|
||||||||
TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV (Part 2) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#2301 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
|
Quote:
I think they reached their zenith but the market wasn't there. I thought they had a decent little setup in 2009 with a good tag division, good women's division, veterans, watchable story lines etc. The booking from 2006 - 2009 left a lot to be desired yet it wasn't what I'd call bad. But even then the likes of Booker T, Mick Foley, Sting, Kurt Angle and Kevin Nash didn't push them beyond that 1.2 average rating.
Even if Vince Russo, Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff had not any input, there is nothing to say Spike TV wouldn't have got bored after 10 years. There is nothing to say the product would be any better or any more marketable. Only thing you can conclude is that Panda Energy wouldn't have burned as much cash.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2302 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,925
|
Quote:
Spike were paying at least part of some of the big contracts, certainly Hogan's. So while they were clearly determined to help TNA develop, if those sorts of people weren't brought in while adding little value, Spike might have been more willing to stick with them. If TNA had managed to stick to their late-2009 booking model, I think they would be in a far healthier position today. 2010-11 really derailed them big time.
Theoretically anyway. TNA didn't have a good reputation as a product or as a business so nothing to say those 3 would have signed. The original business model - that got them on national TV in the first place - heavily involved bringing in then hot indie prospects such as Samoa Joe, Homicide, Austin Aries and Alex Shelley. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2303 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,669
|
Quote:
But what are these "terrible decisions" which sunk TNA? I actually remember arguing with you about this more than a year ago (nostalgia
), and I thought, and I still do, that most of the "terrible decisions" you cited made perfect sense for TNA to do at the time, and in many cases were things which their critics were urging them to do!Quote:
I'll be fair: I think if TNA had been the best, most innovative and exciting wrestling product TV had ever seen, Panda's gamble would have paid off and it would have reached WCW levels. As it was, it was booked pretty much about as well as any other wrestling promotion: Not really good, not terribly bad.
Yeah it could have been, but TNA management had no idea what type of product to put out and decided to push old WWE guys on top when it should have created new stars. Look at when TNA went head to head with Rawhttp://www.wrestlecrap.com/induction...-award-winner/ Bloody hell, that was awful. Quote:
As it was, in a market where interest in wrestling was declining anyway, that wasn't good enough. I absolutely don't buy the "TNA was booked and run completely incompetently" line. It was run fine by wrestling standards - that just wasn't good enough in challenging times.
TNA has been booked appallingly for a large part of it's existence. Consider this aspect. TNA did consistently higher PPV buyrates when they were on Fox Sports Net than they did when they were on the much larger watched Spike TV out with the 2 Joe vs Angle PPVs.A channel that had nowhere near the audience of Spike, but TNA were able to convert more people into buying their PPV's than a much larger Spike audience. That means the product booked in the Spike years wasn't good enough to get people to invest in their product. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2304 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
|
Quote:
Booking old guys on top. Not creating new stars. Producing a cheap WWE product instead of creating a genuine alternative. Doing house shows consistently when it was clear early on that they couldn't draw an audience. The same applies for PPV's in which they made the cutback decision way later than they should have.
