"TNA sucks"...and keeps getting bigger

[Slyfox696]

I read, over and over again, by fans on the Internet who say that TNA sucks. Well, ok, wrestling fans have never been known for their ability to grasp the big picture, or intelligence in general, so I can dismiss that. Then, I read editorials by supposed "experts" on wrestling, guys hired to write about wrestling because they spent time in the business. And those editorials written by the supposed experts on the subject all say that TNA sucks. It's kind of hard to dismiss that. Or is it?

I couldn't help but laugh tonight, as I flipped through WZ's new main home page. On one tab, I saw the editorial by (I believe) Mark Madden, in which the headline description says "...TNA sucks - and there's no debating that...". Is that so, Mr. Madden? The reason I ask is because when you flip to the "News" tabs, there are TWO current stories on TNA. One is the TV rating of the last TNA Impact (Jan 15), in which the TV rating drew the second highest rating in the show's history. The other news item referred to an interview that TNA President Dixie Carter did, in which she says that TNA QUADRUPLED their revenue in 2008 over 2007.

Take a moment to consider that statement. TNA QUADRUPLED their revenue in 2008. To quadruple your revenue, in a year that saw one of the worst recession/depressions in US history, that is an astonishing statement. QUADRUPLED their revenue; it's not something that most companies can boast. It's an ENORMOUS feat.

But, I can already see it now. "But Slyfox," someone will say in a pre-ejaculate euphoria, "she is LYING.". Usually this will come from the same person who will try to run down TNA based upon the completely made up PPV buyrates that Meltzer released, the last of which was nearly over a year ago. I find it funny that people will believe a guy with ZERO ties to the company, and information, even if it was true, was last reported over a year ago, over people who actually, you know, work in the company? Or, in the case of Dixie, OWN the company.

So, let's consider all the factors. Over the past year, the WWE has suffered a huge decline in their Raw ratings. Over the past year, the economy has suffered tremendously. And here TNA is, garnering near record number of viewers, and QUADRUPLING their revenues.

You can disagree with their booking, but you cannot deny their success. And at the end of the day, the whole point of wrestling is to entertain your current audience, and continue to build a new one. And TNA is doing that.

So, the next time you wish to say that TNA sucks, think to yourself "How badly of a moron will I be if I say that". The answer will be, "A HUGE moron".

TNA doesn't suck, you just don't understand entertainment. If you have a problem with that, you are wrong. Or, you can post in the thread to tell me why I am.

 

[Rusty]

Slyfox, you hit the nail on the head. I read both articles before seeing this thread and I thought "wow, they must be doing something right". I'll be totally honest, these past few weeks especially, I have been very disappointed in the booking of TNA as a whole. But as a company, they are and will just continue to grow further. Sure, they are nowhere near as big as the WWE, but give it time, give it 5 years, and maybe things might change. I could name all the areas that TNA needs to improve in, but this is not the right thread for that.

TNA doesn't suck. If somebody doesn't watch the WWE or hasn't heard of them before, but happen to stubble across TNA, it's pretty much certain that they wouldn't find many problems with the product. TNA each week on iMPACT provides great wrestling matches and decent storylines (most of the time). iMPACT is also very entertaining, apart from the usual 20 minutes of non stop promos we receive every week, the show is actually very entertaining and interesting overall. The roster is good, not great, but decent enough to make TNA grow further.

The fact is, TNA will continue to grow. Companies don't just slowly get larger and then shut down straight away. TNA fans are VERY loyal, and the weekly ratings further prove that statement. TNA hardly ever loses viewers, whereas Raw's ratings change very quickly, most of the time for no apparent reason. Most people don't give TNA a chance. When you first watch a wrestling show that you haven't watched before, it is hard. I remember when I first started watching TNA almost a year ago. For the first 4 weeks, I had no idea who was who, what card position they were in, or what their role was with the company. But I tuned in every week, and I managed to become more familiar with the product and therefore it was much more enjoyable.

TNA will develop and grow as a company, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Didn't read the original post. It's very long and, upon scanning it for key words, I noticed several mentions of "growth" and "revenue". I've only just got up; I can't grasp such terms so soon after regaining consciousness.

