Jarrett on the State of TNA: "We are about to take another step and change..."

[It's Damn Real!]

In an interview with the Miami Herald, TNA's Jeff Jarrett had a lot of positive things to say about the TNA product, and it's future.

You can read the entire article here (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/20/1738123/jarrett-is-still-king-of-tnas.html), but for your convenience and for the purposes of discussion I've taken what I feel are the most important quotes from it and posted them below.


• Regarding the move to Monday nights, and learning from the decision to do so:

``We all went into the Monday night experiment with our eyes wide open, and we dove in head first. In reality, our viewers only missed two Thursdays. We were on replay every week.

So the time-slot never really went away. We've listened to our fans. We've listened to our focus groups. We've listened to numbers, and we would never have gotten to where we are today had we not tried that experiment.

The mistake would be not learning from that experiment. We are about to take another step and change on how the company does business. We don't want to sit back and rest on our accomplishments. We are always trying and always pushing ourselves not just talent in the ring, but all facets of our business.''

• Regarding the signings of Eric Bischoff & Hulk Hogan:

``If you have too many young guys, you don't have the teachers or the established brand names to spread awareness,'' Jarrett said. ``You could also swing the pendulum the other way and have too many older guys where there is not a good balance. We are always looking for that perfect mix, and in the months to come, I think we will have it.

• On the potential for roster cuts:

``We run a business and in the business of making money,'' Jarrett said. ``So what needs to be done needs to be done in order for us to be in business.''

--

Thoughts on the current state of TNA, Jarrett's responses and the immediate future of the company?

 

[Optimist Prime]

I think everything Jarrett has said is right on the money and I'm actually very impressed. Those were very professional and optimistic responses and exactly what I would have said as well.

That being said. I feel if you read between the lines his "hints" were said for a reason. He wouldn't have added "You could also swing the pendulum the other way and have too many older guys where there is not a good balance. We are always looking for that perfect mix, and in the months to come, I think we will have it." unless there was a reason for it. It's not usually something you just randomly add to your conversation.

I'm actually slightly disappointed in this because I don't feel the "older" guys are to blame here. I agree that TNA's product has been lacking (so-to-speak) but I also feel that the "older" guys are being used as a scapegoat...and being blamed for the entire thing because people are constantly looking for answers right away...and blaming it on the "older" guys is the easy thing to do. I personally think they're helping out quite a bit. If ANYTHING, they have collectively taken a step back behind the spotlight since Hogan and Bischoff had shown up. You had the Main Even Mafia before holding every single title their was before they got there. Since then, you have seen them no longer in the spotlight. Think about it. Styles and other younger TNA "originals" are basically in the main events...unless YOU (the people) vote for a "Sting" or other "older guy" to be in the main event. Kevin Nash, Sting, Jarrett, even Kurt Angle have taken steps back to be in the middle of the lineup during the night. I don't see what else everybody wants them to be doing?

And as I've always said before. A lot of newer wrestlers these days lack very strongly in the personality department. They can do backflips better than the next guy but they'll put you to sleep on the microphone. So I personally believe that not only are the "older" guys there to teach...they are also there to provide what is lacking. And no matter what age you are...the personality is there.

 

[JackBurton]

I am also impressed with Jarret's comments here. His honesty is something that is particularly impressive. I agree with him whole-heartily that the "older" talent acquisitions were necessary. Too many people have placed the blame of perceived failures on TNA's part at the feet of this older talent - utter rubbish. Since most of these guys "retired" 10 years ago business has been down. None of the young talent being championed by these people took up the mantle left by the likes of Hogan, Flair, Hall or Nash (throw Rock and Austin in there for good measure aswell). The only reason these guys have had to be brought back in is none of the IWC's favorites can do the same job. This situation says more about the young talent, and what they lack, than it does about Hogan etc supposed egos.

I'm glad to here Jeff talk in a positive manner about the move to Mondays. Instead of focusing on the negatives - he seems to fully understand the need to capitalize on the momentum gained in the long run. A long term vision seems to be in place in that is good business sense.

 

[neildittmar]

I too appreciate the optimism that Jarrett has for TNA... but really now, what did folks expect him to say? That the "bombshell" move to Monday nights was a dud? That poorly thought out aquisitions caused the company to hemmorage money akin to a BP oil spill? That maybe some of the "established talent" brought on board cost quite a bit more than they were actually worth?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan (although a relatively new one) of TNA. I've pretty much been on board since right before the 1/4 three hour special and have actually liked the direction the product has gone in for the most part. I agree with the transition to the four sided ring. I liked "The Band" and appreciated what creative was trying to do with those guys. I'm not a Kurt Angle fan, but him stepping into the mid-card (per se) to let some of the younger guys shine is admirable. I like the "ECW reunion" angle and can only hope and pray it's ultimately executed well.