Yeah it could have been, but TNA management had no idea what type of product to put out and decided to push old WWE guys on top when it should have created new stars. Look at when TNA went head to head with Raw http://www.wrestlecrap.com/induction...-award-winner/ Bloody hell, that was awful. TNA has been booked appallingly for a large part of it's existence. Consider this aspect. TNA did consistently higher PPV buyrates when they were on Fox Sports Net than they did when they were on the much larger watched Spike TV out with the 2 Joe vs Angle PPVs. A channel that had nowhere near the audience of Spike, but TNA were able to convert more people into buying their PPV's than a much larger Spike audience. That means the product booked in the Spike years wasn't good enough to get people to invest in their product. I don't really agree that cutting back PPVs sooner would have made much difference. Neither of us has any idea which house shows lost money. I don't actually think the product has ever been that similar to WWE in tone. But what I disagree most about is the hyperbole which always seems to be used when criticising TNA. "TNA management had no idea what type of product to put out". "TNA has been booked appallingly for a large part of it's existence". Absolutely not true, in my opinion. This hyper-critical language is what plagues the dirtsheets and some internet forums when they talk about TNA. Some people seem unable to talk about TNA in balanced terms. Yes, it could have done some things better, so could any company, but "booked appallingly"? No, I don't think that's accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2305 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Quote:
But what are these "terrible decisions" which sunk TNA? I actually remember arguing with you about this more than a year ago (nostalgia
), and I thought, and I still do, that most of the "terrible decisions" you cited made perfect sense for TNA to do at the time, and in many cases were things which their critics were urging them to do!I'll be fair: I think if TNA had been the best, most innovative and exciting wrestling product TV had ever seen, Panda's gamble would have paid off and it would have reached WCW levels. As it was, it was booked pretty much about as well as any other wrestling promotion: Not really good, not terribly bad. As it was, in a market where interest in wrestling was declining anyway, that wasn't good enough. I absolutely don't buy the "TNA was booked and run completely incompetently" line. It was run fine by wrestling standards - that just wasn't good enough in challenging times. I too remember that discussion and like you stand by they were right, I stand by my opinion a lot of them were wrong. I don't think anybody was calling for TNA to move into Raw's timeslot. Some of the decisions, out of the Impact Zone, going live, going on the road, I kind of agree with it's the way they quite obviously went into not realising how much these things were going to cost or they wouldn't have had to return to Orlando. So I suppose you're right that the decisions were right but the way they did them wasn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2306 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
I don't buy that TNA was booked an run COMPLETELY incompetently but there are quite obviously issues with the way TNA have been booked and ran or we wouldn't be in the position we are now watching a company slowly deteriorate.
|
|
|
|
|
#2307 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,669
|
Quote:
I don't really agree that cutting back PPVs sooner would have made much difference. Neither of us has any idea which house shows lost money. I don't actually think the product has ever been that similar to WWE in tone.
Quote:
But what I disagree most about is the hyperbole which always seems to be used when criticising TNA. "TNA management had no idea what type of product to put out". "TNA has been booked appallingly for a large part of it's existence". Absolutely not true, in my opinion. This hyper-critical language is what plagues the dirtsheets and some internet forums when they talk about TNA. Some people seem unable to talk about TNA in balanced terms. Yes, it could have done some things better, so could any company, but "booked appallingly"? No, I don't think that's accurate.
Are they a profitable business? With all the things that they have had at their disposal such as good TV deal and great talent, have they made themselves a consistently profitable company? No they haven't. Wrestling is a business. You're suppose to make money. You're suppose to create stars and create a product where people want to see what happens next and get emotionally invested in the product so they will financially engage with the product. TNA with all of the things they had at their disposal, have failed to do this.As for Newsletters, regardless if they're for or against TNA, which they aren't, it doesn't make a difference. They're read by such a small proportion of the wrestling fanbase, they have no impact (pardon the pun) on the majority of the viewing audience and their views of TNA. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2308 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,121
|
Quote:
They were losing money on every PPV, especially when their PPVs were live. It costs a lot more money to broadcast live due to paying for satellite time. If they had made the switch to taped shows in order to see out their contractual obligations earlier, they would have saved millions.
Are they a profitable business? With all the things that they have had at their disposal such as good TV deal and great talent, have they made themselves a consistently profitable company? No they haven't. Wrestling is a business. You're suppose to make money. You're suppose to create stars and create a product where people want to see what happens next and get emotionally invested in the product so they will financially engage with the product. TNA with all of the things they had at their disposal, have failed to do this. As for Newsletters, regardless if they're for or against TNA, which they aren't, it doesn't make a difference. They're read by such a small proportion of the wrestling fanbase, they have no impact (pardon the pun) on the majority of the viewing audience and their views of TNA. ![]() (Online Wrestling obsessives are a minority just like in any other media)
|
|
|
|
|
#2309 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,700
|
Wrestling died many years ago. It's just hanging on by a thread. No one apart from die hard fans realy cares about it or wants to watch it. There's nothing new to see. There's just too many good things on TV just now and wrestling is a TV show at the end of the day.
