Maybe its something to do with a lot of the things you say being made up.

Because disliking the TNA product doesn't mean I don't find many of the discussions surrounding TNA and its product interesting.

Although, as is explained to you every time you say this, it isn't actually true.


I have problems with this line of defence for TNA.

How much do you think the bulk of the TNA roster is actually making from TNA? At best they're working a couple of days of television tapings every couple of months (and they're often not paid on time for those days which is another matter entirely). I'm not convinced this argument that TNA gives people a place to work really holds all that much water these days. As has been mentioned already the New York show in September will be the first time TNA have been in front of a paying audience since the UK tour at the beginning of the year. That's staggering and probably says a lot about the bottom line for the guys working for them. There's also reports that many members of the roster are having to cancel indy bookings they'd made so they can make the just announced TNA tapings so its clearly not TNA or nothing for these guys.


It also doesn't matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it accurate.


The TNA product wasn't doing well in this period. The booking teams were changed and the direction was changed because the company had completely stagnated and was going nowhere. The right changes absolutely weren't made (that's another issue) but changes undoubtedly needed to be made and big ones.


I'm sorry are actually saying that Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair and the like didn't seem old and past it when they arrived in TNA? That's a jaw dropping argument. Jeff Hardy is pretty much the only name brought in during this period that didn't really fit this description but he had a whole host of other problems.


I think you're part of a tiny minority that believes wrestling should strive to be like it used to be. Wrestling isn't like it used to be and that's a good thing. Wrestling, like everything else, has to change, grow and evolve. The problem of course is that it either hasn't changed, grown and evolved enough or it hasn't done it at all and is still trying to be like it was or it just has no idea what it should be.


Except there is still all of these things.


Firstly I feel the need to point out that I'm male (so a he not a she) and that hazy is well aware of that so I assume he's trying to make some kind of ridiculous trolling point here.

Secondly I have no problem with people criticising wrestling if those criticisms aren't full of completely inaccurate BS (as your posts always tend to be hazy).

Thirdly your attempts to try and inflate your superiority using age continue to be incredibly sad.

I could say more here but I just cannot be bothered anymore.


Words that should never be said.

If you don't go to shows and or don't buy merch then your opinion doesn't count as obviously your not really a fan.

If you do go to shows and or buy merch then your to much of a fan boy/girl who will buy anything WWE or wrestling related so your opinion doesn't count.

Can I just say that I think the major thing your missing from this list is:

-Given Paul Heyman the stock options he wanted to come in and run the show or at least have adopted this model when bringing in the likes of Bischoff and Hogan.

I say this for two reasons.

In regards specifically to Heyman I think if you're looking into wrestling past for your company then Heyman is the guy you turn to. He has extensive experience of building an exciting brand with a passionate following. Backed up by a stronger business mind then its very possible that ECW would have been a much bigger company than it was and would still be going now. And as his work on Smackdown demonstrated he's very capable of working in a bigger pond as well. More importantly he's really the only guy from this era that still seems to live in and have knowledge of the modern world. He's engaged with modern technology and culture in a way that Bischoff, Hogan and Russo certainly aren't and a culturally relevant voice is something TNA have been missing since day one. Just as importantly as this Heyman is excellent at finding and developing talent and bringing out the best in the talent he works with.

On the broader context of giving someone like Heyman or Bischoff and Hogan stock options I say this – if you're bringing these guys in to save the day then its probably worth your time to get them fully invested in a bigger and more successful future for the company. This could also have been achieved with performance incentives. The problem with bringing Hogan and Bischoff in was always that they didn't really seem that invested in making TNA bigger or better but rather making it their own little vanity project. You want to get them invested in the company and give them real reason to want the company to be successful.

But you don't say that do you hazy? You say you're the only one who does, not you're one of a handful. It's something that you've been pulled up on many MANY times so I'm glad you are at least accepting
now that you're not the only one.


Oh really? Isn't that odd. There is a service that appears in my bank every month that says WWE Network. I must look into who is using the WWE Network to take money out of my account.



When was the last time you saw Hazy say that Seibu? In fact, when was the last time you saw hazy say anything about TNA's product?


You mean when they get paid right? Is giving people three nights work every 4 weeks really worth doing? Couldn't they get work elsewhere? Yup they could.


Just for clarity, the true things you said in this section is that Raw airs on Monday and has a PG rating. The rest, as usual, BS.

But these 'discussions' are invariably you repeating negative rumours and making vague but dire criticisms of the company, despite the fact that as I understand, you don't actually watch TNA.

Such as?

Alexi, I agree that Heyman was as good a guy as any to give the reigns to, and I bet they wish they'd done that. But would he have made TNA profitable? Or would we now be discussing what a terrible decision and obviously avoidable catastrophe putting him in charge was? As we always seem to end up doing with TNA.

Could anyone have made TNA profitable? Or was it actually mission impossible all along? That's my suspicion, as you know.

Also, when you say stock options I assume you mean a percentage stake or something? TNA not being a listed company. I agree that sounds like a good idea - but has TNA's problem really been a lack of effort from the creative heads? I think they were trying - it's just that nothing was working.

I haven't watched a complete edition of Impact in a long time. That's true.

And no that's the fantasy spin you like to put on the discussions surrounding TNA because you don't engage with any criticism of the company (because we're all WWE marks).

So people aren't supposed to discuss reports TNA isn't paying its staff? Do you think the WWE thread wouldn't mention it if that was happening in WWE's camp?

