UFC Possibly Leaving SpikeTV; Good News For TNA?

[Kizzo]

AOL sold WCW, Atlanta Hawks, and the Atlanta Braves only to be a huge fail and eventually Time Warner split from AOL because it was a sinking ship. Now if the deal was the other way around with Turner being in charge does WCW get sold for only a million dollars? No? It would still be around today regardless of money. AOL fucked up not WCW or Time Warner. BTW Smokey Mountain Wrestling, according to Jim Cornett, was also sold for a million dollars. Clearly there is something fishy there since 30 plus years of libraries and trademarks are not worth the same as Smokey Mountain Wrestling's 4 year run. Not to mention the Hawks and Braves also got sold on a discount price.

They also sold The Omni Hotels, Warner Music Group, Comedy Central (dumb decision), Turner Field, and the Time Warner Book Club. There was even a discussion at one time of spinning off Warner Bros and Turner Broadcasting as separate companies as well. But that idea was shot out the window. Basically the company was in very BAD shape. So they had to sell all these assets (fire sales) because they didn't have the leadership in place to make this conglomerate work.

But Comcast is doing a great job with NBCUniversal and have learned from those mistakes. It was definitely a good idea in general but poorly executed. Comcast is doing it right.

 

[Rayne]

That is complete BS. They were hemorrhaging cash before 1995 and survived just fine because they didn't merge with AOL/Time Warner yet.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/14/news/fortune500/braves_sale/index.htm


They were selling off everything and were considered "fire sales"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article3340944.ece


AOL sold WCW, Atlanta Hawks, and the Atlanta Braves only to be a huge fail and eventually Time Warner split from AOL because it was a sinking ship. Now if the deal was the other way around with Turner being in charge does WCW get sold for only a million dollars? No? It would still be around today regardless of money. AOL fucked up not WCW or Time Warner. BTW Smokey Mountain Wrestling, according to Jim Cornett, was also sold for a million dollars. Clearly there is something fishy there since 30 plus years of libraries and trademarks are not worth the same as Smokey Mountain Wrestling's 4 year run. Not to mention the Hawks and Braves also got sold on a discount price.

Did you read the articles you linked? They do nothing to support the positions you're offering, beyond one guy referring to Time Warner/AOL's decision to focus on the core business of platforms over content delivery as a "fire sale". A lot of people who worked for WCW referred to it the same way. Notice how no one referred to WCW in those articles, so the core of your argument now boils down to "well if Ted was still in charge, things would be different", and you might be right on that account. He was willing to piss $80m a year down the toilet so he could have a pro wrestling company.

 

[Rasha]

How it impacts TNA depends entirely on something none of us know; what Spike thinks of TNA at this point. Do they view it as a viable product that can stand on its own merit, therefore deserving an increased focus by the network as its new brand-carrier? Or do they view it as a sister product to the UFC that now, with big brother gone, will not be self-sustaining?

If they have the first view, then this could be GREAT! UFC ads on both Spike and other channels and forms of media will likely go to TNA. As many have already said, Xplosion could easily find its way to the network. A second show that allows TNA to experiment with new characters, gimmicks, or feuds while still being able to take the pulse of the American audience could be invaluable. That's what WCW originally intended for Thunder to be and they should have stuck with it. I've seen others mention that Reaction could come back, which I guess is true but I doubt it. That show had its best chance with Impact as a lead-in and didn't succeed. No reason to think it would work now. I never really liked it, anyway.

What I'd be interested in seeing is whether or not Wednesday night (currently the UFC's night) wouldn't be a better night for Impact. Thursday nights aren't bad but you do run into problems with both NFL and NBA games. Wednesday gives you a 48-hour break from RAW so fans aren't "wrestling'd out" and could give TNA a night where it faces less competition throughout the year for viewers. Also, if they ever do make it a live show, it's an extra day in between Impact and your Sunday PPV for guys to rest.

 

[MB1025]

Did you read the articles you linked? They do nothing to support the positions you're offering, beyond one guy referring to Time Warner/AOL's decision to focus on the core business of platforms over content delivery as a "fire sale". A lot of people who worked for WCW referred to it the same way. Notice how no one referred to WCW in those articles, so the core of your argument now boils down to "well if Ted was still in charge, things would be different", and you might be right on that account. He was willing to piss $80m a year down the toilet so he could have a pro wrestling company.

They don't need to talk about WCW. It shows you how once AOL stepped in they completely sold off everything that made Turner Broadcasting successful all because they were a failing company losing billions of dollars.

The bold part is the exact reason why the merger is the number one reason why WCW went out of business because if Turner was in charge WCW would be alive and well.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

I think there is kind of a fine line between UFC fans and Wrestling fans... I watch Impact Wrestling... I don't watch UFC... I don't care to.. I don't find it as entertaining. UFC fans probably feel that our show is just silly compared to those... its two opposites really..

Yeah well with UFC gone it also gives them a chance to bring in a new show.. maybe a new MMA show.. which would in turn bring in a different type of fan base than the UFC fans who were OBVIOUSLY not watching TNA.

