TNA Has Failed

[Brian in Austin]

According to reports Hardcore Justice did around 20,000 buyrates. The second biggest PPV next to Bound For Glory. Clearly that mess drew if reports are true.

The key words in your statement, "if reports are true." This seems to always be the case when speaking about Impact internals/metrics doesn't it? "If reports are true." The fact that statement keeps coming up so much regarding TNA is troubling.

The other part of that is if TNA were growing their business and were selling more seats v. ly, they'd gladly share that information publicly. The fact they don't is another red flag.

 

[ABMorales787]

The key words in your statement, "if reports are true." This seems to always be the case when speaking about Impact internals/metrics doesn't it? "If reports are true." The fact that statement keeps coming up so much regarding TNA is troubling.

The other part of that is if TNA were growing their business and were selling more seats v. ly, they'd gladly share that information publicly. The fact they don't is another red flag.

Considering that they are private company, I'd say they couldn't even if they wanted to.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

It's funny the defenses people can come up with.

"It's only been 9 years. That's a short time". The only thing short is the amount of growth they made. I wouldn't say TNA is failing. They're certainly not succeeding by any means.



Blind TNA mark. TNA's quality is horseshit compared to the WWE. Not to mention their poor choices, and the same promos by Hogan and Bischoff.

Blind WWE Mark, WWE's quality is horseshit compared to almost every company out there. I stopped watching WWE regularly After DX's run in 2006. I watch RAW every now and then to witness how everyone sounds the same and everything is repetitive. When is the last time anything even remotely happened? Legacy? And that stupid Anonymous GM angle, please. Yes, Michael Cole vs Jerry Lawler is a feud every professional wrestling fan should see for SIX MONTHS!

I know, I know, you are the guy who is in the closet watching soap operas which is why you think WWE is the greatest thing since fire but let's face it, the only reason the WWE still gets 3.2 ratings are because of loyal last generation fans. They have lost nearly HALF of their fan base since 2000, if your product is good you dont lose that much of a fan base. WWE use to take viewers from Monday Night Football, me being one of them, now unless you are a complete WWE mark if something better comes on you turn the channel.

So your defense of WWE is just as blinding as anyone defending TNA's product. Perhaps if TNA turns 60 they might have a strong following, as many developmental talents as they want, and hire someone with no talent like Johnny Ace to screw up developmental after Jim Ross built it up so well.

Just because you dont like something doesnt make it bad. Quite frankly I could sit here all day and point to where WWE has screwed up, but I wont. Because if I did that I would be just like a WWE Mark.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

The key words in your statement, "if reports are true." This seems to always be the case when speaking about Impact internals/metrics doesn't it? "If reports are true." The fact that statement keeps coming up so much regarding TNA is troubling.

The other part of that is if TNA were growing their business and were selling more seats v. ly, they'd gladly share that information publicly. The fact they don't is another red flag.

Why is it a red flag? Not everyone has an ego as big as Vince McMahon and have to flaunt their earnings to the world like Vince did before becomming publicly traded. You don't see NFL Owners opening the books to everyone, hell they wont even open the books to their own employees. I don't see that as a red flag as much as I see it as them telling us that it's none of our damn business.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Obviously TNA hasn't failed. They could be failing, who knows, but, they surely haven't failed.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Still no proof. Without the figures, who knows? I'll take his word for it.

About all we can do, but it's far more believable to have someone actually working for the company say they are turning a profit than to listen to all the internet marks and dirt sheet reports from people who do not talking about how they are not.

I find it hard to imagine they'd still be in business this long if they weren't turning profit.

Obviously TNA hasn't failed. They could be failing, who knows, but, they surely haven't failed.

Not according to Jarrett.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

If TNA was in a bad financial situation they would not be touring the UK in 2012, they would not be talking about going on the road this summer, they would not be on Spike TV, Eric Bischoff would not have been promoted to executive producer (Which had not been filled for YEARS) which is a large pay raise with the promotional salary from consultant.

TNA isnt failing, it has not failed, and it is the highest rated show on Spike TV. While there are things I dont agree with there is a lot I do. What more do you want?

 

[Daniel]

I'm more than willing to believe Jarrett when he says that TNA is profitable. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to claim that your company is profitable if it isn't. How profitable they are is another matter entirely. The could be making millions of dollars or just dollars. We just don't know.

And I like the people saying that TNA must be profitable if they spend a lot on tours, contracts, etc. Yeah, because no company in the history of business has never spent money irresponsibly.

 

[Brian in Austin]

Why is it a red flag? Not everyone has an ego as big as Vince McMahon and have to flaunt their earnings to the world like Vince did before becomming publicly traded. You don't see NFL Owners opening the books to everyone, hell they wont even open the books to their own employees. I don't see that as a red flag as much as I see it as them telling us that it's none of our damn business.

First, NFL owners won't open their books because they don't want players, fans, and employees knowing what they are raking in.

Second, I'm not concerned about VKM in this thread. Nice try though.

