Jarrett Says TNA is Profitable

[Slyfox696]

When someone says an idea or a company is profitable, it doesn't nessecarily mean it is making money. The idea of something being profitable means it either does or has the potential to make money.

TNA could be making money or maybe Jarrett still has the idea that it one day could make money.

I'm far from an economics major, but I do understand laymen's terms. So tell me, when Jarrett says TNA "turned the corner" and is now "profitable", what else can that mean, other than they are making money, when they weren't a few years ago?

TNA is not a concept, it's a living breathing company. And when Jarrett says they "turned the corner", it's not like he didn't think TNA could make money, and then his thinking turned the corner.

I'm sorry, but given the same information that you have, I have to say you are completely wrong, and you're trying to cast doubt on something that seems pretty cut and dry.

Exactly. When WCW was running a 3 hour show on Monday night, attracting huge crowds and hiring well-known rock bands to entertain between matches, the company looked as if they must be profitable.....proving that appearances are often deceiving since the Wall St. Journal was reporting that WCW was losing between $60-80 million a year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jarrett didn't say TNA "looks" profitable, he said they are.

Good example, but a faulty one.

Maybe TNA is making money.....or maybe their investors are pouring capital into the company, hoping they will be profitable in the future, as Time-Warner did with WCW. Someone said in this thread that if a venture is losing money, they must close down. That's true, but it might not happen until the investor is no longer willing to throw good money after bad.

Then explain the "turn the corner" remark. The ONLY time a company turns the corner is when they are making more money than they spend, and/or when the company is worth more than the startup costs and/or the purchase price.

Either way, it shows that TNA IS a money maker.

Someone asked; Why would Jarrett lie? I say; Why would he tell the truth?

What does he have to gain by lying, when he can just as easily deflect the question? Dixie Carter came out a couple years ago and said TNA was making money. Why must there always be a conspiracy? As other people have noted, TNA is bringing in top level talents on a regular basis AND keeping them. As Jarrett said, there are MANY ways a company can cut costs and make money, and TNA is doing that. One thing Eric Bischoff did when he got to WCW WAS to get rid of the unnecessary expenses, and make it a much more tightly run ship, so he could spend less money on unnecessary items, and more money on talent. And it worked back then, and apparently, it's working now.


I just don't understand the personal vendetta some fans seem to have against TNA.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Profit could mean anything really. A mean if a sell the dude whos posted before me a twix for a pennie more then a bought it from the shops i'm in profit. So lets all just be glad tnas still here and making damn good ppvs(genesis was awesome!) long live tna!

No, profit means profit. They are obviously making more than an extra $20 a month, because they continue to sign new talents — see Matt Hardy.

It means that the rhetoric card the IWC TNA bashers loved to use is no longer valid. It's expired. Extinguished. It's 100% Grade-A Top-Choice bullshit.

This is about as cut and dry as can be. The fact any of TNA's detractors are trying to skew this is evidence of their bias in all of this — nothing more. They are wrong and refuse to admit it. Simple as that. Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[pepentorresHHH]

I'm a business major and after reading all the different posts I have to agree with some of them and ignore some, yes PROFITABLE means in the business world that either a venture has the potential to MAKE money or that the company is CONVERING ITS COSTS AND TURNING A PROFIT. With that said, if one of the company's officials says that the company is making money then great, that means they re earning more than they are spending but in response to slyfox, this isnt about a conspiracy, its about speculation, which is very common in the business world, because even though Jarret can come out and say that TNA's making a profit, we dont know how much. if indeed Panda Energy has been giving money TNA money which they MUST expect to be given back then TNA has to have a plan to give it back, but if their profit its 2 dollars like its been said by some poster or 2 million dollars, then Panda Energy needs to make a decision in regard as to how much time it will take TNA to pay their money back. so all in all if TNA is making money then good for them, but at the same time we dont know HOW MUCH money they are making, or if Jarret and Dixie are telling the truth (Speculation because they are not obligated to tell the truth)

 

[Rayne]

No, profit means profit. They are obviously making more than an extra $20 a month, because they continue to sign new talents — see Matt Hardy.

Point of order- hiring of new talents doesn't come directly out of profit. Profit is a result of a positive expense vs. revenue relationship, and while that sounds pretty obvious, there is no real-time reconciliation of those two. You don't look at your results at the end of a quarter and go "good news, we can hire more people".