I guess the point is, any company that wants to go from small potatoes to being a major player must take chances and unfortunately, is going to make some mistakes along the way. Was the switch to Mondays a mistake? Depends on perspective... there could be strong arguments either way. Was the signing of top stars for big money a critical error? We won't know that until at least a year from now... currently, once again, there could be strong arguments either way.

Right before all these changes took place, the phrase "now or never" was thrown around a bit. I honestly believe this is exactly the right frame of mind the company needs to be in right now. A strong argument could be made that WWE is in a weak position currently, at least insofar as ratings go compared to the attitude era. If TNA is going to establish itself as a/the top dog, the wheels need to be set in motion now. They can't do that without taking some chances and unfortunately, experiencing some setbacks and outright failures along the way. Ultimately, I think that's the message Jarrett was trying to convey.

If folks were expecting him to really analyze the problems, point out specific faults, and be anything short of a team player / company guy, they were mistaken though. Jarrett literally has no where to go (at least on a national level) should the company fold. Regardless of his financial interest in the company, it is in his best interest to maintain a positive and upstanding outlook to the media... even if the company might be falling to pieces behind the scenes.

 

[Optimist Prime]

I too appreciate the optimism that Jarrett has for TNA... but really now, what did folks expect him to say? That the "bombshell" move to Monday nights was a dud? That poorly thought out aquisitions caused the company to hemmorage money akin to a BP oil spill? That maybe some of the "established talent" brought on board cost quite a bit more than they were actually worth?

In all honesty. Some people might have actually expected some of those things instead. With all the drama and nonsense wrestlers have gotten themselves into over the years...they haven't given the behind the scenes wrestling image a good name.

The fact that Jeff Jarrett represented himself like an absolute professional is something that would certainly not be synonymous with a wrestler.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I've notices that a lot of people have said that they were impressed by Jarrett's words. But, in all honesty, I can't exactly see any reason why. Don't misunderstand me as I'm not trying to knock Jeff Jarrett or anything like that. Jeff Jarrett owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of TNA's stock so of course his responses to the questions he was asked regarding the state of TNA are going to be very safe and along the politically correct lines that one would expect from a representative of a company.

Jarrett wasn't going to come out and say something along the lines of "Yep, we fucked up and it hurt us to some degree". Of course he's going to say that TNA is listening to its fans and has learned from the experiement. Jeff Jarrett is giving an interview to a major newspaper about TNA Wrestling, so he's going to do his absolute best to phrase his responses in a way that's going to provide the least possible negative commentary. That means that anyone expecting Jarrett to say things along the line of Dixie Carter not having a clue what she's doing or Hulk Hogan being a noose around the neck of TNA or any of that stuff is going to be disappointed.

As far as the "We are about ot take another step and change how the company does business" comment, eh whatever. Remember, we've heard similar jargon like that from Dixie Carter for close to a year. There's always some big surprise coming or TNA is going to do this or that, etc. As I said, whatever.

 

[twentytwo]

Wow. Surprised anyone took this for what it was - total bullshit. Jarrett is talking like a yes man here. Like a politician. The sky is falling all around him and he's standing there smiling, acting like everything is going great.

We've listened to our fans...? Unless he's talking about the half of them that LEFT TNA during the Monday Night Massacre's for RAW, then yeah. They listened to them.

They figured out that they have about 500,000 die hard TNA fans (which is pathetic. better than average garage bands have this many fans)
and the other half of their fans are simply hardcore wrestling fans, who will probably watch any kind of wrestling show. After all, NXT gets the same ratings as TNA so you can't even call TNA the 3rd best wrestling show on TV anymore.

TNA has already crossed that point to where WCW did when they were completely falling apart and everyone ran around acting like they were growing by leaps and bounds. Wasn't long after that that Vince turned them into a parking lot.

 

[Optimist Prime]

I've notices that a lot of people have said that they were impressed by Jarrett's words. But, in all honesty, I can't exactly see any reason why. Don't misunderstand me as I'm not trying to knock Jeff Jarrett or anything like that. Jeff Jarrett owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of TNA's stock so of course his responses to the questions he was asked regarding the state of TNA are going to be very safe and along the politically correct lines that one would expect from a representative of a company.