Lastly, and again, regardless of whether or not it's a private company we're talking about or not, if your company is successful, you'll share that with people. Period!!!

 

[Brian in Austin]

I'm more than willing to believe Jarrett when he says that TNA is profitable. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to claim that your company is profitable if it isn't. How profitable they are is another matter entirely. The could be making millions of dollars or just dollars. We just don't know.

And I like the people saying that TNA must be profitable if they spend a lot on tours, contracts, etc. Yeah, because no company in the history of business has never spent money irresponsibly.

TNA could be leveraged to the hilt for all we know. Being "profitable" and having available cash on hand are 2 entirely different things. I work for a company that has nearly 400 locations domestically. When we do our reporting (we're publicly traded) we talk about not only our value, but how much available cash on hand we have and also how much we have in borrowings.

Just because Jarrett spouts off about being profitable, doesn't mean they have cash. Being profitable merely can mean that they sell things and make a profit off of them. (i.e. merch, percentages of gate, concessions, etc.) Whether or not they actually have cash in the bank is something entirely different. Whether or not they owe anyone for borrowings is yet another issue. There's a reason they won't share these things. They don't want people to know. Guess why?

 

[ABMorales787]

TNA could be leveraged to the hilt for all we know. Being "profitable" and having available cash on hand are 2 entirely different things. I work for a company that has nearly 400 locations domestically. When we do our reporting (we're publicly traded) we talk about not only our value, but how much available cash on hand we have and also how much we have in borrowings.

Just because Jarrett spouts off about being profitable, doesn't mean they have cash. Being profitable merely can mean that they sell things and make a profit off of them. (i.e. merch, percentages of gate, concessions, etc.) Whether or not they actually have cash in the bank is something entirely different. Whether or not they owe anyone for borrowings is yet another issue. There's a reason they won't share these things. They don't want people to know. Guess why?

I'm pretty sure it's cash what they get from that stuff. Not cookies.

 

[Brian in Austin]

I'm pretty sure it's cash what they get from that stuff. Not cookies.

No offense, but you don't understand big business. Just because TNA makes money off of merch, does NOT mean they have money in the bank. Since they won't share it, we have no idea if they have outstanding loans of any sort and if so how big those loans might be.

I'll give another example. I once worked for a company that borrowed 9 million dollars for expansion. Now, at the time we have over 50 locations nationwide, but less than 75. The goal was to get to 100 stores as quickly as possible to drive out the competition. Problem was this loan and expansion plan took place just before the recession hit. Guess what? More than 4 years after I left that company, they STILL owed money on that loan. But guess what else? They were still making profits, and in some cases same store sales increased year over year. Again, making money versus profit, versus borrowings are all different aspects of business.

Jarrett, Bischoff, et al can say all they want about the state of their business. But until they open the books, it's just words.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

First, NFL owners won't open their books because they don't want players, fans, and employees knowing what they are raking in.

Second, I'm not concerned about VKM in this thread. Nice try though.

Lastly, and again, regardless of whether or not it's a private company we're talking about or not, if your company is successful, you'll share that with people. Period!!!

What try? I'm not trying anything. I'm just saying that not everyone shares their books. If I had a company that I personally owned I know I wouldn't open the books just because a bunch of people on the internet wanted PROOF that I was successful.

And you nailed it on the head with the NFL, they don't want everyone to know what they are raking in. I know I wouldn't want people to know what I made if I owned a company, it's none of their damn business. They like the product or they don't, they don't need to know the numbers.

Lastly, not everyone is so arrogant they have to gloat about what they make. I know I wouldn't, successful or not. Why not? Because it's nobody else's damn business. Panda Energy has stake in that company, and Jeff Jarrett has stake in that company. Those two entities along with TNA President Dixie Carter and the current CFO are the only ones that absolutely HAVE to know the numbers. Even Eric Bischoff, the Executive Producer of IMPACT said he doesn't even have the Pay-Per View numbers. If they decide to share them great, if not, doesnt matter. None of our concern. TNA shares the books on a need-to-know basis, and the public doesn't need to know.

They have to be profitable to spend money irresponsibly, you cant spend what you don't have.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

No offense, but you don't understand big business. Just because TNA makes money off of merch, does NOT mean they have money in the bank. Since they won't share it, we have no idea if they have outstanding loans of any sort and if so how big those loans might be.

I'll give another example. I once worked for a company that borrowed 9 million dollars for expansion. Now, at the time we have over 50 locations nationwide, but less than 75. The goal was to get to 100 stores as quickly as possible to drive out the competition. Problem was this loan and expansion plan took place just before the recession hit. Guess what? More than 4 years after I left that company, they STILL owed money on that loan. But guess what else? They were still making profits, and in some cases same store sales increased year over year. Again, making money versus profit, versus borrowings are all different aspects of business.

Jarrett, Bischoff, et al can say all they want about the state of their business. But until they open the books, it's just words.