Being able to hire more wrestlers (with more expensive contracts) isn't proof of profit. In fact, 'sports companies' (I'm using the term to describe organizations which pay their performers very different amounts for performing similar tasks) frequently take on a star's salary during unprofitable times, in hopes that they might help the company turn around; it's an investment, or as the old cliche goes, "you have to spend money to make money."

It would be about as accurate as saying that all of the noise about TNA wrestlers holding out for and receiving less money was proof that TNA wasn't profitable. There's no cause vs. effect relationship; you're taking correlation and mistaking it for causation.

Jeff Jarrett was asked a lawyer's question, and he responded with a lawyer's answer, which anyone with their own(ish) business would be wise to do. He didn't provide any information or any context in which to take his statement. However, this ongoing argument is less about actual information, and more about two groups of people constantly trying to score points off of one another, and in that context, Jeff Jarrett's statement was a treasure trove.

 

[MisterRob]

Who cares? Seriously. I don't even know why this thread is here because the only debate it offers is a pointless one that has no real facts. It's not news that TNA is "profitable", nor is there any new information about what profitable even means when it comes to TNA, a company who hasn't offered a thing in that regard. Jeff Jarrett was responding with simplicity without giving away any real details about the state TNA -actually- is in, so whether TNA is making just enough money to stay afloat and end up in the plus by the end of the year or whether they're in a better state then some would believe or argue, who cares? Nothing new's come out from this interview. Nothing interesting, either.

 

[Slyfox696]

but in response to slyfox, this isnt about a conspiracy, its about speculation

I say tomato, you say tomato...


...wow that saying doesn't translate well over a forum. Oh well, you know what I mean.

because even though Jarret can come out and say that TNA's making a profit, we dont know how much.

But it doesn't matter how much, now does it? Because what I'm talking about, and have from the very beginning is the fact many posters on here have repeatedly talked about how much money TNA has been LOSING.

Jarrett is telling them they are all speaking in a completely ignorant fashion. It doesn't matter how much TNA is making, the fact TNA IS making money proves those people wrong. Which was my point from the beginning.

if indeed Panda Energy has been giving money TNA money which they MUST expect to be given back

Actually, Panda Energy never expected money back. Robert Carter is the chairman and founder of Panda Energy, and Dixie is his daughter. Panda Energy originally gave TNA wrestling to his daughter to be used as a tax shelter. Indeed, when Panda Energy first acquired TNA, they did so with the intention of TNA losing money.

You don't buy something in order to lose money with the expectation of making it back anytime in the near future, if at all.

then TNA has to have a plan to give it back, but if their profit its 2 dollars like its been said by some poster or 2 million dollars, then Panda Energy needs to make a decision in regard as to how much time it will take TNA to pay their money back.

Again, I'm not an economics major, but I think you don't have this accurately in your head.

Panda Energy isn't loaning money to TNA, they own nearly 75% of the company, if I remember correctly. There's no "giving back the money", it's simply whether or not TNA comes out of the red into the black. And even if TNA if TNA isn't making money, Panda Energy IS, so it's a win-win situation.

TNA didn't take out a loan from Panda Energy, they are OWNED by Panda Energy, so to speak. So any profits TNA makes, technically belong to Panda Energy already. It's the same situation WCW was in, if I'm not mistaken, the difference between TNA is not having their profits siphoned off to other ventures, whereas WCW in its heyday was funding many of other companies which were bleeding money.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

No-one in here knows the answer to this, none of us have access to TNA's financial records, so it is all speculation.

All we know is, TNA are signing more and more expensive talents and these wrestlers are getting paid and remaining in TNA. Who is paying them? TNA and the Carters? Spike? We don't know. They are at least getting their paycheques which is not what was happening when ECW went under.

Maybe money is being pumped in, in the hope they will be profitable in the future? Maybe they are making a small profit now with live attendence sales, plus tv revenue, plus merchandise and DVD sales...we dont know.

I just hope TNA continues to stay in existance and offer an alternative to the WWE. Thats all I care about, I couldnt give less of a fuck about how they make their money or who pays the contracts. I just enjoy the show and let Jarrett worry about that stuff

 

[Rayne]

Actually, Panda Energy never expected money back. Robert Carter is the chairman and founder of Panda Energy, and Dixie is his daughter. Panda Energy originally gave TNA wrestling to his daughter to be used as a tax shelter. Indeed, when Panda Energy first acquired TNA, they did so with the intention of TNA losing money.