Jarrett wasn't going to come out and say something along the lines of "Yep, we fucked up and it hurt us to some degree". Of course he's going to say that TNA is listening to its fans and has learned from the experiement. Jeff Jarrett is giving an interview to a major newspaper about TNA Wrestling, so he's going to do his absolute best to phrase his responses in a way that's going to provide the least possible negative commentary. That means that anyone expecting Jarrett to say things along the line of Dixie Carter not having a clue what she's doing or Hulk Hogan being a noose around the neck of TNA or any of that stuff is going to be disappointed.

As far as the "We are about ot take another step and change how the company does business" comment, eh whatever. Remember, we've heard similar jargon like that from Dixie Carter for close to a year. There's always some big surprise coming or TNA is going to do this or that, etc. As I said, whatever.

I literally just explained, at least, one reasoning behind being impressed with Jarrett's words.

Although you're looking at it from an entirely different point of view. You question Jarrett's truthfulness in one sentence and then immediately follow it with bashing Dixie, Hogan, and TNA in general for the most part.

So while you're saying that Jarrett is saying these nice things about TNA because he has a bias. You sound like you're doing the exact opposite in an attempt to prove your point. Which is ironic.

 

[Optimist Prime]

Wow. Surprised anyone took this for what it was - total bullshit. Jarrett is talking like a yes man here. Like a politician. The sky is falling all around him and he's standing there smiling, acting like everything is going great.

We've listened to our fans...? Unless he's talking about the half of them that LEFT TNA during the Monday Night Massacre's for RAW, then yeah. They listened to them.

They figured out that they have about 500,000 die hard TNA fans (which is pathetic. better than average garage bands have this many fans)
and the other half of their fans are simply hardcore wrestling fans, who will probably watch any kind of wrestling show. After all, NXT gets the same ratings as TNA so you can't even call TNA the 3rd best wrestling show on TV anymore.

TNA has already crossed that point to where WCW did when they were completely falling apart and everyone ran around acting like they were growing by leaps and bounds. Wasn't long after that that Vince turned them into a parking lot.

First, do me a favor and consider this.

Second, take a step back and attempt to think rationally...if you're even able to. Judging by your punctuation and grammar - I'm going to say I'm wasting my time with this one...but I'm going to try anyway.

WWE has been around for decades...over 50 years even. And only after 30+ years did it go mainstream. Now it's on life support relying solely on nostalgic sentimental value in order to sell it's product...because everthing else there stinks like shit.

TNA has been around for not even 8 years. They don't have nearly the budget that McMahon or Ted Turner had either.

To be honest, I think the fact that they have all these tv deals and pay per view contracts tricks the TNA detractors into thinking they have more resources than they actually do. Which is actually a compliment in the long run.

Small companies don't blossom overnight. All of these people who are expecting a small investment to blossom into a large investment in under a decade is just openly showing how little they know about the subject (economics).

I'm sure when they started the company nearly 8 years ago...if they knew they'd be where they are today they'd be estatic. How could you not be?

Unlike you, I use logic and reasoning before I jump to conclusions. You should perhaps try doing something similar. It works wonders.

 

[klunderbunker]

This is exactly what you would expect him to say and there's not a thing wrong with that.

He's a major player in TNA on both sides of the camera. What's he supposed to say: "Yeah we sucked on Monday nights and got our asses handed to us"? Jarrett did exactly what he's supposed to do here. He came off as someone that knew something didn't go very well but he put a reasonable spin on it. Yes TNA listened to the fans and they looked at the numbers. The fans weren't watching on Mondays but they were on Thursdays. The fans still wanted to see the show obviously and there was no reason to have it on Mondays if they were going to watch the replays. Why spend money on live tapings when you can get the same result without the bad press of horrible Monday night ratings? That would be listening to the fans and the numbers.

What Jarrett said is fine and exactly what he should have said. I'm not sure I get the impressed part, but he answered this perfectly.

 

[ABMorales787]

Not much to say, really. He said what had to be spoken. People keep saying they just jumped to Mondays expecting miracles, but if that was truly the case, then why keep the Thursday slot? TNA rating never really dropped during that particular slot, but did on Mondays. Basically saying "we'll watch on Thursdays where you used to be, but not on Mondays". I'm glad Jarrett touched the subject of the veterans and acknowledged the possible over-saturation and that they know it's not a positive thing to do.

However in regards to the possibility to releasing talent, he didn't say much. Just tha business has to be handled as business. Not much of an answer there.

