The Fall of the TNA Originals?

[Rayne]

Yes, you can spare me the "but you can't knowwwwww!" speech. I've heard it before and don't think much of it, because every day, all over the place, people are using the best information they have available to make educated guesses about the issues they are confronting, and then updating those points of view as new information becomes available. Out there in big boy world, people will bet millions of dollars on these educated guesses.

Out here in TNA forum land, "you don't knoowwwwww" becomes shorthand for "I can't explain things as well as you can, but since you aren't 100% sure, people have to believe an opposite point of view!" People keep pointing to "other indicators" that are doing great, and magic streams of revenue that people must not be taking into account. Where do they come from? Irrelevant to the discussion. The idea of the "you don't knoowwwww" argument isn't to provide an intelligent, and likely, alternative interpretation of events, but to seize on the very nature of an educated deduction by claiming it isn't an absolute fact.

No shit, sherlock. Then you got cute and went on an attack against knowledge. Hey, that'll sell well on this board- I've always ceded the bottom 75% of this board to the people I argue against. BTW, I don't apply the first theories I learned in college- I kept attending classes and learning. I apply a LOT of them, and then others that I've learned outside of formal education. Maybe freshman college dropout is the highest aspiration in your life, but I've aimed a bit higher.

I never claimed 'everyone else' was a mental midget. Just you. For the record, you also used the 'you argue this, everyone else argues this' construction. Three debate cliches in one post, and yet absolutely no information to defend your point of view, just a rambling screed about how "you can't knoowwwww".

Look, I see that you want to represent yourself as an intelligent human being who can carry himself in an argument. But you're not there yet, and you respond to your betters (that's me, but not exclusively) by getting all silly, whiny, and pissy when they point out the gaping, jagged holes in your fanboism. Like I said, go read a book. The idea of doubt in a prediction is something I got over in my early teens; being wrong 2% of the time is worth being right the other 98%.

Maybe if you come back this time with an argument based on available information and market theories, I might listen to you, and without openly mocking you for being a mental midget. Crying that I can't know for sure just makes me laugh. Of course I'm not sure, dumbass! Only internet idiots claim they are absolutely 100% right when they're clearly making a guess, no matter how educated. I reserve the right to change my opinion in the light of new information, which doesn't count "but there could be magic streams of revenue!"

 

[shattered dreams]

Except it isn't magic streams. Every time I have this conversation with you it is a waste of time because you are allowed to make educated guess assertions but you steadfastly refuse to let others because the information in other areas isn't robust enough. Yet you are remarkably blind to the convenience of this selective double standard. In a nutshell, you might be "right" when you excessively constrain the available information but there are two problems with this. The first, there is obviously more information available than that. The second, even if there wasn't you wouldn't have enough pieces of the puzzle to make a guess with any reasonable level of confidence.

 

[Rayne]

Except it isn't magic streams. Every time I have this conversation with you it is a waste of time because you are allowed to make educated guess assertions but you steadfastly refuse to let others because the information in other areas isn't robust enough. Yet you are remarkably blind to the convenience of this selective double standard. In a nutshell, you might be "right" when you excessively constrain the available information but there are two problems with this. The first, there is obviously more information available than that. The second, even if there wasn't you wouldn't have enough pieces of the puzzle to make a guess with any reasonable level of confidence.

Every time I invite you to cite something, you never cite anything specific. You make vague claims like "overseas revenue", but never provide any figures to back that up, while in the meantime, they aren't touring overseas anymore than they used to. Meanwhile, I always present a case where people are only required to believe logical things, like people don't work for free, that investment into a company costs actual money, and those costs have to show up against revenue. I try not to challenge people too much, but if you're a dead set TNA fanboi, you aren't going to hear what I have to say, because the picture isn't rosy.

I'm all ears for actual information; every time I talk with you, you cite categories that could contain information, but the actual information is never supplied. You do, however, expect people to believe that in spite of the lack of information, it must be inclining up. This is why you tire of the conversation with me, because I never accept that line of bullshit.

On your second point, you are entirely wrong. There is an entire category of professional (business analyst, and you can break that down from there into several specific types of analysts) who make their entire careers judging the future success of companies based on limited information. That you do not understand how it works doesn't mean that it doesn't work; I couldn't put together a combustion engine, but I know they exist and still work. The "you can't knowwwwww" argument bears its head again!