More points of order:

When you set up a tax shelter, the idea is to have it make steady, predictable loss, which can be applied against the profits of your main company to reduce the amount of tax paid; at a ratio that is less than 1:1 over four years. I don't know where this tax shelter talk started- maybe someone gave an interview where they brought it up a couple of years ago- but the way TNA Wrestling is behaving is not at all indicative of a tax shelter. They are investing talent into their company in order to advance their position; not hold a predictably failing one.

Panda Energy isn't loaning money to TNA, they own nearly 75% of the company, if I remember correctly. There's no "giving back the money", it's simply whether or not TNA comes out of the red into the black. And even if TNA if TNA isn't making money, Panda Energy IS, so it's a win-win situation.

TNA didn't take out a loan from Panda Energy, they are OWNED by Panda Energy, so to speak. So any profits TNA makes, technically belong to Panda Energy already. It's the same situation WCW was in, if I'm not mistaken, the difference between TNA is not having their profits siphoned off to other ventures, whereas WCW in its heyday was funding many of other companies which were bleeding money.

This isn't quite accurate. Private companies are very free to move assets around within their company, without restriction, but when trying to identify the worth of an individual asset of that company, you typically count any ongoing capital investment against profit.

Is money that Panda Energy sends TNA Wrestling considered a "loan"? No, loans are expected to be paid back according to a certain timetable and with interest. The money is merely considered capital. At the same time, however, it's misleading- although technically true- to say that TNA Wrestling is profitable, but only after you count any financial lifeline extended from Panda Energy.

 

[Reddannihilation]

Jarret pwn ftw. Hmm, I seem to remember saying months ago people who pointed at TNA's finances were full of shit, it would appear I was right. TNA makes money, doesn't matter how much so long as it's being made. Still, it appears the anti-TNA are keen to shit on everything no matter what, things never change it would seem.

 

[Slyfox696]

More points of order:

When you set up a tax shelter, the idea is to have it make steady, predictable loss, which can be applied against the profits of your main company to reduce the amount of tax paid; at a ratio that is less than 1:1 over four years. I don't know where this tax shelter talk started- maybe someone gave an interview where they brought it up a couple of years ago- but the way TNA Wrestling is behaving is not at all indicative of a tax shelter. They are investing talent into their company in order to advance their position; not hold a predictably failing one.

This isn't quite accurate. Private companies are very free to move assets around within their company, without restriction, but when trying to identify the worth of an individual asset of that company, you typically count any ongoing capital investment against profit.

Is money that Panda Energy sends TNA Wrestling considered a "loan"? No, loans are expected to be paid back according to a certain timetable and with interest. The money is merely considered capital.

As I said, I'm not an economist or a business major, and I am not going to pretend to be.

However, whenever Panda Energy first acquired TNA, it was for tax purposes, or at least, that was what every report on the subject said. Perhaps TNA is no longer operating in that manner, but originally that was the point. All of which, including your second "point of order", goes to prove that TNA wasn't given a money loan from Panda Energy, and as such, then the following statement

then Panda Energy needs to make a decision in regard as to how much time it will take TNA to pay their money back.

would be inaccurate, at least in the context it was obviously stated in, right?

At the same time, however, it's misleading- although technically true- to say that TNA Wrestling is profitable, but only after you count any financial lifeline extended from Panda Energy.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but from what I'm gathering is that you are saying TNA is profitable, but only when you include the money from Panda? Is that what you are saying? Or are you merely saying it's a possibility?


Either way, regardless of any possible variables that are out there, right now the only pieces of information we have on TNA's finances are that TNA is bringing in more money than they've spent. We've heard it from Dixie and Jarrett now. And since that is the only information we've heard, anyone saying TNA is a "money pit" or is "bleeding money" has absolutely no basis for such a statement, correct?

 

[Rayne]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but from what I'm gathering is that you are saying TNA is profitable, but only when you include the money from Panda? Is that what you are saying? Or are you merely saying it's a possibility?

It's a possibility. It all hinges on how you choose to define the word "profitable".

Either way, regardless of any possible variables that are out there, right now the only pieces of information we have on TNA's finances are that TNA is bringing in more money than they've spent. We've heard it from Dixie and Jarrett now. And since that is the only information we've heard, anyone saying TNA is a "money pit" or is "bleeding money" has absolutely no basis for such a statement, correct?