 

[Rafather]

8 years is a real long time to be in business, WcW was around for 13 years and ECW was around for 9 years. They need to do something to get higher ratings and become a bigger brand in the industry. Right now their biggest backer is Spike TV with the mandate to being "the man network." Spike had no programing to cover the Thursday time slot and couldn't let TNA continue with under 1.0 ratings in a "war." Monday Night Football on ESPN would drop the rating even lower for 4 months of the year. As Spike continues to add more UFC/MMA programing its a bad sign for TNA if they don't start turning around the ratings.

raf

 

[Optimist Prime]

8 years is a real long time to be in business, WcW was around for 13 years and ECW was around for 9 years. They need to do something to get higher ratings and become a bigger brand in the industry. Right now their biggest backer is Spike TV with the mandate to being "the man network." Spike had no programing to cover the Thursday time slot and couldn't let TNA continue with under 1.0 ratings in a "war." Monday Night Football on ESPN would drop the rating even lower for 4 months of the year. As Spike continues to add more UFC/MMA programing its a bad sign for TNA if they don't start turning around the ratings.

raf

WCW was backed by literally a billionaire. And ECW lasted 9 years and filed for bankruptcy. I wouldn't use them as a basis for anything. I'm sure that's not the direction they wish to emulate.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Most businesses do not become incredibly successful after only 8 years. Especially with a low budget.

Just ask ECW and Paul Heyman.

 

[shattered dreams]

People really need to get over the mondays thing. It was a bad idea but they wanted to try, it didn't work so they scrapped it. They moved on why can't the IWC?

The interesting part here to me is the idea that they are about to try something on the level of the mondays move again. Hopefully it turns out better this time. Are they moving to New York? Changing the way they do PPVs? Traveling around more? Going live again? It should be interesting to find out.

 

[JackBurton]

We've listened to our fans...? Unless he's talking about the half of them that LEFT TNA during the Monday Night Massacre's for RAW, then yeah. They listened to them.

TNA, on Mondays, went from 1.3? to a regular .6? So that's about 500,000 - 750-000? That would mean RAW's rating, by your logic went up from a 3.0 - 3.5 to 3.5 - 4.0? Didn't notice that being reported on a regular basis, did anyone else? Nope? Doesn't RAW and SD!, for that matter, do higher ratings pre Mania every year? TNA's fans certainly stopped watching. No doubt. The numbers show it. But they also sure-as-fuck show they didn't migrate over to Saturday Night Live - ahem - i mean RAW. Why do people like you have to present opinions to people like me - with total distortion and twisting of what I, with my very own eyes, can see is absolutely not the case?!

Jarret isn't selling anything to anyone with his statement and it doesn't appear that he was trying to. Of course he's not going to say "WWE kicked our ass on Mondays". Isn't it a distinct possibility that maybe overtaking RAW on Mondays wasn't the short term goal? Nah, if you considered that fact you might have to be objective for once. Neeeeever happenin'

 

[JackBurton]

WcW was around for 13 years

The company as WCW was around for 13 years. The company it was before Turner invested was started in the 70's. So you talking closer to 30 years old. In terms of talent exposure and notoriety in the towns they ran on rotation over a monthly period. Saying WCW was only around for 13 years is like saying WWE's only been around less than 10 years. Snickers has only been around 20 years - how long was it called marathon bar before that? The point is, It already had a place in your living room on a Monday night or a Saturday morning - or whenever it ran. How can you expect to compete with that without some major resources? Look at the resources Vince had and Bischoff nearly put him under! Only some serious miss-management from the corporate side of WCW saved Vince's ass.

Common sense is apparently another thing abandoned in the quest to hate on TNA - along with reason, objectivity and punctuation (not the poster I quoted). I will say that Its the same with WWE haters - Its usually just as bad.

 

[twentytwo]

TNA, on Mondays, went from 1.3? to a regular .6? So that's about 500,000 - 750-000? That would mean RAW's rating, by your logic went up from a 3.0 - 3.5 to 3.5 - 4.0? Didn't notice that being reported on a regular basis, did anyone else? Nope? Doesn't RAW and SD!, for that matter, do higher ratings pre Mania every year? TNA's fans certainly stopped watching. No doubt. The numbers show it. But they also sure-as-fuck show they didn't migrate over to Saturday Night Live - ahem - i mean RAW. Why do people like you have to present opinions to people like me - with total distortion and twisting of what I, with my very own eyes, can see is absolutely not the case?!