 

[shattered dreams]

You clearly don't get it. Irony must be completely lost on you. How can you not see that you just used the you can't knowwww on me? I don't expect people to believe it is inclining up. I expect people to believe it is possible it is. Your position is always it can't be because of ratings until someone quantifies this other information. To suggest you can only make educated guesses with numbers shows your limitations as an analyst. To suggest there isn't a basic level of information needed to make a confident guess in something shows your ignorance of statistics. That isn't saying you can't make a guess with less, might even turn out to be a correct guess, but there is also a high chance it won't which is kind of the point. You don't know. The fact that you think you do based on an excessively simplistic "model" is the reason I tire of this. Anyone that doesn't at least consider the merits of all available information of any type is hardly credible in my book. I actually have presented you much more tangible evidence than you give me credit for. What you always do is say you don't knowwww and then continue to ignore it. Let me know how many fingers are pointing at yourself next time you do your catchphrase.

 

[Alex]

I think IDR has summed this up before.

Talent is talent.

And unlike other sports where they only have to focus on one particular thing (winning) wrestling has storylines to try and invest the viewer. I've said it before I'll say it again wrestling is physical theatre and they have to make you care to get you to come back.

On the whole 'TNA originals' It seems some people would want AJ Styles, Bobby Roode, James Storm etc on their tv constantly. Guess what they are I can't think of a time when they weren't in the past few years, (unless you count injury/storyline absence) People will say that they want these guys in the main event picture a lot more. Well if they were constantly you'd turn round and bitch that they're overexposed and start spewing the bile they throw at Cena. Alternating the talent in the main event is good, it keeps it fresh and the viewer guessing as to what will happen.

On the subject on guys like Hardy, Angle, Ray etc, the point about talent still stands. You don't complain about a player moving to your team taking a spot from someone else. You're pleased because he may be able to help you win and that's what guys like Hardy and Angle do. I'm sure there are people who tune in because those guys are there. Yes there's no big change in TNA's viewership but small steps have to happen before big ones can follow.

 

[Rayne]

You clearly don't get it. Irony must be completely lost on you. How can you not see that you just used the you can't knowwww on me? I don't expect people to believe it is inclining up. I expect people to believe it is possible it is. Your position is always it can't be because of ratings until someone quantifies this other information. To suggest you can only make educated guesses with numbers shows your limitations as an analyst. To suggest there isn't a basic level of information needed to make a confident guess in something shows your ignorance of statistics. That isn't saying you can't make a guess with less, might even turn out to be a correct guess, but there is also a high chance it won't which is kind of the point. You don't know. The fact that you think you do based on an excessively simplistic "model" is the reason I tire of this. Anyone that doesn't at least consider the merits of all available information of any type is hardly credible in my book. I actually have presented you much more tangible evidence than you give me credit for. What you always do is say you don't knowwww and then continue to ignore it. Let me know how many fingers are pointing at yourself next time you do your catchphrase.

It'd be a catchphrase if I'd used it in the past. It's just a way of mocking you and Zeven today.

I do get your point; but once again, I've discarded it and you don't like that. Just because you espouse a point doesn't mean it makes sense. You suggest there is a possibility indicators could be inclining up. I make a case that the figures that are available are showing that they aren't.

The difference between us is this: I make a case using the evidence at hand that anyone who wishes can see the logic and facts used in reaching my conclusions. You insist that since the evidence isn't absolutely conclusive, we should give TNA the benefit of the doubt. I use the "but you don't knowwwww" construction because that's all you're doing- trying to claim that limited information necessarily means a conclusion cannot be reached. Of course there is some 'basic' level of information involved; the difference here is that some people are able to figure out a whole picture from a part, based on patterns they've recognized historically and theories based in logic, while some people need to see Shane McMahon on Nitro before they figure things out. The 'basic' level of information varies from person to person.