Definitely agree here. However I dont think that applies to TNA because of who their parent company is. Panda Energy rakes in billions through their Natural Energy premise yearly and they took care of TNA's outstanding loans when they bought 72% of the company. They basically bought the loans, put a high cap on spending for the company, put Dixie in charge to manage that, and sent them on their way.

Unfortunately Dixie went on a spending spree in 2010 and her mom had to finally jump in and put an end to all of the large contracts because they were getting too close to that cap. Sure Spike helped sign Sting's contracts but most of the big names come from the company. TNA Wrestling last I saw in one of those finance magazines was worth $30 Million Dollars, and that was in like 2007 or 2008. Which would be a year or two after the Spike TV deal. To my knowledge that is the last time they opened their books and it was for some legal reason. After Dixie's little spending spree and the low ratings the first few months after Hogan first got there (Was like a .6) I am sure that number went down a couple million however.

So while I'm sure TNA lost money in 2010 due to the 2 months or so of low ratings and Dixie's spending spree the overall make of the company is most likely still extremely high due to advertisements, sales, House Shows (Which I have heard are the best in the business right no as far as fan interaction and growing attendance numbers) and steady ratings that are usually between 1.15 and 1.3.

So I don't think TNA has the outstanding loans that they did when they started. I'm not sure that applies.

 

[Brian in Austin]

What try? I'm not trying anything. I'm just saying that not everyone shares their books. If I had a company that I personally owned I know I wouldn't open the books just because a bunch of people on the internet wanted PROOF that I was successful.

And you nailed it on the head with the NFL, they don't want everyone to know what they are raking in. I know I wouldn't want people to know what I made if I owned a company, it's none of their damn business. They like the product or they don't, they don't need to know the numbers.

Lastly, not everyone is so arrogant they have to gloat about what they make. I know I wouldn't, successful or not. Why not? Because it's nobody else's damn business. Panda Energy has stake in that company, and Jeff Jarrett has stake in that company. Those two entities along with TNA President Dixie Carter and the current CFO are the only ones that absolutely HAVE to know the numbers. Even Eric Bischoff, the Executive Producer of IMPACT said he doesn't even have the Pay-Per View numbers. If they decide to share them great, if not, doesnt matter. None of our concern. TNA shares the books on a need-to-know basis, and the public doesn't need to know.

They have to be profitable to spend money irresponsibly, you cant spend what you don't have.

I won't disagree with the premise of your thoughts, but again, we don't know if they are profitable or not. For example, if it's true that even Bischoff doesn't know the books, how could he say they are profitable? Oh..because Jarrett said so? Yeah, he doesn't have a reason to float that notion does he?

My point remains that they could be leveraged to the hilt and are hinging all their hopes on what happens next, so to speak, regarding the survival of their company.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

I won't disagree with the premise of your thoughts, but again, we don't know if they are profitable or not. For example, if it's true that even Bischoff doesn't know the books, how could he say they are profitable? Oh..because Jarrett said so? Yeah, he doesn't have a reason to float that notion does he?

My point remains that they could be leveraged to the hilt and are hinging all their hopes on what happens next, so to speak, regarding the survival of their company.

He can say they are profitable because they are spending money on tours. Cant spend money if you don't have it. Doesn't matter if it is responsible spending or not, no money, no spending.

 

[Brian in Austin]

He can say they are profitable because they are spending money on tours. Cant spend money if you don't have it. Doesn't matter if it is responsible spending or not, no money, no spending.

Borrowing money means you don't have it. If you did, there'd be no reason to borrow it in the first place. All I'm saying is that if their books were impressive, they'd be happy to show them off.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

TNA did fail, as Jerry Jarrett's original intention was to make a cooking show with strippers after the name changed from J Sports, but he's like 80 so he's can't remember if he put shoes on

 

[ABMorales787]

Borrowing money means you don't have it. If you did, there'd be no reason to borrow it in the first place. All I'm saying is that if their books were impressive, they'd be happy to show them off.

So you're saying that if I go to a friend and ask him for a dollar, even though I have a 20 in my pocket, I really have no money?

If I get a car and get a loan to pay it even though I make enough to make the monthly pays, I'm really broke? It's not me playing it safe?

 

[Hyorinmaru]

They still have a TV show that plays every week so how exactly have they failed?

 

[Brian in Austin]

So you're saying that if I go to a friend and ask him for a dollar, even though I have a 20 in my pocket, I really have no money?

If I get a car and get a loan to pay it even though I make enough to make the monthly pays, I'm really broke? It's not me playing it safe?

In case #1, it sounds like you find suckers for friends.

In case #2 it sounds like you're willing to pay more for a car than it's worth.

 

[shattered dreams]

This guy doesn't even know how buying a car usually works and yet he think he knows how to run a wrestling company that is all around the world better than those in charge. Hilarious.

 

[ABMorales787]

In case #2 it sounds like you're willing to pay more for a car than it's worth.

Wow. You don't know how to buy a car do ya?