Am I rite?

 

[WWWYKI777]

lolG4 , that channel fucking sucks

Every time I try to watch G4 (Which is oddly like Channel 130 something which is even worse for business so you know a ton of people don't even get that channel) theres nothing but total crap on it

Just to make a point I put it on G4 right now just to see if I'm right... and I'm right. Currently a random show about police making random arrests on college campus'es is on.............. yeah...

Spike is known as the TV channel made for men , and where could UFC fit any better than that? Nowhere..

If UFC does this they're only shooting themselves in the feet , in both feet really

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

lolG4 , that channel fucking sucks

Every time I try to watch G4 (Which is oddly like Channel 130 something which is even worse for business) theres nothing but total crap on it

Just to make a point I put it on G4 right now just to see if I'm right... and I'm right. Currently a random show about police making random arrests on college campus'es is on.............. yeah...

Spike is known as the TV channel made for men , and where could UFC fit any better than that? Nowhere..

If UFC does this they're only shooting themselves in the feet , in both feet really

You mis understood... because G4 sucks.... UFC wants to buy G4.. and probably rename it "The UFC Channel" or something... so everything you see on G4 right now would probably SEIZE to exists.

 

[WWWYKI777]

You mis understood... because G4 sucks.... UFC wants to buy G4.. and probably rename it "The UFC Channel" or something... so everything you see on G4 right now would probably SEIZE to exists.

Well in that case , that might work

But they would need to get their channel put on basic cable (Like channels 1-80) and then probably need to do a severe revamp of all the non-UFC programming on the channel

Cause if it was still the same shows , same channel # but called "UFC channel" instead it would still be a sucky channel overall

Edit (Insert downward facing arrow here) Spike is a basic cable channel in every state I've been in (Which is like 3) , typically a higher channel like in the 70s numbers but still part of basic cable

 

[blockanWo]

I would say its a bad thing. UFC would attract a similar crowd to TNA. They are a potential audience. With that market gone some may not watch Spike anymore (unsure what type of Cable packages you guys have in the states - from what I can tell Spike is one of those extra channels).

On the flip side, Spike may value TNA a lot more now.

 

[MB1025]

I think as long as all the effort that went into UFC will now be directed to TNA it will be a huge boost. Take the money you put into UFC and direct it towards TNA.

I wonder if this is what Bischoff was talking about in his latest interview on Monday.

A caller asked him about a rumor of TNA going on the road temporarily in August being true.

Bischoff said he didn't want to make a straight forward comment on it because it wouldn't be right at the moment, but he said this summer will be very interesting and exciting. I wonder if losing UFC will make Spike put a lot more money into TNA allowing it to go on the road more often.

 

[Rayne]

They don't need to talk about WCW. It shows you how once AOL stepped in they completely sold off everything that made Turner Broadcasting successful all because they were a failing company losing billions of dollars.

The bold part is the exact reason why the merger is the number one reason why WCW went out of business because if Turner was in charge WCW would be alive and well.

Causation != Causality.

So your argument now is that because some of the things that were sold by Time Warner/AOL weren't failing, WCW must not have been failing, and that if Ted Turner had stayed at the helm, things would have stayed in perfect stasis from the way they were in 1999. WCW losing $80 million a year with very bleak prospects for returning to profitability would have been A-OK to everyone, shareholders included?

How can I argue with that ironclad logic?

 

[MB1025]

Causation != Causality.

So your argument now is that because some of the things that were sold by Time Warner/AOL weren't failing, WCW must not have been failing, and that if Ted Turner had stayed at the helm, things would have stayed in perfect stasis from the way they were in 1999. WCW losing $80 million a year with very bleak prospects for returning to profitability would have been A-OK to everyone, shareholders included?

How can I argue with that ironclad logic?

AOL was a failing company from the start. They were losing billions of dollars from the start. That is part of the reason why WCW, who was losing money, was sold. It is also part of the reason why the Braves, Thrashers, and Hawks, who were successful, were sold.

With Turner in charge they had lost enormous amounts of money for 10 plus years while taping TV in a sound stage smaller than the Impact Zone. They also had lower ratings.

The logic is Turner supported wrestling in the good and the bad and pumped billion of dollars into it because it was his passion. What would change his mind all of a sudden?

Also how can you say they couldn't be profitable again? They lost a ton of money for years before being successful. Not thinking they could do it again is very illogical.

 

[Rayne]

The logic is Turner supported wrestling in the good and the bad and pumped billion of dollars into it because it was his passion. What would change his mind all of a sudden?

Money. You can only lose so much of it before you're forced to pay attention, and WCW wasn't losing anywhere NEAR the kind of money prior to 1995 that they were after 1999.

Also how can you say they couldn't be profitable again? They lost a ton of money for years before being successful. Not thinking they could do it again is very illogical.

Ninety years of broadcast history. Television programs (and if you look back enough, radio programs too) that recover are few and far between; once things start going negative, fans tend to abandon the product, and luring them back is a very, very difficult task. WCW in 2001 is not a company I would have bet on to turn around. They had been trying to turn around for two years and had only lost more ground.

