|
Post by angryfan on Dec 30, 2009 12:20:07 GMT -5
Well, it actually has. They're a financially secure, profitable wrestling company that's in no current danger of going out of business. Where was ECW after seven years? One year away from bankruptcy. OK, huge difference here. TNA, for years now, has had the financial backing of Panda Energy, to the point that Panda, and Spike TV, help cover the cost of certain wrestlers' contracts. ECW got money floated to it by Vince, but I dare say VInce wasn't paying RVD's salary from 1996 on. ECW had a network TV deal yanked because they couldn't get the kind of ratings the network wanted, because they "only got around 0.9 after a year". TNA's been on that same network (new name, but still) and is getting anywhere from the same rating to 0.3 higher after FIVE YEARS. Take away Panda Energy and Spike paying the big money contracts, make that come out of TNA's operating budget, and they're in far worse shape than ECW was.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Dec 30, 2009 13:29:22 GMT -5
Shoot: Hogan, Nash and Hall the poison has arrived.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Dec 31, 2009 15:06:26 GMT -5
Well, it actually has. They're a financially secure, profitable wrestling company that's in no current danger of going out of business. Where was ECW after seven years? One year away from bankruptcy. OK, huge difference here. TNA, for years now, has had the financial backing of Panda Energy, to the point that Panda, and Spike TV, help cover the cost of certain wrestlers' contracts. ECW got money floated to it by Vince, but I dare say VInce wasn't paying RVD's salary from 1996 on. ECW had a network TV deal yanked because they couldn't get the kind of ratings the network wanted, because they "only got around 0.9 after a year". TNA's been on that same network (new name, but still) and is getting anywhere from the same rating to 0.3 higher after FIVE YEARS. Take away Panda Energy and Spike paying the big money contracts, make that come out of TNA's operating budget, and they're in far worse shape than ECW was. I think you make an interesting point there because I had almost forgot about ECW's tenure on Spike. Heh, at least TNA isn't in that awesome spot between monster jam and rollerball.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Dec 31, 2009 16:02:28 GMT -5
Well, it actually has. They're a financially secure, profitable wrestling company that's in no current danger of going out of business. Where was ECW after seven years? One year away from bankruptcy. OK, huge difference here. TNA, for years now, has had the financial backing of Panda Energy, to the point that Panda, and Spike TV, help cover the cost of certain wrestlers' contracts. ECW got money floated to it by Vince, but I dare say VInce wasn't paying RVD's salary from 1996 on. ECW had a network TV deal yanked because they couldn't get the kind of ratings the network wanted, because they "only got around 0.9 after a year". TNA's been on that same network (new name, but still) and is getting anywhere from the same rating to 0.3 higher after FIVE YEARS. Take away Panda Energy and Spike paying the big money contracts, make that come out of TNA's operating budget, and they're in far worse shape than ECW was. Heck I remember ECW getting quite a few 1.0+ plus ratings, which was exactly what TNA gets. That is after alot of their top stars departed and was pretty much carried by RVD and Tommy Dreamer. TNA gets pretty much the same numbers and attendence with how many former WCW/WWE world champions? I think if they don't up their numbers soon they could be in serious trouble, I can't imagine Hogan came cheap. ECW only failed because Heyman had no concept of finance, if he knew how to balance books and had a strong financial backing like TNA I am sure ECW would still be around and probably a fairly sucessful #2 company.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 31, 2009 16:56:30 GMT -5
OK, huge difference here. TNA, for years now, has had the financial backing of Panda Energy, to the point that Panda, and Spike TV, help cover the cost of certain wrestlers' contracts. ECW got money floated to it by Vince, but I dare say VInce wasn't paying RVD's salary from 1996 on. ECW had a network TV deal yanked because they couldn't get the kind of ratings the network wanted, because they "only got around 0.9 after a year". TNA's been on that same network (new name, but still) and is getting anywhere from the same rating to 0.3 higher after FIVE YEARS. Take away Panda Energy and Spike paying the big money contracts, make that come out of TNA's operating budget, and they're in far worse shape than ECW was. I think you make an interesting point there because I had almost forgot about ECW's tenure on Spike. Heh, at least TNA isn't in that awesome spot between monster jam and rollerball. One other massive difference between ECW on TNN and TNA on Spike. TNN made ECW pay THEM to air their shows.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 31, 2009 18:22:05 GMT -5
I think you make an interesting point there because I had almost forgot about ECW's tenure on Spike. Heh, at least TNA isn't in that awesome spot between monster jam and rollerball. One other massive difference between ECW on TNN and TNA on Spike. TNN made ECW pay THEM to air their shows. ECW could have had the same support TNA gets if Paul E. wasn't an idiot. Spike paid for and produced the first show and Paul's little bitch fit about it not being "ECW enough" cause Spike to pull all support. People love to blame Spike for how that went but, it was Paul basically telling them to f off that caused the downfall, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by donners on Dec 31, 2009 18:29:08 GMT -5
Exactly. ECW alienated sponsors. TNA courts them. It's not a mere fluke that TNA has support where ECW didn't - that's good business.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Dec 31, 2009 19:20:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I can't see Dixie Carter going on TV to curse out Spike TV executives. And then I would only be even more strangely attracted to her.