They have their own suppositions. To say absolutely no basis based on a statement from Jeff Jarrett is a bit much; I'd always rather have the financials in hand. However, the case is significantly diminished. Jeff could find himself in heat with the SEC should TNA Wrestling choose to go public in the next few years, because that could be construed as misleading investors. Once again though, it all depends on how you determine "profitable".

My personal opinion through this remains unchanged- I do not believe TNA is "bleeding money", but I do not believe that they are making a significant amount of profit. I don't think the cost-cutting measures amongst wrestlers are indicative that TNA is in financial trouble; rather, they're trying to spend as little as possible to invest in other ventures of their business; road tours, live Impact!, and, for some reason, washed up Jersey Shore ****es.

The professional wrestling business is notoriously fickle. A company that looks weak surge ahead in a matter of a couple of years; a profit-generating behemoth can get nudged aside by a southern upstart. I do not believe that over the past year TNA Wrestling has always made the best decisions for their company's future, but I do believe that both their planning and the communication of said plans has improved markedly over the past couple of months.

I still can't stand watching Eric Bischoff.

 

[MrHashasheen]

Actually, Panda Energy never expected money back. Robert Carter is the chairman and founder of Panda Energy, and Dixie is his daughter. Panda Energy originally gave TNA wrestling to his daughter to be used as a tax shelter. Indeed, when Panda Energy first acquired TNA, they did so with the intention of TNA losing money.

Source, please? Anyway, this comment by Jarrett is something that has been echoed before by Bischoff and Carter. Doesn't matter if its true or not, haters are just going to keep on hating unless they get concrete proof that they're wrong.

 

[Slyfox696]

Source, please? Anyway, this comment by Jarrett is something that has been echoed before by Bischoff and Carter. Doesn't matter if its true or not, haters are just going to keep on hating unless they get concrete proof that they're wrong.

It was so long ago that Panda Energy bought TNA, that it's going to be hard to find sources for it. However, it's hardly a new concept, if you do a search for "panda energy tax write off" (I may have gotten the term wrong earlier, but it was the best I could remember), and you can find many places on the IWC where that theory has been popular, and usually a theory like that came from a variety of news sources. Keep in mind, this happened way back in 2002, so it's going to be difficult to find news archives that old.

By the way, I'm glad I gave you a moment to edit your post, saved me the work of handing you a Spam Infraction.

 

[shattered dreams]

How isn't this newsworthy considering what the general discussion has been about this topic over the last 6+ months?

shattered dreams, what happened to all of this "you can't go on anything you read on the dirt sheets" you love to espouse? Is this another one of those special cases that always seem to come up when you're talking?

Notable difference between someone employed by Baltimore Sun vs a dirt sheet. Humongous difference between anonymous or non-existent sources and Jeff Jarrett, especially on this specific issue. I think you are confused about our exchanges, I am not talking about special cases but I am saying you are a "special case."

Dixie said it in 07, I think she said it again in 09 or 10 (whenever her youshoot was she said something about it), Bischoff declined to say one way or the other a few months back (although depending on which interview it is he may give you reason to believe he legitimately wouldn't know even though that seems doubtful and he took some of the ignorance on the issue to the woodshed around that time) and Jarrett said it now. I'll take them at their word for a relative idea opposed to Johnny Basement's "expert" speculation that considers a whopping two factors and no context. I think TNA may use this incorrect perception as an advantage in various negotiations, which may be one of several other more obvious reasons that revealing their financial situation when they do not have to would be counterproductive.

 

[Rayne]

Notable difference between someone employed by Baltimore Sun vs a dirt sheet. Humongous difference between anonymous or non-existent sources and Jeff Jarrett, especially on this specific issue.

He's not a journalist for the Baltimore Sun; he's a blog poster who has his articles posted online. The difference in expectations is *tremendous*; most notably, blog posters pieces typically aren't subject to the rigorous fact checking that news articles are. It's very easy to be published online exclusively; newspapers pay you a token amount, and you're 'paid' primarily from the exposure you get. Content is everything these days.

He's published online by the Baltimore Sun. He's not Nicholas Kristoff.

I think you are confused about our exchanges, I am not talking about special cases but I am saying you are a "special case."