OK, I just read it. I thought I may as well. First things first, this is the same man (Madden) that described Samoa Joe as "always wearing a little coat" or something like that. Now, say what you like about Samoa Joe, but I've never seen the guy wearing a little coat. The guy just likes bashing TNA, plain and simple.

Now, as I've said before (I think, probably not), saying something sucks is basically saying "I don't like it." Same way if you say something rules it means you like it. Which is, yeah, subjective. Opinion. I know you're disappointed Sly, you thought you'd hooked me up to the business hive mind of ratings and buyrates.

So, while I see TNA "growing" in "revenue", running - or contributing to shows - in Canada, Japan and, alas, the UK, and doing all sorts of "they weren't doing that this time last year" things, I still think the product is shit. Is this because I don't like TNA making money and think a better strategy would be to go into bankruptcy? Well, some days. Mostly, no.

I think TNA is shit because it's got the point that I won't watch the shows aside from highlights for fear of being condescended to to the point I feel about ten years old. I think it's shit because the booking is schizophrenic - a guy will lose an X Division title match one week, get beatdown, then get a world title shot the next week, only just lose, then go into a feud with Black Reign.

I think it's shit because nobody in their right mind would want to watch six man tag main event where "Mick Foley's in-ring debut" is being advertised, but where we know AJ Styles will make whatever he does look shit in about half a minute, and where Cute Kip will be considered a "main eventer".

I think it's shit because they advertise title matches on PPV, but have the good majority of their title changes on free TV.

I think it's shit because entire title tournaments are booked where a simple rematch would make the most sense.

I think it's shit because the Motor City Machine Guns get one tag title shot in one and a half years - while being as hot as shit - and they effectively split up while "Lethal Consequences" take the belts for three days with a match where the heel team come out looking much stronger.

I think it's shit because they're lining up a referee to face Booker T for the Legends Title, which he could well win. And so much more... I could go for a while.

It's all from my perspective. Who knows, all of TNA's fans could be as self-hating as me and TNA could still carry on growing - I've spent hundreds of pounds on a combination of TNA DVDs and tickets to house shows alone. Don't get me wrong, I think TNA can be brilliant. There can be moments when I think staying in on a Saturday or up until one o'clock on a work day are worth it. They're just few and far between.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

QUADRUPLED their revenue in 2008 over 2007.

TNA QUADRUPLED their revenue in 2008.

To quadruple your revenue, in a year that saw one of the worst recession/depressions in US history, that is an astonishing statement.

QUADRUPLED their revenue; it's not something that most companies can boast.

and QUADRUPLING their revenues.

If only I knew what QUADRUPLING WAS.

So obviously I agree with Sam. TNA sucks because I think it's shit. I don't care how much money they make. I'm no longer involved with Panda Energy, they fired me because I asked how much revenue they made in 2006-2007. After deductions I think it was $10.

You can disagree with their booking

Which as a viewer is all I'm intrested in.

So, the next time you wish to say that TNA sucks, think to yourself "How badly of a moron will I be if I say that". The answer will be, "A HUGE moron".

Yeah, Sam.

I think TNA is shit because it's got the point that I won't watch the shows aside from highlights for fear of being condescended to to the point I feel about ten years old. I think it's shit because the booking is schizophrenic - a guy will lose an X Division title match one week, get beatdown, then get a world title shot the next week, only just lose, then go into a feud with Black Reign.

I think it's shit because nobody in their right mind would want to watch six man tag main event where "Mick Foley's in-ring debut" is being advertised, but where we know AJ Styles will make whatever he does look shit in about half a minute, and where Cute Kip will be considered a "main eventer".

I think it's shit because they advertise title matches on PPV, but have the good majority of their title changes on free TV.

I think it's shit because entire title tournaments are booked where a simple rematch would make the most sense.

I think it's shit because the Motor City Machine Guns get one tag title shot in one and a half years - while being as hot as shit - and they effectively split up while "Lethal Consequences" take the belts for three days with a match where the heel team come out looking much stronger.

I think it's shit because they're lining up a referee to face Booker T for the Legends Title, which he could well win. And so much more... I could go for a while.

TNA doesn't suck, you just don't understand entertainment.

TNA doesn't entertain me, which I think is the idea behind me watching it. The masses? I don't know them.

 

[MisterRob]

Take a moment to consider that statement. TNA QUADRUPLED their revenue in 2008. To quadruple your revenue, in a year that saw one of the worst recession/depressions in US history, that is an astonishing statement. QUADRUPLED their revenue; it's not something that most companies can boast. It's an ENORMOUS feat.