I'll say it again. If you have any actual information; you know, increased gate receipts, or a demonstration that despite TNA appearing to have the same sized audience as they did pre-2010 (when they launched a large investment), they are getting more money per customer, I'm all ears to hear it. But don't bother with all of this "you don't know everything" shit. You seem to know far less than I do, but it doesn't stop you from reaching a different conclusion. Mine's just based on available information, while yours is based on a fanboi's desire to see his favorite television show do better.

 

[shattered dreams]

One of the biggest mistakes people make is that they think to disprove a theory you need to prove the alternative or at least a different theory. That isn't remotely accurate. To disprove a theory all you need to do is prove that something about it is inaccurate. Rayne's theory is that the wrestling business is simple enough that if the US rating doesn't go up that the profits or revenues can't go up. He also claims that expanding and licensing in international markets should be ignored because we don't know the terms of the deals.

Here is an interesting snippet from WWE 2012 year end financial statement.

Revenues were essentially flat to the prior year as growth from North America was offset by a corresponding international decline. Revenue from North America increased 4%, or $15.4 million, as the licensing of new television programs and digital content, improved home entertainment sales, and a rise in the number of domestic live events were partially offset by lower revenues from our movie releases. Revenues from outside North America declined 11%, or $15.3 million, primarily due to an anticipated reduction in the number of live events and lower sales of licensed consumer products, particularly in the Latin American and EMEA regions.

WWE profits increased almost 30%, around 7 million dollars, from 2011 to 2012 in spite of RAW and Smackdown ratings declining. There is more going into this than just wrestling but that is kind of the point anyway. Even then, revenues from Live and Televised Entertainment, including in the subareas of PPV and television rights fees, went up. This is also interesting because Rayne has repeated refused to acknowledge that the international areas are driven by things other than the US rating. TNA did their largest crowd ever last year in England. WWE seems to think live events and international licensing are the key drivers, not how many people watch in America. Yo ass better call somebody!

 

[Rayne]

One of the biggest mistakes people make is that they think to disprove a theory you need to prove the alternative or at least a different theory. That isn't remotely accurate. To disprove a theory all you need to do is prove that something about it is inaccurate. Rayne's theory is that the wrestling business is simple enough that if the US rating doesn't go up that the profits or revenues can't go up. He also claims that expanding and licensing in international markets should be ignored because we don't know the terms of the deals.

Here is an interesting snippet from WWE 2012 year end financial statement.



WWE profits increased almost 30%, around 7 million dollars, from 2011 to 2012 in spite of RAW and Smackdown ratings declining. There is more going into this than just wrestling but that is kind of the point anyway. Even then, revenues from Live and Televised Entertainment, including in the subareas of PPV and television rights fees, went up. This is also interesting because Rayne has repeated refused to acknowledge that the international areas are driven by things other than the US rating. TNA did their largest crowd ever last year in England. WWE seems to think live events and international licensing are the key drivers, not how many people watch in America. Yo ass better call somebody!

Oh boy. The "but WWE!" response. Yes, the WWE is a different animal. Last I checked, TNA wasn't operating movie studios, they were renting one. You think they're similar because they both offer guys doing flips on prime-time television. They aren't even close. But in direct response, the WWE has drastically stepped up their international touring over the past five years, and especially the past three. TNA.... drew a big crowd in England. Did they make significantly more touring stops internationally? Nope. But there's Ring Ka King! What happened to that, anyways? (That's a rhetorical question. Look it up, the answer doesn't inspire further confidence in international TNA projects.)

I also never said that international marketing deals should be ignored. I've said that people say 'international marketing deals!' and think that should end all discussion. Tell me about these 'international marketing deals'. I remind you that I have to figure out what meat is in a corporate statement from what the bullshit marketing phrases are on a daily basis, and 'international marketing deals' is a big bullshit phrase. With who? What are these companies making these 'international marketing deals' gaining? (That's how you can tell the approximate value of the contract, but you're an amateur trying to play pro, so, just trust me on this. You only pay for something you expect to receive in return.)

Or, I could make the case that in an industry which is based upon attracting people to success and glamour, TNA still hides their financial results. There are industries where not releasing financials makes sense- drug smuggling and tax evasion come to mind quickly- but it's unheard of in television. You're a TV fan, so you probably don't comprehend how not releasing your financials in the entertainment industry is considered extremely suspicious. Am I about to hear the "TNA must be one giant tax dodge" argument? Or the "it doesn't matter since Panda Energy" argument?

