and they do, people who are new to the sport don't know that one guy did it for 17 years and the other for 7. Who are they going to look at more? the guy who tries to win with bone-breaking moves,quick counters or the guy who tries to win with high-flying,sudden moves.

I think they should retire but not all at once, they could still teach younger guys and they need reasons.

 

[MrPlatano1989]

i believe TNA could survive using their homegrown talent (with out the "rejects"), but people swear that the push of "rejects" began in 2006, truth is that TNA has been pushing "rejects" since forever, ddp, kevin nash, scott hall, ron killings, raven, bg james, kip james, shane douglus, ken shamrock, sean waltman, jeff hardy, rhino.... all these guys were involved in major storylines or pushes, they were treated like big time main eventers, in 2006 they actually started getting big time main eventers, anyways, according to dixie, between now and next june, tna is going to be so different and focus on the younger guys

 

[Christian Battlez]

I disagree. While iMPACT!'s ratings were rising, their PPV buys were decreasing a little after they signed Kurt Angle.... back in early 2007 and ever since then it's going down the drain further and further.

So TNA wasn't putting together good ppv lineups or they weren't promoting them properly. It doesn't neccessarily mean Angle is the reason that people weren't ordering TNA ppvs. People weren't ordering them because TNA doesn't put on good enough ppvs to make people wanna order them. Blame can't be put on Angle. People obviously wanna see him or their ratings wouldn't have INCREASED duh.

But I must admit you have a point... somewhat. The fact their buyrates to this day are still decreasing (didn't Slammiversary draw only 7,000 buys?) can partially be credited to the popularity of streaming websites.... as well as our economy but it's not like their PPV buys just started to decrease in recent timing. No. This traces back to a couple months after TNA signed Angle so there are no excuses, although their buyrates didn't take as big of a dip but still their PPV buys weren't doing as good as they were in the glory days of TNA. This is not an opinion nor is this something to debate over. This is accurate information based on credible sources.

didn't their ppvs used to be alot cheaper? Like ten dollars and shit. Some glory days. People care more about TNA now than they ever did. Due to men like Kurt Angle,Booker T,and Mick Foley.

But to be fair... iMPACT! got the advantage with higher ratings, still below my expectations for a wrestling show with Angle, Sting, Booker, etc. however the PPV's gets the disadvantages which is where money comes from.

fair enough

Umm... okay? In my 2nd paragraph to my previous post, it had no mentions of who was the most watched guy in iMPACT! history. It went something more like the fans were more willing to pay to watch guys like AJ & Joe. Like I said, it's a proven fact, it's not an opinion. So I don't know where the entire "who is the most watched guy on iMPACT!" came from but sweet. How is that going to help TNA recover from their on-going decline with PPV buys?

Because more people care to see reject Foley over Styles and Joe dummy. Like you said they've been had declining ppv buys but increasing ratings on national television and merchandising going up etc. Means TNA is improving in other areas even if their ppv buys are going slightly down.

The real debate is what is more important? iMPACT! getting slightly better ratings on prime time every Thursday versus being on Saturdays at a later time (looking back, getting a 0.8 on a Saturday night is impressive)... or the fact people are unwilling to pay to watch guys like Kurt Angle? I could care less about your opinion but you can come to your own conclusion.

They're not unwilling to pay to watch Angle theyre unwilling to pay to watch TNA ppvs period because TNA doesn't promote them good enough.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I really wish people would stop bringing up the number 7,000 because it's illogical. That was a fake number that TNA made up since it was the seventh anniversary of Slammiversary. How many buys are good to make a good company anyways? For a company that's been around seven years they are doing pretty good with their "rejects" Anyone that expects a company to compete with WWE after 7 years is out of their mind. Just be happy for their success. Oh I forgot because TNA hate threads are as common as Cena hate threads here.

You can't have just an X Division show on Impact. Where will the ratings be then? Personally, I could of done without the Carter/Lashley interview but I tuned in. TNA is showcasing the X Division and The Knockouts. I'm sure they would have a great match, but you can't have AJ Styles and Alex Shelly headline a PPV. Tune in to Impact next week where you will see 4 main event qualifing matches for No Surrender. AJ vs. Sabin, Hernandez vs. Homicide, Sting vs. Rhino, and Doug Williams vs. Suicide. I don't see any "rejects " in that match. Maybe if you count Rhino but seriously..

Angle is world champ for now, he won't be forever. Morgan is in the main event again against him. I don't know why people are bitching because a few former WWE wrestlers are in TNA. Christian and Gail Kim are in WWE, who gives a shit. Just try to run a wrestling company without a big name to promote it and see where you get. You will be running your company out of your high school gymnasium. I'm sure there will be a time where TNA can survive with their own talent, but no time in the immediate future.

I don't get how its bad for TNA to have Angle, Steiner, Booker T, Nash, and Foley when WWE hired Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Lance Storm, Dean Malenko, and Rey Mysterio from WCW. No one was calling them WCW Rejects. People blaming Angle for TNA not being a bigger company is like blaming Cena for WWE being PG. It's Pathetic.

 

[Iconic]

TNA wouldn't survive without WWE rejects cause most of the Main event Mafia would be gone and then the main storyline would be tna originals and the other guys one with the british people and Davari