They're obviously both niche. Wrestling is now niche. All the casuals are being run offs but ROH tours, makes money, pays it's wrestlers and will exist after Christmas. That makes it the bigger company. And I'm not even a fan of ROH, it's just the way it is.

A wrestling company that doesn't tour is hardly even a wrestling company. That's been part of the DNA of all companies since the dawn of time.

Far better run and didn't alienate its audience, but bigger? TNA even today is more well known to kids and what's left of casuals simply due to the back catalogue and wrestlers it has on its roster.

It's believed that a third party, not Corgan, is funding this set of tapings. Doesn't solve the long-term issues TNA has and how it can generate revenue going forward to stop this scrambling around to find money for tapings.

Long term I don't know how TNA can continue in its current state. The two international TV deals it has with challenge and Sony Six don't appear to generate enough money to fund it. Pop is a split ad rate deal. They can't tour, sell merchandise or get people to buy PPVs in any great number.

Corgan's idea of rebranding the company is a good idea, but you would have to overhaul everything from talent, booking, graphics, name of the shows etc. Otherwise it will simply be perceived as TNA with another name.

Given Corgan's years in the entertainment industry, maybe he feels he can get a better US deal with a more high profile network.

It's crazy how TNA has lasted with what appears to be very very minimal revenue streams. It's never good to add another debt (which is basically what they have with Aeroluxe and possibly Corgan) just to run another set of small revenue/loss making shows.

And whoever buys it will of course be taking those debts on to.

The debts will likely be more than what they buy TNA for.

Rumours from the Observer board/Fighting Spirit mag that the UK tv deal ends on December 31st & Challenge have already told them they're not interested in renewing in any case.

Maybe TNA can do a tour of channels in the middle of nowhere in terms of the Sky EPG here as they have done in America.

TNA is excited to have it's new home on The Dept Store Channel

It's playing out eerily similar to the last six months of WCW, as I remember the rumours of WWE buying them out started in the autumn of 2000. In addition to the feeling a dead end had been reached and TV networks appeared to be closing their doors. Though you've got to give Dixie, Billy etc credit for sticking with it this long and it still wouldn't be surprising if they lived on in some capacity.

Thinking about it, you've got applaud anybody outside of the McMahon family who has run with a US based national wrestling promotion after 1985. AWA, Mid South, WCCW, CWA and USWA lost more than they brought in after the Pro Wrestling USA experiment. ECW and SMW lost money. JCP was in the red, then WCW only turned a profit for 3 years of its 13 year existence. The very reserved and focussed Ring of Honor model is probably the only one that actually works!

So, is BFG actually happening? And is Challenge going to show it next week? Anyone know for certain?

It's in my tv's guide, so presumably if BFG goes ahead it will be on Challenge next week.

ROH are bigger in North America, but by virtue of their international TV deals, that makes TNA a bigger company.

I doubt we will know 100% until it does or doesn't air.

I think it will though but doubt the TV tapings will so tonight (If it airs) could very well be the very last TNA show ever.

BFG is now scheduled on Challenge at 2100 next Saturday 8th.
Rather late after the event IMO, which is a shame.

It does appear to add credence to the Challenge axing TNA rumours with them moving programming around.

If Challenge do axe TNA, I wonder if Challenge will look at ROH to replace them.

Things seem to be going ahead now.


Vince Russo says the days of TV channels PAYING wrestling companies for programming are over. He says WWE is the only one because WWE can cover their own costs, WWE can sell enough tickets to cover the cost of renting the building and paying for wrestlers flights and staff to be there on their own but it's different for everyone else. He says it costs $500,000 to record a set of TV tapings and that might be 2 or 3 episodes and that number can't be covered for TNA in ticket sales or any other indie promotion. That's why Jeff Jarrett can't get GFW on TV because Jeff Jarrett can't cover the costs of recording TV on a regular basis and there's no way any TV Network is gonna pay that kind of money for wrestling, that's more per episode than most TV shows have to spend per episode and you're not gonna get the same kind of return or even money back on wrestling that you could with a TV show that you can then sell to other networks for syndication and then reap even more money back through those advertising streams.