And yes, usually, when you want to make a case that someone's ideas aren't correct, it is generally expected that you offer a more plausible series of events. Any idiot can say "nuh uh"; being able to make a credible alternate case is a bit more respectable. Especially when you can do it without insisting that every single doubt be given to you.

 

[shattered dreams]

Oh boy. The "but WWE!" response. Yes, the WWE is a different animal.

Name something more comparable than WWE that we have data for.

Last I checked, TNA wasn't operating movie studios, they were renting one.

Last I checked WWE wished they weren't operating a movie studio and I see you have conveniently ignored that I both addressed the existence of these other business areas and provided you numbers for TV Rights and PPVs that were independent of those other areas. Ratings went down, those things went up. Explain why WWE is so drastically different that your heuristic fails.

But in direct response, the WWE has drastically stepped up their international touring over the past five years, and especially the past three.

Direct response to what? Furthermore WWE clearly states they cut back their international touring in 2012. Not exactly inspiring confidence in your ability to track details.

TNA.... drew a big crowd in England. Did they make significantly more touring stops internationally? Nope.

Cite your source for touring numbers.

But there's Ring Ka King! What happened to that, anyways? (That's a rhetorical question. Look it up, the answer doesn't inspire further confidence in international TNA projects.)

Why do I have to look everything up? What were the financial effects? If WWE doesn't even have a presence there I doubt we can really garner that much from this in places that aren't India.

and bored

 

[Rayne]

Name something more comparable than WWE that we have data for.

An apple isn't like a banana. Does that make it any more of an orange?

Last I checked WWE wished they weren't operating a movie studio and I see you have conveniently ignored that I both addressed the existence of these other business areas and provided you numbers for TV Rights and PPVs that were independent of those other areas. Ratings went down, those things went up. Explain why WWE is so drastically different that your heuristic fails.

Because the WWE has a far more broad customer base than TNA. It's called 'economy of scale'. A larger television company attracts better TV rights deals than a smaller one. The WWE is offering twelve PPV's a year, TNA has recently cut back to four. The PPV market isn't what it used to be, but they still derive a significant sum of income from PPV. TNA... doesn't publish those numbers. While that dovetails nicely into your "what I can't see doesn't happen" mindset, it's a suspicious sign for an entertainment company. You don't cover up success.

Also, I didn't ignore your statement; it was just an orange when I was discussing apples. I also wasn't referring to the WWE's movie production company; I am referring to the chain of production studios which are owned by the McMahon family. More shit that I know that you aren't aware of. But if you want to talk about ignoring arguments, how about filling me in on the details of these 'international marketing agreements' that I asked for? The whole purpose of marketing is making a case to the public about some item, so finding information on this should be easy.

Direct response to what? Furthermore WWE clearly states they cut back their international touring in 2012. Not exactly inspiring confidence in your ability to track details.

But wait- if you claim that the largest company is pulling back internationally, and that the WWE and TNA are comparable animals, wouldn't it logically follow that TNA is retreating internationally?

One way or another, you've just shot the hole in your own argument. And since you're starting to go "cite sources", I'll turn that back around on you and ask for your source.

Cite your source for touring numbers.

TNA's published tour schedule. You can do a google search for "TNA past live events" and get all of the information you need. I typically don't include stuff this basic because I work from the assumption that most people know how to search google for something as simple as a tour history.

Why do I have to look everything up? What were the financial effects? If WWE doesn't even have a presence there I doubt we can really garner that much from this in places that aren't India.

Because if you'd bother to do research instead of basing an argument on insisting that someone else's research is incomplete, you'd discover that Ring Ka King, despite all of the hype (much from you) was an abysmal bomb. It's an actual demonstration of how TNA is doing internationally, as opposed to your "but international marketing rights!!!" statement. I provide something that anyone else can look up for themselves to support my argument; you, once again, insist on the "but you don't knowwwwww" argument.

Any time you're ready to cut that shit out I can stop mocking you and we can have a big boy discussion, but I refuse to respect an argument founded on a confirmation of one's own ignorance. This is going exactly like I said it would; you present a category that could contain information, and think that substitutes for information.