I think the biggest mistake Dixie made was not letting a small group of people who were on the same page do the booking. It seems like from it's very existance the booking committees, even when they were at their smallest of 3 people, always contained people that never agreed on what wrestling should be. Jim Cornette said he never had 100% control of the booking, Vince Russo also said during his entire time there he never wrote a show on his own, it was always changed or compromises made, Dutch Mantell said the same, then Eric and Hulk came in and then they had input. I think that's why it came off as WWE Lite sometimes because you had bits in there that was very much like a WWE show and then others had the good womens wrestling, other parts had good X Division. It's like a little bit of everything rather than just one coherent vision. With that being said I'm not sure any of those guys should have had 100% control of the booking. I feel as though it should be someone with no wrestling background at all. I know Vince Russo is the only one on that list that would fit the bill but he's older aswell. You see the problems WWE are having just now. This is what happens when you have wrestlers and people in the wrestling business in charge of the shows. In many ways the Attitude Era changed wrestling so much and changed people's views of it that they can't really go back to an older style like the mid 90's or 1980's style. That is why the Attitude Era worked so well, people were sick of that style where it was embaressing to watch. I think TNA need people that have nothing to do with wrestling, who are talented writers, who can draw from other television shows and what people are watching in 2014, what is popular and translate that to wrestling and THEN have your old timers step in, your 50 and 60 year old veterans lay out finishes for matches etc but have them nowhere near the booking sheets. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2310 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,163
|
You realise that current WWE, which you are also very critical of, is completely filled to the brim with TV writers?
And there have always been good things on TV. I'm not really certain that this is some golden age packed to the brim with such great shows that people just don't have time for wrestling. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2311 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,700
|
WWE might be full of TV writers but WWE has no storylines, a bunch of characters i can list on one hand. WWE is wrestling in it's very basic form. They don't give you a reason to tune in the following week. It's just match after match after match that mean nothing, the talent isn't over anyway. If you love wrestling you'll love WWE. Even Jim Ross said asked is he meant to care? Is he supposed too boo Bray Wyatt, is he supposed to cheer Dean Ambrose? I can't find a reason to cheer for Dean either nor can i find a reason to boo Bray. The basic fundamentals aren't there, it's just plain wrestling.
I think Russo got it right about the writing staff in WWE today. I think WWE became a public company, they wouldn't have understood about bookers and writers and agents so the writing team was made to try and make it look like an entertainment company, like a smokescreen and of course Vince and Kevin Dunn would love people to think they are big TV producers and in the movie business. He also knows Vince McMahon was devasted when he and Ed Ferrara left in 1999 and left him on his own and he had to get people to write TV without them there, in the same style they were writing in and maybe this big idea of a creative team was put together so that this couldn't happen again. If one or two writers left then it wouldn't matter because there would be plenty more left to take over their spots, Vince would never be left on his own again. But those writers aren't doing anything. There's no stories, no girlfriends, managers, backstage shenanigans, heel turns, face turns, grudge matches. There's nothing that would keep you watching every week for 5 hours. The bare minimum is being done to keep the company in profit. To watch WWE for 5 hours a week you'd need to absolutely love wrestling and the same goes for the Network. You'd need to love wrestling so much that 5 hours a week isn't enough for you, you want to watch it for hours every single day, you love it, you just can't get enough of it. And now WWE is realising that the number of fans they have that are like that is tiny. They get 4 million on a Monday night and only a tiny tiny percentage of them are actually willing to spend money on their product. What that means is that even for the die hard fans every week, they're quite happy to watch it but not buy a ticket to a show or buy the PPV, even at a measly $10 per month. TNA would do well to look at that. Look at those 4 million viewers on a Monday night and then that combined 730,000 Network number that is WORLDWIDE, and ask themselves how many of them are USA based? Infact I'd go as far as saying that 700,000 is the number of die hard wrestling fans WORLDWIDE. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2312 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,163
|
If I love wrestling I'll love WWE? Not so. The matches aren't actually that good and there's no pretence of competition. Wrestling is as much about selling a story and the psychology of a match, which isn't really evident in most WWE bouts. The majority of the shows feel like going through the motions. The idea that wrestling itself is bland and boring is misguided because it isn't a representation of what wrestling is supposed to be. Even traditional NWA 'rasslin was based around characters, feuds and a sense of genuine competition.