Depends how much revenue they had in 2007 to really debate whether its an ENORMOUS feat. Depends on the numbers, which you don't have and which Dixie Carter and TNA haven't to made public. Probably because its not as ENORMOUS a fact as the statement portrays.

I find it funny that people will believe a guy with ZERO ties to the company, and information, even if it was true, was last reported over a year ago, over people who actually, you know, work in the company? Or, in the case of Dixie, OWN the company.

If it was true then your point is moot. People believe the tangible, facts and numbers they can see and accept as FACT, as opposed to heresay or having faith in people's words. Nowadays there's enough scandals and lies happening throughout the business world in the news, constantly, that show what someone within a business says about their business isn't always true. In a perfect world yes, but this isn't a perfect world.

So, let's consider all the factors. Over the past year, the WWE has suffered a huge decline in their Raw ratings. Over the past year, the economy has suffered tremendously. And here TNA is, garnering near record number of viewers, and QUADRUPLING their revenues.

Yes, its great that TNA's making a profit. Its great that they're expanding themselves internationally. But come on, man, can you over exaggerate things any more? You're comparing a company with THREE times the viewership, whose profit yearly is lord knows how many times greater, to TNA. Its great in comparison to a small business, but don't go comparison the positives to WWE when that comparison is silly.. because WWE is very profitable and is doing fine (and certainly making more money then TNA) in a time of economic instability.

You can disagree with their booking, but you cannot deny their success. And at the end of the day, the whole point of wrestling is to entertain your current audience, and continue to build a new one. And TNA is doing that.

This has been mentioned before; whatever success they have its certainly not making me watch TNA. And yes, TNA once against ALMOST reached a record high of theres. They didn't break their record high, they didn't improve far beyond their former numbers of the past year, they ALMOST reached a number they've already been too. That's ENORMOUS! That's the low standards TNA fans have for their product. I can see WWE fans praising WWE because they did a 3.0.. and then the next week they do a 3.2, a number they've already reached before. They're growing!

TNA doesn't suck, you just don't understand entertainment. If you have a problem with that, you are wrong. Or, you can post in the thread to tell me why I am.

What an arrogant, asidine statement this is. So you're saying anyone who thinks TNA sucks but likes WWE is wrong and doesn't understand entertainment? Even though WWE gets three times the viewers as TNA Impact? TNA does suck, and that's an opinion. Just like your opinion, based on transparent facts. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, though! But your statement has so many holes I'll slip through them now and end it at that.

 

[Shocky]

TNA is a more enjoyable product now then I remember it being in the last few years. The Main Event Mafia vs. the Frontline storyline is one of the better storylines in the business period. Sting is serving a good purpose as champion right now. He's doesn't look incredibly strong, yet comes through in the end. Sting is not a heel, but he is easily in a role where the character is uncomfortable with most of the methods of his cohorts. His championship matches as of late have been made to make him look like an old man, which they have.

Does TNA have problems, sure they do, what company doesn't. But pretty much, TNA has done what it's "fans" or original fans have wanted it to do for the last few years, a refocus of storylines and energy on the TNA Originals.

The Main Event Mafia has been made to look like the ultimate evil of TNA with essentially all of the main "WWE Rejects" in that group. The Frontline is comprised of guys that are mostly all TNA Originals. How is this not doing what the fans asked? Also there has been a quality refocus on the X-Division, started with the Artist Formerly known as Davari winning the X-Division Title. You throw in a slice of a returning Jeff Jarrett, and another reject jumping ship in Mick Foley, and you have a successful show.

You might think it sucks, it's simply opinion, but to doubt the business plan and the outcome of said plan is to have your head buried either in the sand, or up your ass. Individuals may not like what TNA is doing because it doesn't fit their idea or vision of the company, but TNA as a whole is successful and is worth a look.