Are people not supposed to discuss reports that TNA is on the verge of losing its second television deal in less than 12 months? Do you think the WWE thread wouldn't mention it if that was happening in WWE's camp?

Are people not supposed to discuss reports that Vince Russo was a secret employee who exposed himself by e-mailing a dirtsheet writer? Do you think the WWE thread wouldn't mention it if that was happening in WWE's camp?

Are people not supposed to discuss reports that Dixie Carter insulted the head of her television network by e-mailing said criticism straight to him? Do you think the WWE thread wouldn't mentioned it if Vince McMahon insulted the head of NBCU?

He wanted to come with a financial stake in the future of the company which would suggest to me that more than anyone else they'd previously approached he was interested in making TNA a viable and successful business. Would he have been successful in that? Who knows. I suspect he would have stood more of a chance and had a lot more good will from fans than anyone else TNA have put in that position though.


Yes the problem (or part of it) has been a lack of effort from TNA's creative heads.

Vince Russo might be talking a good game about how pro-wrestling needs to move with the times and be culturally relevant (amongst other things) now that's he not booking a pro-wrestling company but where was all of that when he was in a position to actually make a difference? As was the case with Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff, Russo was more interested in playing his greatest hits and reliving the glories (and inevitably the messy well documented mistakes) of the past than putting any effort into booking a relevant and modern day wrestling company. This is part of why the Angle/Joe stuff that looked like it was really going to catch fire didn't because nobody could work out how to fit that into a conception of wrestling circa-1999.

Let me remind people that when they took over Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff (or Hogan at least) proclaimed that they were going to turn Abyss into the next John Cena which would suggest they didn't even bother to watch or familiarise themselves with the company they were about to start running.

Let them cry seibu. I'll drink some lolzmilk.

Alexi, All I do is engage with criticism of the company! Just because I don't agree with all of it (I do agree with some of it) doesn't mean I don't engage with it. And just last page I specifically said you weren't a WWE mark. But you are something of an anti-TNA person, as you openly admit.

Who would have thought quite liking a wrestling promotion and thinking people who actively want it to die are possibly going a bit far would be a position requiring thousands of words of defence. Heaven help us!

Let me just stress again: YOU DON'T ACTUALLY WATCH IMPACT. Do you not think that undermines your TNA opinions just a little bit?

Storm has since said that he's not leaving or retiring. Yesterday was the anniversary of his first match apparently.

Well you won't because you can't see what either myself, Alexi or FMKK post

Dismissing isn't engaging.


Or you could read what I actually said.

Heyman would have given TNA an identity and created new stars. That's what he's always done elsewhere, whether it's ECW, Smackdown or OVW. That would have meant lots of saved expense by clearing out older names with mega salaries. He seems to be pretty in touch with the trends as well; ECW broke the mould when WWF and WCW were stale and revolutionised the business while Smackdown became a more workrate focused show when Raw's shitty sports entertainment angles were looking tired, generating the show's best ever ratings. I think he would have given it a good shot at least. It depends on the timing as well. Could you imagine the political minefield he had come in say 2010-11 and had to deal with Hogan, Eric, Russo, Jarrett etc.?

That's good news, I actually quite like James Storm. Accent aside. And that awful Mickie James segment.

I think Cowboy James Storm is one of the very best TNA has ever had.

James Storm Wyatt is crap though.

I hope if TNA dies he gets a chance in WWE or Japan maybe ROH but I just can't see him fitting there.

He was approached in the summer of 2010.

According to Heyman it was Spike rather than TNA that brought him to the table (although he admits this is because he'd been ignoring TNA's advances since his WWE departure). I'm not quite sure how it would have worked but reading between the lines of what Heyman has said on the subject it sounds to me as if he positioned himself (and Spike agreed) that he should be brought in as a replacement for Hogan, Bischoff and Russo and that TNA baulked at that idea. Certainly its hard to imagine that Hogan and co. would have stuck around if Heyman had been brought as an actual partial owner of the company with complete control of the product.

Mecca seem to believe he might have been asked to job to a certain someone from the tap end of Stevenston, and are not happy.

This is great. Hazy, if tnamecca declares war on Scotland, you will be expected to man the barricade.

How easy would those people have been to get rid of? It would have been interesting to see if Spike would/could just undercut Dixie like that. Hogan, Eric and Russo had wormed their way into her inner circle very easily and it's easy to believe that each one could essentially play her like a violin. She's tacitly alluded to this herself in interviews since.

I vaguely recall Heyman being on Austin's show and telling him that he rejected TNA after taking one look at their finances, claiming that they were losing more in a month than he lost during the entirety of ECW, or something to that effect. That's pretty scary stuff.

So Sunday is the first time TNA gets aired on Challenge & Wednesday is the repeat yes?

yes... and this week for the first time, sunday night / monday morning sees a "live" ppv... and a traditional ppv rather than the "pre recorded stand alone 1 night onlys" that normally get shown on a wednesday



its quite obvious this weeks shows are very much the "future storyline" and if people end up thinking on monday "what the hell was that" it's not going to be going anywhere (which would be a pity... wwe is positioned in a different space and its network is full of low cost slapped together reality clones... worse, i have watched all the nitros i want to up to the end of 1996 - and they have not put any nitros on from 1997 onwards.... so the tna / roh block along with gfw were the last hopes of steering the wrestling product back from wwe blandnesss. )