|
|
deeks
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 264
|
Post by deeks on Dec 31, 2009 20:21:39 GMT -5
Heck I remember ECW getting quite a few 1.0+ plus ratings, which was exactly what TNA gets. That is after alot of their top stars departed and was pretty much carried by RVD and Tommy Dreamer. TNA gets pretty much the same numbers and attendence with how many former WCW/WWE world champions? I think if they don't up their numbers soon they could be in serious trouble, I can't imagine Hogan came cheap. ECW only failed because Heyman had no concept of finance, if he knew how to balance books and had a strong financial backing like TNA I am sure ECW would still be around and probably a fairly sucessful #2 company. Bad example. Ratings for wrestling were MUCH higher ten years ago when ECW was airing on what would become Spike. ECW was getting around a 1.0 for the period in late 1999 and early 2000 before the ratings tanked to a low of 0.6. Around that same time RAW was pulling in an average rating of about 6.3. Smackdown was peaking at 5.8. WCW Nitro was even doing over 3.0. Thunder was getting a solid 2.4. So ECW's 1.0 doesn't look so good. Now judge TNA's 1.0 against RAW's 3.2-3.4 and Smackdown which is hovering around 1.7-1.9. TNA's ratings are much better than ECW's when you realize how down ratings for wrestling overall are from ten years ago.. ECW couldn't draw an audience even in the late boom period of wrestling.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,465
|
Post by r. on Dec 31, 2009 20:45:07 GMT -5
Mmm-Mmm. Fresh, young and exciting talent! Instead watch raw and see the future of wrestling as those young lions DX capture our hearts with new and edgy material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2009 21:22:23 GMT -5
With huge names like Hulk Hogan, Scott Hall, and Sting on their roster, I can't help but wonder how big TNA will be heading into 1998!
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Dec 31, 2009 21:35:50 GMT -5
With huge names like Hulk Hogan, Scott Hall, and Sting on their roster, I can't help but wonder how big TNA will be heading into 1998! Hey listen man, I don't care what the sum total of thier ages is. The number tha should matter collectively is the number of Millions they all made. They are successful and have HUGE names. If you can have them it gives your show "the rub" and isntant credibility. You have to invest and risk to get reward.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Dec 31, 2009 21:41:37 GMT -5
Mmm-Mmm. Fresh, young and exciting talent! Instead watch raw and see the future of wrestling as those young lions DX capture our hearts with new and edgy material. Oooh right. Because WWE is constantly calling themselves the "future" of wrestling....right? Seriously though. I don't know what Scott Hall offers outside of nostalgia. Nostalgia pops only work if the guy ISN'T on TV every few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 31, 2009 22:20:55 GMT -5
Instead watch raw and see the future of wrestling as those young lions DX capture our hearts with new and edgy material. Oooh right. Because WWE is constantly calling themselves the "future" of wrestling....right? Seriously though. I don't know what Scott Hall offers outside of nostalgia. Nostalgia pops only work if the guy ISN'T on TV every few weeks. You made a snarky comment and got one in return. Now everyone can drop it.
|
|
|
Post by donners on Jan 1, 2010 1:36:16 GMT -5
With huge names like Hulk Hogan, Scott Hall, and Sting on their roster, I can't help but wonder how big TNA will be heading into 1998! Hey listen man, I don't care what the sum total of thier ages is. The number tha should matter collectively is the number of Millions they all made. They are successful and have HUGE names. If you can have them it gives your show "the rub" and isntant credibility. You have to invest and risk to get reward. What, like the credibility and popularity TNA had when Hall, Nash, Savage and co were there last time? The most-bought PPV of the weekly era was 30 April 2003, with Raven vs Jarrett. Not Road Warriors, not Sting, not Nash, Hall, Shamrock, Luger or anyone else, but a well-built storyline between two people generally regarded as midcarders. What they did 10-15 years ago does not matter nearly as much as what they have done lately, especially if TNA is looking to new/younger viewers.
|
|
Hanzo
Dennis Stamp
"You want Cena to go to ECW?!"
Posts: 4,666
|
Post by Hanzo on Jan 1, 2010 2:32:45 GMT -5
At least he has employment and will be earning a steady check, so that's good news.
Wrestling-wise, I'd like to see him team with Nash. Though I've never cared much for Hall, he and Nash do make a good team. And it'll give Nash a reason to use his tag title shot too. I just hope they don't do the nWo thing again. Ugh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2010 2:37:25 GMT -5
The WWE is still pushing old timers like HHH, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, and possibly Bret Hart. So I don't see why TNA is criticized for using Hall. It wasn't long ago that WWE main event pushed Ric Flair (nearly 60), and people kept going on about how his WM match was one of the greatest of all time. Ric Flair was Main Event pushed?
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jan 1, 2010 19:34:28 GMT -5
With huge names like Hulk Hogan, Scott Hall, and Sting on their roster, I can't help but wonder how big TNA will be heading into 1998! Indeed
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jan 1, 2010 20:07:54 GMT -5
Hey listen man, I don't care what the sum total of thier ages is. The number tha should matter collectively is the number of Millions they all made. They are successful and have HUGE names. If you can have them it gives your show "the rub" and isntant credibility. You have to invest and risk to get reward. What, like the credibility and popularity TNA had when Hall, Nash, Savage and co were there last time? The most-bought PPV of the weekly era was 30 April 2003, with Raven vs Jarrett. Not Road Warriors, not Sting, not Nash, Hall, Shamrock, Luger or anyone else, but a well-built storyline between two people generally regarded as midcarders. What they did 10-15 years ago does not matter nearly as much as what they have done lately, especially if TNA is looking to new/younger viewers. Sorry pal, I just disagree. That was a completely different era for TNA and Jarrett, Nash, Hall, Raven are not Hogan, Flair or Sting. Nobody knew that there even was another wrestling fed back then. So a buyrate for a show that only marks like us knew about, isn't an argument winner. Hogan is a draw. So is Sting, Flair and in thier own right when used with Hogan, Sting, Flair Nash and Hall are a garnish not the steak
|
|
|
Post by The Goob, phd (is Jobbing) on Jan 1, 2010 20:44:25 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|