 

[salomon1080s]

I have mixed feeling about this because i do enjoy the TNA product when I watch it but i also agree with jake and sam just as much. Just because a business is successful doesn't mean the product is entertaining. How many movies are made that have made a profit and completely suck. Yes they were successful and made money but they were still horrible movies. to some people that is the way TNA could be cuz they have have wacky booking decisions and some strange stories lines. But to say your not entitled to judge a product because their product made money is ridiculous. for the record I can't wait to see how the mem vs frontline story line will play out

 

[gg inferno]

always funny to pop into the forums and see people vainly try to argue with slyfox. their arguments would be more credible if they would simply just admit that their opinions on entertainment don't have any factual evidence to back up their claims(numbers). TNA is doing fine for what they have to work with. A bunch of older veterans that still know how to act and cut money promos, and a roster full of athletic roh indy workers that can do some amazing shit that can't act or cut money promos, and a booking committee whose creativity is stagnated by far outdated old school mentality. The bottom line is that it is what it is- a show on spike tv that gets good ratings for the network. To try to disect that fact is a collosal waste of time spent on the computer in the year 2009.

 

[Danmen001]

I insult TNA, because I find it fun to do. Just like making fun of Jeff Hardy is fun, saying Cena only knows 5 moves (a tad old, yes - still enjoyable to me though) and making fun of Knox's jungle on his chin.

Recently, occassionally watch TNA. Barring all unneccesary dislike of it, it's actually not all that bad. The main issue I have with TNA is it doesn't look as flash as the WWE, and that annoys me. But, it isn't really bad, or "TNA sucks" can't honestly be said.

If TNA had a better look, then I would probably watch it, but until it really gets closer to the level of the WWE, I won't be strictly interested. "In my opinion", TNA isn't worth getting totally into - not yet anyway.

Really, making fun of it is just enjoyable.

 

[Darkshot77]

Go ahead call me crazy, TNA "sucks" so bad, it keeps me intersted. I continually watch the PPV's and glance at the shows, and while i leave dispointed, disgusted, and down right angry at the sheer insanity of the booking/writing, I still watch. Why? Because I keep telling my self "It can't get worse...it has to get better, right?" Dispite all of my efforts to denounce them, part of me keeps saying that. So yes I think TNA is pretty pathetic, yes it is my opinion, and no that dosent mean they "suck." TNA is a cockroach of the wrestling business, despite all of the horrible things that kill it, it keeps coming back and amazingly, stronger than ever. Case in point back in the Asylum days, there were some pretty bad gimmicks, Heel Tony Schivone, Wrestling Penises, a tag team of "bulging" men, Midgets masterbaiting in trash cans, and so many others that plagued the weekly PPV's. Dispite all that, TNA found a way to get a weekly TV show, mid day on FSN at first and then prime time on Spike. The truth is TNA has grown, is growing, and will grow, and therefore dose not suck.

 

[Uncle Sam]

always funny to pop into the forums and see people vainly try to argue with slyfox. their arguments would be more credible if they would simply just admit that their opinions on entertainment don't have any factual evidence to back up their claims(numbers).

That's because entertainment value is subjective, not objective. It's an opinion. Sly's demonstrated that the head of TNA says that TNA is doing quite well. I mean, that's hardly cold, hard facts. There's not even a pie chart.

TNA is doing fine for what they have to work with.

TNA is doing great for what they have to work with. Business-wise, anyway. Product-wise, I'd currently rather tear my eyes out than watch 'iMPACT!', but that's an opinion. I recognise that the opinion of one person doesn't matter.

A bunch of older veterans that still know how to act and cut money promos,

and a roster full of athletic roh indy workers that can do some amazing shit that can't act or cut money promos,

and a booking committee whose creativity is stagnated by far outdated old school mentality.

Yeah, OK.

The bottom line is that it is what it is- a show on spike tv that gets good ratings for the network.

Nobody's debating that.

To try to disect that fact is a collosal waste of time spent on the computer in the year 2009.

Again, not trying to.

 

[RVDgurl]

This is an absolutely mind boggling thread. I read neither article so Sly's original post was all new information to me. And his take on thie info is absolutely correct: TNA has done tremendous things in a time when businesses are closing their doors at an alarming rate.

I'm glad for the wrestling business that TNA appears to be growing in ratings and revenue. It's good to know that there is another company that has some kind of financial stability to breed competition (or at least an alternative) to the WWE.

Personally, I haven't been happy with the TNA product over the past 6 months. I haven't watched Impact in 3 weeks. Of course, I realize I don't fit into the mold of what most fans want to see; which is obvious by the numbers. Numbers don't lie. I'm not thrilled with TNA's product, but it's clear more and more people are.