Hahaha, you called someone 'special'. You never talk about special cases, you're always the person creating them- like how you're the only person in the English speaking world who doesn't get Viacom channels in HD. These things that always tend to creep up that always seem to make your arguments.... exceptional.

Dixie said it in 07, I think she said it again in 09 or 10 (whenever her youshoot was she said something about it), Bischoff declined to say one way or the other a few months back (although depending on which interview it is he may give you reason to believe he legitimately wouldn't know even though that seems doubtful and he took some of the ignorance on the issue to the woodshed around that time) and Jarrett said it now. I'll take them at their word for a relative idea opposed to Johnny Basement's "expert" speculation that considers a whopping two factors and no context. I think TNA may use this incorrect perception as an advantage in various negotiations, which may be one of several other more obvious reasons that revealing their financial situation when they do not have to would be counterproductive.

We know you'll take them at their word, on anything; just a month or so ago you were talking about how you're still holding out hope that they'll explain Samoa Joe's kidnapping. You are not exactly what I would refer to as an unbiased observer when it comes to detecting veracity on the behalf of TNA Wrestling's primaries.

And this is far from the first time that you've said they use this 'incorrect perception as an advantage'- how about you explain your theory on that? Working in the advertising industry, I am very curious to hear your theories on how negotiating from a position of weakness is strategically advantageous in television; explain that and you might just revolutionize the industry.

 

[shattered dreams]

He's not a journalist for the Baltimore Sun; he's a blog poster who has his articles posted online.

Kevin Eck is the assigning editor of the Baltimore Sun's three sports columnists. He also oversees coverage of college lacrosse and helps to coordinate coverage of high school sports. In addition, he writes a blog for baltimoresun.com on professional wrestling.

most notably, blog posters pieces typically aren't subject to the rigorous fact checking that news articles are.

Not sure how this is relevant that much anyway. The entire piece is an interview basically. You would have to be an idiot to fake an interview. Jarrett being on record is the main point of what I said and the part you conveniently ignored in your off-topic rambling response.

And this is far from the first time that you've said they use this 'incorrect perception as an advantage'- how about you explain your theory on that? Working in the advertising industry, I am very curious to hear your theories on how negotiating from a position of weakness is strategically advantageous in television; explain that and you might just revolutionize the industry.

I have explained it in the past when you said the exact same thing. TNA is not selling its product to you, why should they reveal the necessary info to you? How big of a moron can you be to think big business deals are negotiated on internet rumors instead of facts? I am sure TNA reveals necessary info in business settings. I am talking about signing talent for less money and operating under the radar. The latter much more than the former. IWC thinks you are broke or whatever and are going to be cutting people and costs, it then makes larger splashes at least somewhat more surprising. It also keeps the competition possibly off guard.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I think the interview is pretty cut and dry. We don't know how profitable TNA is, but its not like they are losing money or worrying about bankruptcy anytime soon. Some people want to jump to conclusions every time a rating rises or dips calling for the end of TNA. Jarrett said they turned the corner 5 years ago as far as being profitable. They have a new line of toys licensed and international tours along with international TNA shows. Merchandising has been huge with Don West in charge and the new TNA talent acquired recently.

I seriously doubt that TNA or Dixie Carter would be irresponsible enough to waste all of their revenue on big name talent and not have any left over for the growth of the company.

 

[Rayne]

Not sure how this is relevant that much anyway. The entire piece is an interview basically. You would have to be an idiot to fake an interview. Jarrett being on record is the main point of what I said and the part you conveniently ignored in your off-topic rambling response.

Please. Stop assuming that if I don't respond to every little thing you say, that I must be ignoring it because you have a valid point. Debating is not about making ridiculous points, then declaring victory when someone ignores them.