And the idea of Russo and Ferrara are some sort of cornerstones of wrestling writing is somewhat baffling. Russo has no sense of logical storytelling which can be fun in the right moment (some of the crazier elements of WWF 1999) or intelligence insultingly bad. Also, your message seems to be confused. WWE is full of non-wrestling people and the storylines are barely existent so the solution is more non-wrestling people? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2313 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,633
|
Take this as you will, but a reporter for MMA has tweeted that TNA are officially done with Spike. I know there has been talk that the talks with them are ongoing, but this appears to put paid to that notion.
https://twitter.com/jeremybotter/sta...60878659661824 Botter seems legit and not your typical "reporter" who is nothing more than someone who writes an opinion piece for a dirtsheet. |
|
|
|
|
#2314 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
|
Quote:
They were losing money on every PPV, especially when their PPVs were live. It costs a lot more money to broadcast live due to paying for satellite time. If they had made the switch to taped shows in order to see out their contractual obligations earlier, they would have saved millions.
Buyrates were consistently around the 10,000 mark in the USA, but TNA received a lot of money from selling them to other countries - as evidenced by the fact the 'One Night Only' PPVs were simply to fulfill contractual obligations to stations like Challenge, who had paid for 12 PPVs a year. Dixie stated in an interview a while back that the move to 4 PPVs was a creative decision rather than a financial one, and actually ended up costing the company money. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2315 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,669
|
Todays update on WrestlingObserver.com Quote:
This is an update on the TNA television situation. On Wednesday, sources at Destination America believed they had a deal with TNA and those in the TNA office believed an announcement was being made on Thursday. It is possible they will wait until after the TV show on Wednesday to make the announcement so they don't come across as lame duck on Spike, which was nice enough to keep them on the air past the contract expiration to allow them to not disappear off the radar before a deal is made. Spike officials last night were openly talking that they are getting out of the pro wrestling business. This decision was made a long time ago, but it was always said to me off the record because Spike publicly didn't want to make it look bad for TNA and wanted to be a good partner on the way out. But all the talk about negotiations continuing for the past few months regarding a renewal was never the case. Whether the "Best of" shows air 12/3 to 12/17 or 12/31 is not a sure thing. We were told midweek that this Wednesday would be the final show on Spike and the best of's were not happening by someone on the wrestling side, but Spike told us that 12/3, 12/10 and 12/17 were a go, and 12/24 and 12/31 were up in the air and a final decision hadn't been made. It should be clear later this week whether they will do any of those previously announced show, past the point Spike will not air wrestling on 11/26.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2316 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,633
|
If it's true that they're moving to Destination America then good for them. In one respect, it'll all but relegate them to the status of an indie promotion as they'll most likely not have the kind of money they had when they were on spike and they'll have less of an opportunity to actually build any more of an audience, but in another respect, considering the various contracts they've got worldwide, they'd still be considered a fairly big player in the Pro Wrestling market.
|
|
|
|
|
#2317 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,121
|
Quote:
If it's true that they're moving to Destination America then good for them. In one respect, it'll all but relegate them to the status of an indie promotion as they'll most likely not have the kind of money they had when they were on spike and they'll have less of an opportunity to actually build any more of an audience, but in another respect, considering the various contracts they've got worldwide, they'd still be considered a fairly big player in the Pro Wrestling market.
|
|
|
|
|
#2318 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,633
|
Quote:
I can't believe how crap that destination America channel is! 👎 ... It makes challenge look like ITV1 in comparison! 🙈 ... I won't be bothering with TNA anymore! 😥 ... It'll be like watching an old dog (that needs putting down) suffering for nowt! 💔
If they're going to be on significantly less money then obviously they most likely won't be able to sign anyone to big contracts and will have to rely on the bigger names working for less money - Bobby Lashley has already apparently said he's not walking away from them, so it's not out of the question that others could follow suit. It'll also give them the opportunity to use lesser known names and actually get back to the roots of what got them to where they are today and that's straight up wrestling. Obviously they could cock it all up royally and it could all look horrible, but I certainly think they should be given a chance. |
|
|
|
|
#2319 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,633
|
Just reading this morning that while they'll have less money on the new network, they'll have more opportunities as they'll basically be the biggest brand on the whole thing.