Before people point to the WWF's 'recovery' in the 1990's, it should be noted that they never lost significant amounts of audience. They nearly went bankrupt as a result of McMahon's steroid trial and private investors abandoning the company because of that, forcing the WWF to launch an IPO to recoup funds. Audience actually increased thanks to the Monday Night Wars; loss of audience wasn't a cause of the WWF's financial problems.

 

[Dizzy]

Let me put it this way. the NBA is having the greatest season, ever. You couldn't ask for better ratings, storylines, superstar emerges, surprising Cinderella teams, franchises that make the NBA money being revived after years of rebuilding. Everything you can ask for.

So, you would think that's great. The NBA is ruling. Guess what? They are losing money and losing alot of it. Despite the fact they are making around 4 billion this year which is the highest in some time.

Despite the ultimate success of this season, there will most likely be a lockout. Which basically means there is no season unless owners and players reach a deal. What does this have to do with wrestling? Simply, It means even if WCW had the greatest storylines, beat WWE in ratings, there is no guarantee AOL/Turner wouldn't lose money.

The Hawks, Thrasers and almost thing else was sold as well. Ironically, both teams are looking for new owners today. I believe the Thrasers have found a new owner.

Therefore, WCW would have been screwed anyhow. The only difference is, there would have been more people looking to buy their hot stocks if they were in their peak still or atleast doing very well.

You can be successful and still be dropped by networks or sold by owners. SmackDown got some high ratings on CW and they decided to cut wrestling. There is no difference.

 

[MB1025]

Money. You can only lose so much of it before you're forced to pay attention, and WCW wasn't losing anywhere NEAR the kind of money prior to 1995 that they were after 1999.

Ninety years of broadcast history. Television programs (and if you look back enough, radio programs too) that recover are few and far between; once things start going negative, fans tend to abandon the product, and luring them back is a very, very difficult task. WCW in 2001 is not a company I would have bet on to turn around. They had been trying to turn around for two years and had only lost more ground.

Before people point to the WWF's 'recovery' in the 1990's, it should be noted that they never lost significant amounts of audience. They nearly went bankrupt as a result of McMahon's steroid trial and private investors abandoning the company because of that, forcing the WWF to launch an IPO to recoup funds. Audience actually increased thanks to the Monday Night Wars; loss of audience wasn't a cause of the WWF's financial problems.

Well lets look at it this way. According to Kevin Sullivan corporate people already were getting involved in 1997. In 1998 WCW had their best year ever. In the fall of 1999 AOL and Time Warner put a deal in place where AOL would buy out Time Warner. In 2000 after the merger WCW just happens to lose 80 million dollars. This is where we don't know what happened. Sullivan, Nash, Bischoff, Ferrara, and Russo all say corporate stepped in, put the wrong people in charge, and used their standards and practices to dicate the show every week. Was it that or was it bad writing and contracts.

Also we do know that AOL was a sinking ship from the time the merger happened and a big reason for this was that DSL/Cable internet hit the market. This is the reason why 3-4 years after the merger 3 sport teams, some hotels, and other Time Warner assets that AOL bought were sold off. You tie that into Jamie Kellner publicly saying they are re branding their networks and wrestling isn't a part of that and there was no way WCW even had a chance unless Bischoff bought it and moved it to another station. AOL as a company wanted nothing to do with WCW the company regardless if it made money or not because they wanted to focus on other types of programing.

Now you will say why would they get rid of something that makes money? Well because the merger made everyone billions of dollars at the time. Why would they care about a wrestling company ( they didn't even care for ) even if it was making millions. They just made over a billion dollars and thought their internet service on top of the Time Warner merger would continue to net them billions. 8 years latter AOL is pretty much nothings and Time Warner splits from AOL and AOL continues to sink.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

As others have pointed out, UFC is consistently the biggest thing on Spike at this point and has been for a long time. Spike has touted itself as a man's network for so long and the UFC consistently brings in the network's largest general ratings in terms of those coveted adult male demographic. If UFC leaves Spike, then it's possible that the network as a whole could take a significant hit in terms of regular viewers, which could have a negative effect on TNA.

Could TNA fill the void of UFC? Without a legitimate overhaul & change in the creative direction, I'd have to say no. I've read lots of reports in which TNA regularly hovers in the .80-1.0 mark when it comes to the male 18-49 demographic. Supposedly, this particular area is considered to be the bare minimum among the honchos at Spike, at least based on some of those reports I've read in the past. That makes it sound like TNA is just barely hanging on, if all that is accurate of course. IF, and I do mean if, that's how it is, then Spike might not be able to allow TNA to just barely scrape by with the minimum in those coveted demos.

It's possible that Spike might want to overhaul its own format and broaden its appeal to more than just the adult male demographics, but I doubt that'll happen.

If UFC does hit the road, I think the brass at Spike will definitely put more pressure on TNA in the hopes of picking up the slack by increasing the size of the audience.