As far as "faking" an interview? Most interviews are faked. What, do you think someone just cold-called Jeff Jarrett and said "hi, I write blog articles for the Baltimore Sun, can I ask you some off-the-cuff questions?" Here's how the interview process works when dealing with virtually anyone representing a business. Interviewer contacts company media representative and requests an interview. Company media executive either blows off the interviewer, or sets up an interview. The interviewee says "alright, I'll agree to the interview, but you have to ask these questions, and I won't be answering questions about (this area)." There are no "gotcha" moments in professional wrestling off of the script; there are no press conferences to jump all over Jeff Jarrett and ask him questions resulting in a "no comment". Before you get all shocked, like you always do, and go "how dare you say my heroes would not present themselves completely honestly!", this is standard operating procedure in journalism. A journalist would not, of his own accord, ask something simple like "are you profitable", because it's a question that doesn't have a meaningful answer, and doesn't provide any data to inform the reader. The journalists question would be something along the lines of "is TNA's P:E ratio competitive within the entertainment industry?" Jeff Jarrett, however, has no reason to be giving interviews to blog writers for the Baltimore Sun, unless he wanted to use the interviewer as a mouthpiece. (This happens all the time. Don't pretend to be shocked.)

Jeff Jarrett gets the media to repeat what he wants said; blog writer guy gets to put an interview with Jeff Jarrett on his website, giving him more readers, which is what he's after. Both people win, so there's no need to do it with "gotcha" questions that JJ would 'no comment' for. How do I know all this? I did the same exact thing in the '90's, writing for video game websites and trying to break into journalism, back when was still an idealistic kid who hadn't realized there isn't shit for cash in journalism. Hell, I bet JJ at least let this kid ask one original question at least; there were interviews I'd do where I'd be faxed the entire script for the interview beforehand; the questions I would ask, as well as the answers, already written down for me just in case I didn't write down a bullet point that the interviewer's company didn't want missed. If I didn't want to follow the script, I didn't get the interview, and someone else who would follow the script did.

"Unscripted interviews" are the playing field of the Rathers, Chungs, and Courics. Unless you've got enough starpower where the potential benefit of doing an interview is greater then the risk of sounding like an idiot in that interview (think the Palin/Couric "I can see Russia from my house" interview), you simply don't get unscripted interviews and do the best with what you have.

I have explained it in the past when you said the exact same thing. TNA is not selling its product to you, why should they reveal the necessary info to you? How big of a moron can you be to think big business deals are negotiated on internet rumors instead of facts? I am sure TNA reveals necessary info in business settings. I am talking about signing talent for less money and operating under the radar. The latter much more than the former. IWC thinks you are broke or whatever and are going to be cutting people and costs, it then makes larger splashes at least somewhat more surprising. It also keeps the competition possibly off guard.

You didn't answer the question; you just took the time to take swipes at me for unrelated topics. I didn't ask you why do you think TNA doesn't release any information about their financials; I asked you to validate how you thought that negotiating from a position of weakness was an ideal situation for TNA Wrestling, let alone any business. How does it keep the competition off guard, and in what way would having an "off guard" competition translate to a higher P:E ratio for TNA? How does something "surprising" translate into that higher P:E ratio? They've been trying surprising all year without moving the ratings. How does "operating under the radar" benefit TNA financially?

Best off, how on earth does appearing weak help them attract better talent at lower prices? Did Ken Kennedy and Mickie James decide that they just didn't like the travel and wanted much less money? What kind of career options was Jeff Hardy looking at in a North Carolina holding cell? That sounds like a real chicken and the egg solution; you can't prove it at all, but it can't be disproven either, and so long as you make amorphous statements like that, you'll never have to back up another statement as long as you live. Come to think of it, that might be the best tack for you.

You're under the impression that TNA is a competitor to the WWE, somewhere between WWE and ROH, and thus should be paying something equivalent to their levels of popularity; if they are paying anything less then that, it's good bargaining. (Actually, I think you just spit out a bunch of statements without actually thinking about the reasoning behind them, which is why it's rather easy to point out the holes in the argument, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.) This is a wrong assumption. All TNA has to pay is enough to guarantee that their talent will show up for them as opposed to indy bookings, and having a television outlet to increase your exposure (and hence the price you can get from working an indy show) goes a long way towards lowering that cost. For their bigger wrestlers, they just have to pay enough to keep them from going to the WWE, which varies greatly on the performer. Ken Kennedy must have been a steal for TNA, as his career options at this time last year were TNA or Powerhouse Wrestling. It has nothing to do with how weak wrestlers perceive the company; so long as TNA falls neatly between ROH and WWE, their negotiating position doesn't change. Doesn't take the quarterly financials to understand that; that's just understanding something called "leverage", which is involved in every human relationship.