Wow. You are fucking dumb. It means that over half of TNA's audience also watches RAW every week, and when they were forced to choose on or the other they chose RAW.

 

[JackBurton]

Wow. You are fucking dumb. It means that over half of TNA's audience also watches RAW every week, and when they were forced to choose on or the other they chose RAW.

Hmm did they? It means that why? Because you say it? Have you spoken to these, half a million people then?

"LEFT TNA during the Monday Night Massacre's for RAW"

To leave TNA and go to RAW would mean they would have had to LEAVE RAW first or not be watching it in the first place. Say what you actually mean before getting all pissy because someone replied to what you actually said and not what you meant, but couldn't articulate.

guess that makes you the dumb one hot-shot

 

[Optimist Prime]

WWE is on life support...?

TNA got .56 ratings vs. the WWE head to head and WWE is on life support...?

I suggest you learn how to read.

...relying solely on nostalgic sentimental value in order to sell it's product...because everthing else there stinks like shit.

Without the WWE name...the product would be in the dumpster. It's a bad product right now. People mainly watch for brand loyalty reasons. You can't honestly say that they're putting out a good product. They're basically putting out exactly the same thing TNA is...with 20 X the budget.

 

[Rafather]

No, what you fail to realize is that it wouldn't make RAW's ratings higher. They stayed the same because that many people either:
A. Made the choice of WWE over TNA (most logical)
B. Made the choice to watch other programing over TNA (would be the case to watch NFL come this fall)
C. Couldn't watch tv at all on Monday night (highly doubt 500,000 all couldn't watch tv on a Monday for one given show)

The Monday Night War, Experiment or what ever it wants to be called is part of this thread so of course its going to be brought up. I gave the true reason why Impact on Spike was moved and the reason it still had the time slot.

Panda Energy is backing TNA with several contracts. Spike TV is backing TNA as one of their main programs for the channel. It is backed by a lot of money to continue to do business.

What is their next big changing step to become better? Nobody knows but many options have been talked about. I hope they do something because time is slowly running out.

raf

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I literally just explained, at least, one reasoning behind being impressed with Jarrett's words.

So his responses sounded optimistic. So what? Of course he's going to be optimistic. Even if TNA was circling the drain and an inch from going under, Jeff Jarrett would still give a spin as positive as he possibly could. I'm not saying TNA is going under or is even close because I don't know. I don't have access to TNA's financial information. Jeff Jarrett is saying exactly what he should. I'm not criticizing him for it, but I see no reason to be particularly impressed.

Although you're looking at it from an entirely different point of view. You question Jarrett's truthfulness in one sentence and then immediately follow it with bashing Dixie, Hogan, and TNA in general for the most part.

Of course I question his truthfulness. I question the truthfulness of any such statement because Jarrett said exactly what he was supposed to say. Does that mean he lied? No. But Jeff Jarrett is a TNA employee giving an interview to a major newspaper and isn't going to say anything negative about TNA even if there was, or even is, a ton of negative information to be put out. As I said earlier, I'm not criticizing him for that. Putting a positive spin on something, even if there isn't anything positive to speak of really, is the tried and tested strategy of businessmen and politicians alike. As for bashing Dixie Carter, Hulk Hogan and TNA, maybe you should actually read what I wrote. I didn't bash any of them. I merely stated that anyone hearing about Jarrett's interview and expected or even wanted him to have any negative comments during the interview would be disappointed. I simply mentioned Dixie Carter and Hulk Hogan as they're two frequent targets of criticism. Trust me, when I have something negative to say about TNA, there's no ambiguity about it.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Wow. Surprised anyone took this for what it was - total bullshit. Jarrett is talking like a yes man here. Like a politician. The sky is falling all around him and he's standing there smiling, acting like everything is going great.

We've listened to our fans...? Unless he's talking about the half of them that LEFT TNA during the Monday Night Massacre's for RAW, then yeah. They listened to them.

They figured out that they have about 500,000 die hard TNA fans (which is pathetic. better than average garage bands have this many fans)
and the other half of their fans are simply hardcore wrestling fans, who will probably watch any kind of wrestling show. After all, NXT gets the same ratings as TNA so you can't even call TNA the 3rd best wrestling show on TV anymore.

TNA has already crossed that point to where WCW did when they were completely falling apart and everyone ran around acting like they were growing by leaps and bounds. Wasn't long after that that Vince turned them into a parking lot.