 

[mork83]

This may be a minor point, but a company's revenue increasing x4 isn't necessarily as positive as it may seem. It could be great, but revenue is the total money taken in without subtracting expenses (salaries, production, advertising, etc). It all depends on how large their profit is. For instance, if a company's revenue is 10 million one year and they spent 1 million (profit x10), but the next year their revenue multiplied by 4 to 40 million and they spent 10 million (profit x4). Just sayin'.

I'm not going to argue that they suck, I just think that they could be doing much better. WWE has created a huge audience of people to watch wrestling and TNA isn't convincing that many of them to watch on a night with no wrestling competition. It was reported that they beat ECW in the ratings last week, that's not impressive. The biggest star, by far, on ECW is Matt Hardy. TNA has names like Kurt Angle, Sting, Mick Foley, Kevin Nash, Booker T, Scott Steiner, the Dudleys, AJ Styles, and Samoa Joe and barely them?.

They have been stuck in the low 1 ratings for a while and I think it's safe bet that they will end the year with almost the same rating they have this week.

 

[Slyfox696]

This may be a minor point, but a company's revenue increasing x4 isn't necessarily as positive as it may seem. It could be great, but revenue is the total money taken in without subtracting expenses (salaries, production, advertising, etc). It all depends on how large their profit is. For instance, if a company's revenue is 10 million one year and they spent 1 million (profit x10), but the next year their revenue multiplied by 4 to 40 million and they spent 10 million (profit x4). Just sayin'.

Well, first, allow to address why quadrupling your revenue is impressive, no matter what.

There's an old adage in business, "To make money, you must spend money". And while that may be true, there has NEVER been a saying that goes, "If you spend money, you'll make money". That is a VERY significant concept. Just because people spend money, that doesn't mean they will get it back in return. Quadrupling your revenue is impressive, because it shows that you are giving fans more of what they want. And you know fans are happy to take more of what you give them, because they are willing to pay more money for your product...which is even more considerable when you figure all the economic problems in the United States these days.

But, to answer your comment about profit, yes you are right. Eventually, you want to profit. But, Dixie Carter said in an interview a while back, that TNA was actually turning profits for each month of business. That does not mean that TNA as a company is profitable yet, but each month, instead of losing money, they are actually gaining money.

So, even if you wish to discount the significance of improving your revenue, you can't deny that, at least at one point, TNA was turning small profits as well.

 

[CCS]

Who gives a shit if they've grown in profits? Their on air products sucks ass.


The only reason their revenue increased is because of house shows and touring ppv's. If any pro company starts touring they're going to have a profit increase. It would be different if they was selling a lot of merchandise, but they arent. And there's a few reasons for that. 1.because their shirts look like shit. 2. because nobody wants to buy a shirt of a wrestler they've never heard of.

The bottom line is, TNA sucks. They have tons of talent but they obviously dont know how to do it. Vince Mcmahon should buy out TNA just so he could show them how to utilize their talent.

 

[Chaze2k1]

I know TNA storylines arent really that great, but they do have some very good performers in the ring. This is perfect example of the impatient-ness of todays society. TNA is relative young as a company in fact its only entering its 7th year of existance and has only been apart of the main stream of wrestling for about 5 years now. Some are trying to compare it to a company thats been around for over 50+ years not a far fight for TNA at this point.

There is alot factors into why this company hasnt hit it big yet some them might have to do with the fact that they are in what was WCW country and it disbanding left a sour taste in mouth of those fans and they didnt return to watch this product. I wonder if some of the die-hard WCW fans even returned to watching any wrestling at all.

WWE fan base was easier to find because it grew up in the mecca of sports NYC and the northeast at the time was most populated area in the US. In the end TNA will be fine it will find its niche and become a better show in the long run and for WWE's it better cause it will develope more stars then WWE's training grounds will any time soon.

 

[Pimpin]

Most of the storylines suck ass indeed but I believe they have the wrestlers that could compete against the WWE. TNA hasn't really found their groove in the main stream seeing as how they have been in the main stream for 4 maybe 5 years now & have been in exisience foe 6 almost 7 years now & by comparing it to the WWE who has been around for god knows how many years is almost completely not fair at all.