What you did is spit out a bunch of buzzwords and said "I'm sure of this" with no more information then you routinely excoriate other people for when they're disagreeing with you. You never explained how being perceived as weak is secretly a strength. You'll try until you're blue in the face, but your arguments always come down to "well, you don't know for sure, so therefore you can't disprove me, so I'm right, even though I have no more information then you." Gets kind of tiring, tbh.

 

[shattered dreams]

Please. Stop assuming that if I don't respond to every little thing you say, that I must be ignoring it because you have a valid point. Debating is not about making ridiculous points, then declaring victory when someone ignores them.

The idea that Jeff Jarrett actually said those things is a ridiculous point? Yet, it isn't ridiculous to live by anonymous words? What a weird world you live in.

People give interviews to promote? Shocking

A journalist would not, of his own accord, ask something simple like "are you profitable", because it's a question that doesn't have a meaningful answer, and doesn't provide any data to inform the reader. The journalists question would be something along the lines of "is TNA's P:E ratio competitive within the entertainment industry?"

At least you indirectly admit these dirtsheet people are not journalists.

What you did is spit out a bunch of buzzwords and said "I'm sure of this" with no more information then you routinely excoriate other people for when they're disagreeing with you.

Clearly I am making definitive statements ...

I'll take them at their word for a relative idea ... I think TNA may use this incorrect perception as an advantage in various negotiations, which may be one of several other more obvious reasons that revealing their financial situation ... It also keeps the competition possibly off guard.

Anyway, surprise has long been known to be a desirable factor to the audience. Why doesn't WWE just pay enough to keep people out of TNA? Most of these discussion topics are more complex than you seem to think, even if you did gain expertise working a week as a hot dog salesman or whatever is coming next. TNA does have a passionate fanbase. Maybe the idea that the company needs a boost convinces them to make a larger effort to tune in or support them. There is no real disadvantage to the IWC having whatever opinion they want.

Why would they repeatedly lie about this in such an exaggerated way? Why would they keep signing people and attempting to expand if they were so broke? Is TNA having financial issues in spite of this possible? Yes. Probable? No. It is that simple. The evidence for such issues is extremely suspect and pales in comparison to the opposite.

 

[Rayne]

The idea that Jeff Jarrett actually said those things is a ridiculous point? Yet, it isn't ridiculous to live by anonymous words? What a weird world you live in.

People give interviews to promote? Shocking

At least you indirectly admit these dirtsheet people are not journalists.

Clearly I am making definitive statements ...

As it always does when we get into these debates, things are just getting weird with you now. What the hell are you talking about? Where are your arguments connecting your statements to established facts or information discussed previously?

Items #1 and #2- I don't see what you're trying to argue at all.

Item #3- First you called him a writer for the Baltimore Sun when I called you out for your wavering opinions on dirtsheet writers, now that I describe how blog journalism works, you're calling him a dirtsheet writer. Quit reflexively attacking!

Item #4- No. Clearly definitive statements would leave someone beside yourself with an idea of what you were trying to express here.

Anyway, surprise has long been known to be a desirable factor to the audience. Why doesn't WWE just pay enough to keep people out of TNA? Most of these discussion topics are more complex than you seem to think, even if you did gain expertise working a week as a hot dog salesman or whatever is coming next. TNA does have a passionate fanbase. Maybe the idea that the company needs a boost convinces them to make a larger effort to tune in or support them. There is no real disadvantage to the IWC having whatever opinion they want.

One week you start a thread asking why people should care about low ratings; today it's "a perception of a weak company encourages their fans to tune in", which, considering that was the only real argument addressing the original question, is a pretty weak point to even begin with. "Most of these discussion topics" (the term would be "television media") are complex, but just because you don't grasp them doesn't mean that no one else does.

As it is, you still avoided the question while trying to appear you addressed it. You provided a bunch of ideas, but never attempted to explain exactly how those ideas translate into more profit per dollar of expense. If it's too "complex" for you, that's fine.

It's OK if you can't come up with concrete reasoning as to why a television company would want to appear weak; and I'm sorry if you're a bit dismayed to find out my life experience hasn't mirrored what you're more familiar with. The proposition is a ridiculous one to have to defend. I get a rise out of you because you keep coming up with these insane arguments to defend these equally insane propositions, and never take the time out to say "OK, maybe I said something a bit silly." I'm not even the type of person who's going to demand that it must be because you don't know how to respond; it's the internet, it's not really that important.

hy would they repeatedly lie about this in such an exaggerated way? Why would they keep signing people and attempting to expand if they were so broke? Is TNA having financial issues in spite of this possible? Yes. Probable? No. It is that simple. The evidence for such issues is extremely suspect and pales in comparison to the opposite.