I guess that potentially means more programming - maybe Impact and a seperate knockouts show or something like that ? The term used is that they can basically "start again" which seems more accurate, albeit a shame after being in business and on-air for over ten years. |
|
|
|
|
#2320 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 3,703
|
Quote:
The term used is that they can basically "start again" which seems more accurate, albeit a shame after being in business and on-air for over ten years.
At least they have some good talent - assuming that they can keep them on less money. Interesting that Lashley has indicated he's staying. Away from the circus antics of King and MVP he's far better and more impressive than I thought he'd be. It'll be very interesting to see how TNA moves forward now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2321 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,121
|
Quote:
I agree - in some ways it's good that TNA can kind of go back to basics, but it is a real shame that they have to start again after ten years.
At least they have some good talent - assuming that they can keep them on less money. Interesting that Lashley has indicated he's staying. Away from the circus antics of King and MVP he's far better and more impressive than I thought he'd be. It'll be very interesting to see how TNA moves forward now. (gonna stick with wwe & LU) ![]() They're dead now imo! 😥 |
|
|
|
|
#2322 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
|
Quote:
Wrestling died many years ago. It's just hanging on by a thread. No one apart from die hard fans realy cares about it or wants to watch it. There's nothing new to see. There's just too many good things on TV just now and wrestling is a TV show at the end of the day.
I think the biggest mistake Dixie made was not letting a small group of people who were on the same page do the booking. It seems like from it's very existance the booking committees, even when they were at their smallest of 3 people, always contained people that never agreed on what wrestling should be. Jim Cornette said he never had 100% control of the booking, Vince Russo also said during his entire time there he never wrote a show on his own, it was always changed or compromises made, Dutch Mantell said the same, then Eric and Hulk came in and then they had input. I think that's why it came off as WWE Lite sometimes because you had bits in there that was very much like a WWE show and then others had the good womens wrestling, other parts had good X Division. It's like a little bit of everything rather than just one coherent vision. With that being said I'm not sure any of those guys should have had 100% control of the booking. I feel as though it should be someone with no wrestling background at all. I know Vince Russo is the only one on that list that would fit the bill but he's older aswell. You see the problems WWE are having just now. This is what happens when you have wrestlers and people in the wrestling business in charge of the shows. In many ways the Attitude Era changed wrestling so much and changed people's views of it that they can't really go back to an older style like the mid 90's or 1980's style. That is why the Attitude Era worked so well, people were sick of that style where it was embaressing to watch. I think TNA need people that have nothing to do with wrestling, who are talented writers, who can draw from other television shows and what people are watching in 2014, what is popular and translate that to wrestling and THEN have your old timers step in, your 50 and 60 year old veterans lay out finishes for matches etc but have them nowhere near the booking sheets. Well, I honestly think it just needs to move with the times; move into the twenty-first century. It has occasional moments of doing that - mostly involving Punk, Aries, Bryan, some actual humour or an actual reference to the real world or real, plausible human opinions or feelings! Wrestling needs to stop being a pastiche of itself. Will that happen in the foreseeable future with WWE, or with the new TNA (if it goes ahead)? Well, I actually do think we're living in a new TV golden age. TV generally is quantum leaps ahead of where it was ten years ago in terms of quality. So in order to keep up (and actually stay on TV), I think wrestling is going to have to make some serious changes in the next few years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2323 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
we need a new attitude era!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ffs been nearly 20 years
stop holding back and making safe wrasslin shows. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2324 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,669
|
Quote:
we need a new attitude era!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ffs been nearly 20 years
stop holding back and making safe wrasslin shows. Quote:
No Era, Attitude or otherwise can ever comeback. Eras are past tense , Not even present tense. Such as the here & gone term "Reality Era"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2325 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: U.K
Posts: 638
|
New U.S TV Deal Announced
No change to UK broadcast as TNA IMPACT Wrestling signed a new multi-year agreement with Challenge back in January.
http://www.impactwrestling.com/news/item/6216 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpP2mL7ceHc |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:03.