 

[He's Phenomenal]

Aces and 8's is killing TNA right now. It is the poison. They have no idea where they are going with the group, because the angle doesn't make any damn sense, and nobody cares about the group.

I often wonder if some people watch the same show as me? As SpecialFNK touched on, fair enough if you don't like Aces & 8s but how does it not make any sense and how is it not blatenly obvious from watching that this is a long term angle with a clear destination set in mind? Someone (I'd guess either AJ Styles or Matt Morgan) is going to beat Bully Ray for the World Title at BFG 13. It's being played out right in front of our eyes, how can you not see it? I would've thought that to anyone who watches TNA on a regular basis that it's been obvious the booking has been done long term for a while now. It seems to me that TNA already know what is going to happen at BFG and Slammiversary and they are building up to that. A sort of have your ending and then build up to that style of booking.

 

[shattered dreams]

An apple isn't like a banana. Does that make it any more of an orange?

Because the WWE has a far more broad customer base than TNA. It's called 'economy of scale'. A larger television company attracts better TV rights deals than a smaller one. The WWE is offering twelve PPV's a year, TNA has recently cut back to four. The PPV market isn't what it used to be, but they still derive a significant sum of income from PPV. TNA... doesn't publish those numbers. While that dovetails nicely into your "what I can't see doesn't happen" mindset, it's a suspicious sign for an entertainment company. You don't cover up success.

Also, I didn't ignore your statement; it was just an orange when I was discussing apples. I also wasn't referring to the WWE's movie production company; I am referring to the chain of production studios which are owned by the McMahon family. More shit that I know that you aren't aware of. But if you want to talk about ignoring arguments, how about filling me in on the details of these 'international marketing agreements' that I asked for? The whole purpose of marketing is making a case to the public about some item, so finding information on this should be easy.

But wait- if you claim that the largest company is pulling back internationally, and that the WWE and TNA are comparable animals, wouldn't it logically follow that TNA is retreating internationally?

One way or another, you've just shot the hole in your own argument. And since you're starting to go "cite sources", I'll turn that back around on you and ask for your source.

TNA's published tour schedule. You can do a google search for "TNA past live events" and get all of the information you need. I typically don't include stuff this basic because I work from the assumption that most people know how to search google for something as simple as a tour history.

Because if you'd bother to do research instead of basing an argument on insisting that someone else's research is incomplete, you'd discover that Ring Ka King, despite all of the hype (much from you) was an abysmal bomb. It's an actual demonstration of how TNA is doing internationally, as opposed to your "but international marketing rights!!!" statement. I provide something that anyone else can look up for themselves to support my argument; you, once again, insist on the "but you don't knowwwwww" argument.

Any time you're ready to cut that shit out I can stop mocking you and we can have a big boy discussion, but I refuse to respect an argument founded on a confirmation of one's own ignorance. This is going exactly like I said it would; you present a category that could contain information, and think that substitutes for information.

So you answered a whopping zero of my requests for specifics, can't even remember the one paragraph quote I had in my last post and conveniently contradict yourself. To say this is a waste of time is an understatement. I'll leave it to zeven zion to expound on your business acumen.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

So you answered a whopping zero of my requests for specifics, can't even remember the one paragraph quote I had in my last post and conveniently contradict yourself. To say this is a waste of time is an understatement. I'll leave it to zeven zion to expound on your business acumen.

Fuck that noise. After trying to discuss this in a semi-intelligent way and seeing how you expanded on it, resulting in nothing but childish sarcasm and the same old same old, I'm really done with this. I proved my point, he continues to solidify it, now we can move on.

And yes, Rayne, you truly don't knowwwww. You can't know. You won't know. When you have a limited amount of information you can weave out any theory which can be true. Problem is, with such an open ended issue, a lot of things can be true. Yours is one of the options, not the option. Even then, your logic is heavily flawed but the general premise is a possibility. Think of it as a big puzzle. When you have 10 pieces out of 1000, you can take a wild guess on what the picture depicted in the complete puzzle is. You see blue, it might be a sky. It also might be a sea. However, until you have most of the pieces you'll never know. What you're doing is putting two pieces together and going "Yep, that's a big ass elephant on a unicycle. I know. I breed big ass elephants on unicycles for a living". I hope you caught the metaphor. Quite poetic, isn't it? Here's some more.