Dude, I have read your tripe before on your TNA hate, criticism has its place and it's encouraged because that's how people have enlightened conversations. You do know what an enlightened conversation is right? It is when you pick out the stuff you don't like about a product and you mention it in a constructive way. Unlike your modus operandi where all you do is put cute little emoticons and use cuss words ad nauseum, wow that's really mature and proper on your part.

If this is how you feel about TNA and you can't speak in any more intelligent a fashion go create a couple of spam threads that wear out all the cuteness of your idiotic expletives that you can't seem to go without when trying to make what I consider to be a horribly weak point. I'm not going to claim I am the greatest TNA fan because I am far from it, but heck I am sure you couldn't do any better of a job running a wrestling company? I highly doubt it when considering your elementary school vocabulary and your ridiculously ignorant nature. It's always funny how the people who do the most complaining are more likely than not the least qualified to really stand on a position.

Leave the critical thinking to more capable people if you're just going to start cussing and starting pissing contests between other posters. It's not amusing nor is it productive towards what the original poster was trying to discuss with his thread, you troll...

 

[Optimist Prime]

So his responses sounded optimistic. So what? Of course he's going to be optimistic. Even if TNA was circling the drain and an inch from going under, Jeff Jarrett would still give a spin as positive as he possibly could. I'm not saying TNA is going under or is even close because I don't know. I don't have access to TNA's financial information. Jeff Jarrett is saying exactly what he should. I'm not criticizing him for it, but I see no reason to be particularly impressed.

In the same breath. I responded to his positive comments with positive comments of my own. So what? While you don't see a reason to be particularly impressed. I don't see a reason why you feel its necessary to argue about my personal feelings on something so arbitrary.

Of course I question his truthfulness. I question the truthfulness of any such statement because Jarrett said exactly what he was supposed to say. Does that mean he lied? No. But Jeff Jarrett is a TNA employee giving an interview to a major newspaper and isn't going to say anything negative about TNA even if there was, or even is, a ton of negative information to be put out. As I said earlier, I'm not criticizing him for that. Putting a positive spin on something, even if there isn't anything positive to speak of really, is the tried and tested strategy of businessmen and politicians alike. As for bashing Dixie Carter, Hulk Hogan and TNA, maybe you should actually read what I wrote. I didn't bash any of them. I merely stated that anyone hearing about Jarrett's interview and expected or even wanted him to have any negative comments during the interview would be disappointed. I simply mentioned Dixie Carter and Hulk Hogan as they're two frequent targets of criticism. Trust me, when I have something negative to say about TNA, there's no ambiguity about it.

So let me get this straight. You refuse to take Jarrett's comments seriously because of his association with TNA but at the same time are seemingly looking for people to take you seriously - who is a well-known anti-TNA scribe. Sounds kind of like hypocrisy to me.

And basically, you didn't say anything negative about TNA, I'm pretty brand new to this message board...and it was all just a big-giant coincidence that I came to the conclusion that you were anti-TNA. And that your last sentence confirms that I was right.

Why am I wasting my time on here?? I should be shuffling tarot cards down at the local market with this kind of gift!

 

[twentytwo]

Dude, JH is not anti-TNA. He's very reasonable and always offers well though out arguments when it comes to TNA.

It appears to me that you, just like a lot of TNA'ers get super defensive when someone outside your 1% club decides to see things from outside your TNA colored glasses.

Jeff Jarrett is talking out of his ass here. Hell, if I didn't watch TNA I'd think they were blowing the roof off the ratings, making money hand over fist, and being led by men who knew what they were doing, judging their success solely off of JJ's comments here.

The fact is TNA got a mere 8,000 sales for their past 2 PPV's. How you can twist that into a positive is mind-boggling.

I wonder why jarrett didn't talk about that...?

 

[Reddannihilation]

Dude, JH is not anti-TNA. He's very reasonable and always offers well though out arguments when it comes to TNA.

How's your gag reflex?

Jeff Jarrett is talking out of his ass here. Hell, if I didn't watch TNA I'd think they were blowing the roof off the ratings, making money hand over fist, and being led by men who knew what they were doing, judging their success solely off of JJ's comments here.

You got that from "We're learning from our mistakes", "we want a balance of veteran and young performers" and "We might make roster cuts". Who's got the coloured glasses now?

The fact is TNA got a mere 8,000 sales for their past 2 PPV's. How you can twist that into a positive is mind-boggling.

Care to share where you got that info?

I wonder why jarrett didn't talk about that...?

Probably because it's a load of bullshit you read online from an unsourced article.