I think he's right. I think that's why TNA is getting a share of the ad money from Pop TV rather than Pop TV paying them a certain amount per episode. Vince just filmed the first set of TV tapings last night for The Rocky Mountain Pro which will be on the Hunt Channel starting next week and they have the same kind of deal, they will get paid a share of what advertising the Hunt Channel can get for the show. Of course none of that gets mentioned on any of the dirtsheets.

With those costs involved of recording wrestling for TV, I don't see any TV channel in America paying for wrestling again, WWE is the exception but that's only because they are the biggest wrestling company in the world. They would need to do what WWE, ROH and what Rocky Mountain Pro are now doing, making enough money on their own to cover their own costs and then basically offering it to TV channels for FREE and then what ever advertising is sold they can they get a portion of that. The days of big money contracts are over for wrestling.

Why would Challenge replace one failing wrestling show with another?

When TNA first came on the station it was comfortably the top rated show every week. Now it is losing out to re-runs of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire! Safe bet that Challenge are paying more money for wrestling than re-runs of ancient game shows that are drawing more viewers.

Who says ROH are failing? They're touring, selling merchandise, selling PPVs, which combined appears to be helping them turn a profit. Their products production values are similar to the current TNA production.

There's nothing to say Challenge will replace one wrestling product with another, however considering how many years they have had a wrestling show on that did well at first, they could be interested in trying ROH at the right price.

As ROH is not on at all in the UK even a low price would be better than nothing and at least get them on TV over here.

TBF for this one maybe it was more to do with nobody not even TNA knew if it would even happen until today or last night so they put them on the first time they really could.

The bigger question will Impact air next Sunday (Or Tuesday in the US) at best at this moment I think it may be a Best Of show.

Impact is on on Thursdays again now in the States I thought, to get it away from Smackdown.
It will be very interesting indeed to see what they produce after BFG.
I thought they usually did an (almost) "live" Impact after PPVs in recent times, but I guess this may not now be an option.

ROH also lost their TV deal with Destination America incredibly quickly and ended up on an even worse network than TNA.

They are fine as a touring brand and an indie darling because that's all they ever were. Their move to DA was a shot at more exposure and they consistently drew even lower ratings than TNA did.

I'm sorry but the argument that ROH have ever been a bigger brand than TNA falls into the same category of those who argued ECW was bigger than wCw.

The problem with TNA is that they were a viable TV product at one time. ROH never were.

The DA deal, just like the current Comet deal, is for repeat showings of ROH TV. First run ROH TV is on Sinclair terrestrial TV affiliates the week before, so it's a different setup. ROH does more viewers on those affiliates collectively than TNA does on POP. Obviously, they wouldn't want to get axed, but it's a bit of an add on rather than first run content getting axed.

Anyway, it's not really relevant in discussing the potential of ROH getting first run showings in the UK.

In regards to TNA being bigger than ROH in 2016, it's prodominately in name only. TNA can't fund itself and hasn't been able to for a while.

My point about that is simple though - TNA tried to grow, while ROH haven't. They spun the wheel and tried everything they could - big name stars, leaving the Impact Zone, going live, visiting a different city every week, going up against RAW, international tours and TV deals. Nothing worked. That costs money, and when it doesn't come off, then you are in trouble, hence the situation TNA finds themselves in today.

Somehow I suspect that if TNA had contented themselves with tapings at the Impact Zone, a roster of TNA originals, touring only in markets in which they will draw, and airing limited content on FoxSportsHD, then we would not be having this conversation about them going out of business.

My point is that ROH have never even tried to grow the way that TNA did. That's not a sleight on the company - they're a niche product and their fans love them, and they're clearly financially viable within that comfortable bubble. But I find the comparisons with TNA a little odd - there is no suggestion of ROH growing beyond what they currently are. We can't forget that TNA are a company who once drew over two million viewers, head-to-head against RAW. I will entertain the idea of ROH being any sort of competition to WWE the second they show the ambition to be so.

Nothing worked because they booked and presented their show and brand so badly. Even the name TNA is so bush league. TNA tried lots of things but they had very little distinctive about them for anyone to buy into. A company without an identity.

I don't know why they never fully re-branded everything as Impact Wrestling.
Keeping the TNA name didn't really make any sense if they wanted a new image, regardless of any negative connotations the initials may have in other contexts.