Roses are red,
violets are blue,
I don't know jack shit,
neither do you​

Now do more catchphrases. That ought to prove a point. What's next? You'll stick your tongue out and go "nana na nana"? You sure got me.

 

[SpecialFNK]

TNA should not be compared to WWE, especially when considering ratings. WWE is on USA channel (last I checked, but I don't watch WWE), TNA is on SpikeTV. 2 completely different networks.
I think part of the problem with TNA is SpikeTV.
I also think aprt of the problem is TNA doesn't market their wrestlers, like the "TNA originals". back when Bobby Roode was the dominating world heavyweight champion, I bet there were still a big number of wrestling fans (WWE) who had no idea who he even was. I think this is why you continue to see the recognizable names getting the spotlight, because at least they are well known established names.

it seems like many believe that it's going to be AJ Styles who ends up beating Bully for the title. I don't think that should happen. I think it should be James Storm. AJ Styles has been the center of TNA, the world heavyweight champion. did it make a significant difference? personally I don't know, I never watched TNA prior to 2010. but right now you have a well known name as the champion. I think it would be better to have a good face wrestler to be the one to beat Bully. I think it could be dramatic with Storm. he could hit Bully with his super kick and then get the pin. you could then even have TNA faces come out to celebrate, the way WCW did with Sting when he beat Hogan from nWo. but I also think you need to build Storm back up. maybe that can be done through the BFG series.

 

[Rayne]

So you answered a whopping zero of my requests for specifics, can't even remember the one paragraph quote I had in my last post and conveniently contradict yourself. To say this is a waste of time is an understatement. I'll leave it to zeven zion to expound on your business acumen.

*sigh* Which specifics? The ones like telling you that you can find out how many events TNA is running overseas by looking at their touring schedule? Or the one where I point out what TNA's largest example of overseas touring is, and how it's bombed? When you say 'specifics', it sure as hell sounds like you mean "but your specifics aren't 100% absolutely sure!!!!! You can't knowwww!" (Zeven, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean someone else can't. *head pat* You think you would have learned that during your many disappointing years at school.)

Meanwhile, I'm *still* sitting here, waiting for you to tell me all about these 'international marketing deals'. Which, again, by their very nature, are extremely public and very easy to find out about. Funny thing is, I look for myself, and I can't find anything of any substance beyond Eric Bischoff saying 'international marketing deal' in an interview. I mean, I'm sure that they must have some kind of deals overseas, but do you have any evidence whatsoever that a company which hasn't increased its customer exposure overseas (very simple way to check that- are they going to more buildings, or are they regularly seating themselves in larger arenas? Specifically, no, and that information is, again, very public. And yet whenever I ask for it- after telling you that you have a bad habit of bringing up categories which simply could contain information, rather than supplying the information which would pretty much end dispute, you again demand that since you haven't supplied the information, we have to assume it's up, based on- no theory whatsoever. Maybe the theory that AJ Styles is a better face than a heel, I dunno.

Once again, I've supplied a theory based on available facts, which only requires people to believe common sense things like 'money doesn't fall from trees', and 'people expect a paycheck commiserate with their efforts.' Anyone can follow along at home and see how I got from point A to B, unless their only interest in the conversation is talking about how great TNA is. People who only have that interest aren't going to want to hear what I have to say. It's like telling an eight year old boy that his puppy is very sick and will probably die in a couple years without serious intervention. Of course you're upset! You don't really know what's going on, and a stranger who's accomplished way more than you is telling you that something you love is in poor condition. You can yell at the doctor and insist that he can't know, he can't be sure- which is true, but he still knows a hell of a lot more than you do.

And once again, you run the argument where you celebrate your own ignorance. It's fine if you need to see Shane McMahon walk down the Nitro entrance ramp before you figure things out. Some people noticed that WCW put an accountant in charge well before that, and figured things out from there. Some people are just able to work from a smaller piece of a picture than you. Maybe you have to wait for Shane McMahon to walk down the Impact ramp to knowwwwww.