And here it is again. You aren't arguing against me, because I never said TNA was "so broke". I'm in this very thread, quoting my opinion that TNA is a neutral proposition right now (that while the company is in general profitable, the expenses of the past year quite likely ended them in the red for calendar year 2010) and am unsure if their recent investments have been properly utilized for their cost. However, you're making your own statments against some ready-made position. "The evidence for such issues is extremely suspect and pales in comparison to the opposite?" That's all nice, but unfortunately my position isn't the one you seem to be attacking.

To sum up- you're doing that thing you do, when you get wrapped up in defending your TNA at all costs. Your arguments start getting strange and lose anything to do with what I'm talking about, and I'm not about to start defending some phony position for you to rail at.

 

[shattered dreams]

Items #1 and #2- I don't see what you're trying to argue at all.

What I have been talking about the whole time that you initially took such great issue with, that being the difference in potential credibility for something coming straight from Jarrett's mouth and something coming from the anonymous sources dirtsheets depend on.

Item #3- First you called him a writer for the Baltimore Sun when I called you out for your wavering opinions on dirtsheet writers, now that I describe how blog journalism works, you're calling him a dirtsheet writer. Quit reflexively attacking!

Not referring to that guy at all here. You say journalists would not ask such a question. Since the dirtsheet writers (the source of the idea that TNA has money issues) repeatedly ask this question to themselves I would assume you think they are not journalists. Hence, the idea of indirect. In case you still do not get, I do not consider that guy a dirtsheet writer. The idea that anyone that writes in a blog of any form is a dirtsheet writer is simply ridiculous.

Item #4- No. Clearly definitive statements would leave someone beside yourself with an idea of what you were trying to express here.

What you did is spit out a bunch of buzzwords and said "I'm sure of this"

Pick one it can't be both.

I didn't start that thread you mentioned (yet another example of your rayne reading skills) and I certainly made it quite clear many of the ideas I was putting forth here were merely discussion points and then did explain why I felt that way. Whether you agreed with my reasoning is a different discussion but the idea I did not even present a case is just dumb. Are they all perfectly true? I really doubt it and never once pretended I thought they were. Why you think what the IWC thinks matters at all is one of the more confusing aspects to me about your "points."

And here it is again. You aren't arguing against me, because I never said TNA was "so broke". I'm in this very thread, quoting my opinion that TNA is a neutral proposition right now (that while the company is in general profitable, the expenses of the past year quite likely ended them in the red for calendar year 2010) and am unsure if their recent investments have been properly utilized for their cost. However, you're making your own statments against some ready-made position. "The evidence for such issues is extremely suspect and pales in comparison to the opposite?" That's all nice, but unfortunately my position isn't the one you seem to be attacking.

And the whole world is about you? This thread is for discussing the topic in general. Not just me and you having a back and forth. The concept that TNA has money issues has been prevalent for a long time here. Not even sure at this point what you are arguing against me for exactly. Do you think I am saying TNA is rich beyond there dreams because Jarrett said they are profitable? I am not and I think you are the one trying to force an argument on me that I never made. You seem to have a really large problem with understanding the difference between presenting something as a possibility and as a fact. Which is odd because you respond to everything I say like it was presented as a fact then turn around and say nothing I say is clear. You also continuously ignore any parts that relate to the general discussion so I guess I will just leave it at this in the small chance that this thread might get back on topic.

 

[Vinco Menz]

Well as long as they make one dollar more than it costs to put on the show then technically TNA is "profitable". That being said, even if TNA is profitable now, with the way it is being run I can easily see it going bankrupt. They seriously need to get someone in there to clean up house.

 

[MachoMadness1988]

No TNA is not worth the investment. If I was Vince and I ever brought TNA I would shut down TNA like Vince did with WCW.

What are you even taking about? This thread about Jeff Jarrett saying TNA is profitable, what the hell does "TNA not being worth the invetment" have to do with it or make any sense as it relates to what this thread is talking about? You've make like 10 post in the last few minutes, one after another, that are just being stupidly negative. You're obviously just another TNA hater/WWE fanboy, please do us all a favor and go back to the WWE section.