This is pretty much exactly what I think, put a little better than I can!

The only guys I thought were worth the money in 2010 were Hardy and Kennedy. Nearly everybody else they brought in would have been more use in one shot cameo roles or at a legends convention. For a fraction of what they (Panda, Spike or both) were spending on the likes of Hogan, Flair, Hall, Nash, Sting, RVD in could have brought in Daniel Bryan and The Shield - well two of them anyway!

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.

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 think this is becoming a question of language and degrees. I broadly agree with one of your points: That TNA might have done better if they had made sure their "home grown" stars were always booked stronger than former-WWE guys.

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.

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.

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.

On one level TNA is a vanity project; regardless of whether rumours Panda wouldn't sell TNA to anyone who didn't agree to leave Dixie in the heel owner role on tv are true or not, the fact remains- Dixie is not a hugely talented performer but TNA are pushing her to the moon. She clearly wants to be a tv star.

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.

Seems TNA was created just to give dixie summit to pass her time & naturally her father got sick (after 10yrs) & pulled the financial plug! ..... & I agree most wrestling fans (like myself) don't bother trawling the net looking for scoops, they just watch & forget (about wwe / tna) until the next epi airs, I don't think dirtsheets have any real influence @ all!

(Online Wrestling obsessives are a minority just like in any other media)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

It is worth noting, however, that several sources have stated that TNA's monthly PPVs were in fact profitable.

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.

Todays update on WrestlingObserver.com

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.

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! 💔

I think that's a bit of a blinkered attitude to be honest. If that's where they end up, i think they should certainly be given a chance.

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.

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.

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.

They'll probably end up in sports halls & leisure centres (with only afew 100 people in attendance!) ... I've no interest in watching a totally watered down TNA! 💔

(gonna stick with wwe & LU)

They're dead now imo! 😥

I think this is the most perceptive post I've read on here for ages. Often nowadays I sit there watching RAW or Impact, bored out of my skull, and I think: "Have I just outgrown this?". But then I go back and watch a show from the mid '80s or late '90s and realise that no, wrestling from back then really did feel exciting and vital. Why doesn't it now?

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.

we need a new attitude era!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ffs been nearly 20 years

stop holding back and making safe wrasslin shows.

Sean Waltman

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