I answered your questions, but you don't seem to like the answers. That's OK- you tried asking rhetorical questions that weren't at all rhetorical, just founded on your own lack of understanding of capital. Save rhetoric for the people that understand it.

And why on Earth would you think what Zeven thinks of my business acumen means anything to me? The man can barely tie his shoes in the morning. If Hulk Hogan didn't tell him, I'm sure he'd miss out on his vitamins too. I'm dealing with lessers here, find me someone with a brain I can respect and we can have that conversation.

 

[mlp420]

I'm curious, what exactly is the plight of the people scrutinizing TNA's numbers? What does it really mean? Okay, so the numbers stayed the same. Let's say they would be in the same position today if they hadn't brought in Hogan/Sting/Hardy, ect. What are the Carters/Panda energy in this for anyway? If TNA wanted to be a nice little niche promotion for the IWC and die hard fans, they had that locked down in 06. But it's pretty obvious that's not why they bought TNA. There's not enough money in going that route.They want a slice of the mainstream wrestling pie. That's why they poured so much money into it.

There's no point of arguing about whether TNA would be better off with or without bringing in the ex WWE guys because the fact of the matter is, they weren't going to be happy about what they ended up with had they stayed the course anyway. In other words, my theory about TNA is that they are in this to be the new WCW (or the closest thing to it), and if they can't they'll close up shop before they settle for being the new ECW, so all this arguing is really academic.

 

[Rayne]

I'm curious, what exactly is the plight of the people scrutinizing TNA's numbers? What does it really mean? Okay, so the numbers stayed the same. Let's say they would be in the same position today if they hadn't brought in Hogan/Sting/Hardy, ect. What are the Carters/Panda energy in this for anyway? If TNA wanted to be a nice little niche promotion for the IWC and die hard fans, they had that locked down in 06. But it's pretty obvious that's not why they bought TNA. There's not enough money in going that route.They want a slice of the mainstream wrestling pie. That's why they poured so much money into it.

Exactly this. The reason why people go over TNA's numbers is because of that investment into being a larger promotion. That costs money, and the Carters (and every other minority owner) are betting that the money spent turns into more money earned. From all indications, that isn't happening. (I'm going to discount the magic revenue stream argument.)

Why people are interested in this is because when those investors decide to pull back on the money they've spent, TNA changes as a result. How exactly, I'm not at all sure. There's about a thousand different directions to go from that point, but if you put less money into a project, that project has to change. (Unless, of course, absolutely hideous amounts of money were being wasted, a la WCW 2000. They were able to put on a television program that appeared largely the same as mid-'90s Nitro, because that company had a LOT of fat they could cut.)

It's probably the most interesting story in professional wrestling this decade; can a second televised promotion be viable in an era of industry-wide recession? (ROH doesn't count. Cable TV out here shows professional wrestling, but I'm not counting Big Time Wrestling either.)

 

[The Boss]

We're three years into the Hogan era, and the indicators that people look at to indicate success aren't saying 'success'. At some point in the future, the question is going to be asked if Hulk Hogan's paycheck- remember, he isn't UNICEF- is worth the ongoing cost of investment, and right now you can't say with confidence that he's brought more to the table than he's taken.

And that's not your call to make. So far TNA and Panda Energy has said that HOLLYWOOD HUK HOGAN is doing a fine job.

 

[Weems2k]

So what exactly constitutes as a TNA original? The company started in 2002 with Jarret, Hogan, and a bunch of virtual unknowns who some became stars once TNA was getting some exposure. The wrestling business is nothing but a big revolving door. Guys coming and going, getting pushed to the top for a few months, then going back to midcard land. I really don't get the scrutinizing the "TNA Originals" get on here so much? You may as well rip on The E's originals back in the 1950's then.

 

[scottyshowman82]

I think if you're a TNA Original or have been in the company since the starting days you'd be really proud of the way the company is right now. Just this past week, Daniels and Kaz were featured prominently and making me laugh with their antics trying to get another TNA mainstay Bobby Roode to join them in a resurrected version of Fortune. James Storm is in the ring every week calling out AJ Styles. Styles can still put on 5 star match with any wrestler in the world and Storm has really grown into a go to money performer.