Like the person above me said TNA might not have hit big yet was cause of how WCW went out of business & them not watching the product or have been turned away from main stream wrestling or just wrestling altogether.

WWE fan base is alot easier to find cause not only did they originate in the NYC but when you ask fans now days. 9 times out of 10 they will say the WWE.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I'm not going to agree with 'the masses' and say it doesn't suck, when I think it does. You can throw your figures at me too, the forum would be a boring place if no one could say "Cena is a bad wrestler" or "TNA sucks", because the ratings or revenue prove differently. As a wrestling fan, we don't care what the 'proof' is, we care about what we personally find entertaining.

I think TNA sucks, because I can't get into it's product. And I've spent months trying, even being a regular viewer for a while. But they don't have the stories to keep me interested for a long period of time. Take WWE for example, there's always at least 3 things I'm watching for, and won't miss the show for. And in my life of watching, I've never missed a show.

 

[Miko]

If I watch Impact and think "my god that was shit" I am not suddenly gonna go "but they've quadrupled their revenue, QUAD-FUCKING-RUPLED!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I am wrong for not enjoying it"

It's purely subjective.

On the other hand they are growing so there can be no doubt that some people out there find them entertaining. Which is a good thing, I know in the long run my opinion means fuck all and that nothing is going to change for me. Which is a plus for me because I actually enjoy TNA more often than not.

 

[Milkyway!]

I've always liked TNA since the day I watched it. Team Canada awed me, now the Main Event Mafia, is wooing me. I do think that TNA has some huge problems. While they quadrupled their revenue, is that something to really brag about in the terms of, how much money did they spend on getting new talent? Or, how much did they spend on advertisement.

Maddens article was on TNA disliking Jeff Jarret, and that he should stay off of TV, it makes the program better, which I 100% agree. By all means neccaccarry double J, now sucks, badly. That could be an understatement as well. Then he wrote another one, stating that TNA needs to be careful about all the older talent they have on their roster right now. Once again, I agree. While the older veterns make the program better, they need a couple more young stars, to be training under the veterns. Lets the veterns rub put over, etc the younger guys. Not make a pure older roster, because sooner or later, they have to retire, whether we like it or not.

Tna needs some major advertisement. To gain quadruple the revenues, (which im not denying its impressive) Take some of it, and throw it on Advertisement.

Change TV stations, I'm not sure why, but I think SPIKE holds TNA down. They should change stations to a station thats more, known. I don't know much of anyone who talks about watching television on spike randomly. But when it comes to a station like, TNT, its a well known station, and very properly, which can help TNA greatly.

Otherwise, I love TNA to death, the show itself is great.

 

[paulsoprano]

Who gives a shit if they've grown in profits? Their on air products sucks ass.

Well, SlyFox cares and I'd say that TNA management cares about their growth. Moreover, I care! I think the point is that, the Internet braintrust act as though TNA is about to close up shop because they're not booking their favorite Indy stars "properly", when all evidence seems to point to TNA's growth being at an all-time high.

As for "their on air products"? That's entirely subjective and, rather than trying to shift the argument, I'd welcome you to look at what SlyFox is driving at here. He's not saying YOU have to enjoy the product just because they've increased their business. He's merely saying that the fact they've significantly increased their business might indicate that not everyone goes along with the tired, unoriginal, regurgitated Internet BS that "TNA sucks".

The only reason their revenue increased is because of house shows and touring ppv's.

So, their revenue increased because they're making more money by doing successful tours, including a ver successful one in the UK? And this might indicate that people are willing to get behind and spend money on the product? Yes? Yes?!

If any pro company starts touring they're going to have a profit increase.

But if they sucked and had this oft-accepted terrible product, would they even be touring? I mean, if it was that universally bad, surely they'd make no profit from it. In simple terms, touring costs a lot of money, so it's only worth doing if you're going to be successful. All indications are that, for the most part, TNA are. THAT'S why they are doing it.

It would be different if they was selling a lot of merchandise, but they arent.

They seem to be. I have heard various reports of the merchandising stands at their shows been fairly busy and doing good business for them. I have also seen it first-hand. That, coupled with solid DVD sales, will get some money into the bank.

And there's a few reasons for that. 1.because their shirts look like shit. 2. because nobody wants to buy a shirt of a wrestler they've never heard of.