I can't say anything bad about TNA bookers right now. For the most part, it seems they recognize talent in their locker room and they're showing it. Bully Ray is talented, he should be the world champ and he his. Bobby Roode and Austin Aries are money players they should be in title matches and they are. Matt Morgan, Kaz and Daniels as mentioned, Kenny King... the right guys are getting the ball and scoring in my opinion whether they're TNA originals or not.

 

[SpecialFNK]

how can one decide whether TNA is better now since having Hogan than they were before?
are the ratings better? maybe not, but that's not the only way to judge it. TNA is out of the Impact Zone full time. that alone is a big deal IMO.
I don't know this, but I would imagine "TNA" is more well known as a wrestling company than they were before.

I don't know this next question/comment either. not sure how to word this. how is TNA Impact Wrestling in ratings compared to other current SpikeTV shows, compared to TNA Impact compared to other SpikeTV shows pre 2010?
if all of SpikeTV ratings have been going down in recent years that's not TNA's fault. it would be unfortunate if ALL SpikeTV shows are decreasing in ratings, but "TNA" gets negatively judged because of it.

 

[Weems2k]

SpikeTV isn't exactly the best network out there too. It's either CSI reruns, Star Wars marathons, or god awful "reality" shows. I still think it would be interesting if TNT/TBS aired Impact, the ratings would be a bit higher just because they are a more known, and varied network.

 

[Rayne]

And that's not your call to make. So far TNA and Panda Energy has said that HOLLYWOOD HUK HOGAN is doing a fine job.

Yeah. Of course they do. Part of the whole 'showbiz' thing is shining up shit so that it looks nice, right up until the day you no longer want it. If it was my call to make, I'd be looking really hard at how long Hulk Hogan was under contract for, and making sure I squeezed every useful drop I could out of him.

Don't get defensive. We aren't talking hero worship here, we're talking about tracing dollars and cents.

 

[Dieter_Von_Cunth]

SpikeTV isn't exactly the best network out there too. It's either CSI reruns, Star Wars marathons, or god awful "reality" shows. I still think it would be interesting if TNT/TBS aired Impact, the ratings would be a bit higher just because they are a more known, and varied network.

I hope to God and for the sake of your soul that a Mr. Jon Taffer doesn't read your opinion of you calling his Bar Rescue show "awful". Dude will show up at the front door of your house and kick the living supreme shit out of you then verbally assault you to boot. Don't mess with Jon Taffer.

When you bring up the ratings part of everything, people need to remember that there are so fewer wrestling fans in general. When you look at the Monday Night Wars which was the peak of professional wrestling, both products were doing close to 4.0's on average. That might not be exact but I think it would be close to that number. Looking to the current day, Raw is pulling a 3.0 and Impact a 1.0 approx. There is not the following that wrestling once had. It has half the people it did about 15 years ago. A large part of that is the emergence of the UFC/MMA style of fighting and entertainment. I don't think wrestling will have ever have the amount of people following it than it had back in 1998. When you look at ratings, you have to take that into consideration as well.

 

[SpecialFNK]

I hope to God and for the sake of your soul that a Mr. Jon Taffer doesn't read your opinion of you calling his Bar Rescue show "awful". Dude will show up at the front door of your house and kick the living supreme shit out of you then verbally assault you to boot. Don't mess with Jon Taffer.

When you bring up the ratings part of everything, people need to remember that there are so fewer wrestling fans in general. When you look at the Monday Night Wars which was the peak of professional wrestling, both products were doing close to 4.0's on average. That might not be exact but I think it would be close to that number. Looking to the current day, Raw is pulling a 3.0 and Impact a 1.0 approx. There is not the following that wrestling once had. It has half the people it did about 15 years ago. A large part of that is the emergence of the UFC/MMA style of fighting and entertainment. I don't think wrestling will have ever have the amount of people following it than it had back in 1998. When you look at ratings, you have to take that into consideration as well.

but this also has to do with USA channel vs SpikeTV.
WCW and WWE at the time were both on good networks that had a lot of subscriptions. right now there are likely/maybe many general wrestling fans that don't subscribe to SpikeTV, and therefor don't even have the option of watching TNA. that has to do with SpikeTV overall. there just aren't enough quality shows on the whole network for some to include it in their subscriptions.