So, how many wrestling fans do you know who haven't heard of Sting, Nash, Booker T, Angle, Foley etc etc?

The bottom line is, TNA sucks. They have tons of talent but they obviously dont know how to do it.

Again, this depends on how you perceive it. It's not a universal truth and the Internet critics usually skirt past the many examples of TNA using a talent well. TNA have misused wrestlers, sure, but they're obviously doing something right at the moment.

Vince Mcmahon should buy out TNA just so he could show them how to utilize their talent.

Yeah, I'm sure the wrestling world is gasping for another Braden Walker, Marcus Cor Von or stuttering Matt Morgan. Vince sure does have the Midas touch. EVERYTHING he touches turns to gold!

 

[supergav67]

TNA seamed to start a few years ago when WWE felt confident enough to turn their shows into BrandS cause there were nowt else on telly.It had the perfect fountain of talent.The NWA.which ,though no HuGe names ,had the rising stars of the indys & blasts from past of WCW.ECW & wwF.WWE A potentially perfect roster combination.Stars .chopped,left or sacked from WWE at last had somewhere else to go,pay optional & still get their mush on TV.It would be a show that,while not as yet trouble WWE like WCW during the Monday Night Wars (,in my opinion,theyve yet to find A Hogan to do that & ,with all due respect,neither Foley,Angle nor Booker fits that bill.) But like ECW ,get under WWEs skin,& let them KnoW there,s another brand in town ViNCe DoeSNT oWN!!!
But sometime a coupla years ago the chord was severed & TNA stands alone.Its own boss.Not guaranteed no new stars from either side.This may seam no big deal right now & Im NOT sounding its death knell yet,but little things like Christian going back to WWE,allegedly for money,Where,s his ready made replacement,.TNA have to go out ,find one,& sign him,or make one-bloody quick.& NWA is trying to make its OWn TV show now anyway.So they aint whistling ,Dixie no more!.
Its a little mistake I think WCW made & cost them under Russo when NWO evaporated along with the ratings & wwE didnt need an attitude anymore.Im sure WCW woulda swapped their powerplant & Vince- ECW/FCW for the possibility of having every indy wrestler in the USA/Europe/da world standing by.& I hope,for the sake of choice TNA dont end up regreting as well.

 

[THE METAL]

yeah tna is starting to piss me off as well, they always take awsome storyline ideas (mem) and turn them into burnt pieces of crap , the mem idea was an awsome idea the greatest wrestling legends on tna fighting the future legends but tna still cant find a way to get the frontline over and as it looks they wont!!! the mem looks like they will selfdestruct in the near future and another wasted idea. GREAT IDEA TNA HOW BOUT IF YOU GET UNDERTAKER TO JUMP SHIP CHANGE IS GIMMICK TO A HOMMELESS GUY WHO SCREAMS!

 

[Audioslave]

It's really unfair to say it "keeps getting bigger", when the ratings themselves (since that's apparently what matters) are still staying around that 1.0 to 1.2 area. There's no real definitive increases in the ratings. Back during the Monday Night Wars, both companies would shift between 4's and 5's and occasionally break out over that. But TNA hasn't been able to even get to a 1.4.

Hell. I know every TNA-ite and Glen Gilberti bashes Paul Heyman and Heyman's assessment of what TNA is ultimately doing wrong. And they do it on the premise that Heyman's company died out or what the fuck ever.

So what about Eric Bischoff? This is a guy that actually kicked McMahon's ass for 80+ weeks in the ratings, was the only guy to turn WCW into a success when others tried and failed, and has had a successful wrestling-based reality program recently.

Does his opinion matter? Because in his Sun interview he said essentially the same thing that Heyman has said in the past and many of us TNA detractors have said.

 

[Talon_DR]

Both Bischoff and Heyman have legit opinions on creative issues in wrestling. Both were responsible for good things. Those were years ago and both haven't truly been involved in wrestling in years and things are different now but yeah, I am sure they know what they are talking about. CCW which was Bischoff's baby had an okay budget and could only muster up about a 0.3.

Now as for Business wise, neither man has nothing on TNA. Paul Heyman's business sense killed ECW. Bischoff's horrible spending in his years put WCW in such a horrible position that they eventually closed. That is why WCW died, not because of horrible creative.

TNA has it's problems and many know it but Bischoff nor Heyman is one to talk.