Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2010 12:06:34 GMT -5
Well, what makes live TV so expensive versus taped? You have added production costs plus you have to pay more staff, buy satellite time, have TV trucks there and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Mar 27, 2010 12:34:31 GMT -5
I doubt TNA didn't plan to take a potentially huge loss for a year or so when they signed Hogan and Bischoff. Do you really think that Dixie Carter thought that if she signed a bunch of big names profits would increase by truck loads and there wouldn't be any chance of a loss?
TNA is a smart company money wise. I don't doubt that they are likely taking a decent sized loss. However I think that they have every cent accounted for and then some. If TNA is projecting a 10 million dollar loss I think that they have 15 million set aside to help in take that loss.
When they brought Hogan on they knew he was going to be expensive and there was a possibility of not moving the needle right away and thus intaking more salary without seeing more money coming in.
So yeah I think TNA is doing OK they planned for the possibility of huge losses or else they wouldn't have brought Hogan and all of his buddies in.
|
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Mar 27, 2010 13:47:36 GMT -5
By comparison, it costs an estimated $100,000 A WEEK in production costs to do a live Monday Night Raw broadcast. Even if it only costs TNA $25,000 a week to do TVs that's a pretty big investment. And why the hell would Dave Meltzer make up bad NEWZ about TNA? It's in his financial best interest for TNA to succeed as that would help the wrestling industry and would by extension mean more money in his pocket. See also Alvarez's 'Gold Boat' theory. He wouldnt. If Dave Meltzer was wrong "80%" of the time, his newsletter would not be in print since 1980. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2010 14:30:37 GMT -5
Unless we have TNA's financial records in front of us, how the heck would any of us (including Meltzer) know how they are doing financially?
But yes, I fully endorse Hogan doing another "observe this, brother!" promo at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Mar 27, 2010 14:53:47 GMT -5
Well, I presume Dave Meltzer has plenty of connections within TNA including office people he talks with regularly. If he's going to say something like this he's got a good reason to do so.
Remember, he KNEW about the Bret Hart-WWE deal before it was announced but chose not to say anything concrete so that none of his sources would be punished for leaking it.
Dave chooses to not go into detail on some major stories until other parts of them are leaked first so he can protect his sources. That might be the case here.
|
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Mar 27, 2010 15:33:54 GMT -5
Well as quick to write off Meltzer as knowing nothing about TNA finances as some have been the same can be said to those who keep saying TNA has been making a profit the past couple years. The only proof anyone has is that 'somebody said it at some point.'
I think TNA's finances would make for very interesting reading, I'd like to think they are making a ton of profit but I doubt that is likely so soon after their recent 'expansion'. Doesn't WWE make most of their profit from PPVs and house shows? Are TNAs PPV buys and house show attendance figures published? If so I would think that would be a good indicator of where they stand at the moment.
I think the whole theory that you NEED all of these old faces to put over the new guys isn't necessarily true, look at some of the biggest stars in recent memory....
The Rock - Wasn't put over by any big time old star as far as I can remember en route to the Main Event, was simply involved in hot angles with other new stars (Austin, Triple H, McMahon) and admittedly had formidable charisma.
Steve Austin - Admittedly was definately put over by Shawn Michaels but then through injury he disappeared for 4 years and the company was fine without him. Should TNA have just let Sting go once he put AJ over at Bound For Glory?
Triple H - Was put over by Austin to truly seal him as a main event player by Austin who was still relatively fresh to the top tier in 1999, other that that he was simply involved in hot angles with Rock, Vince, Foley and developed his character (The Game) to seal main event status.
Chris Jericho - Has anyone ever TRULY put Jericho over? Maybe the Austin/Rock in one night thing could be counted?
Hell you could even go back to Hulk Hogan's ascension, he beat The Iron Sheik who wasn't exactly a mega star on the way to becoming the hottest wrestler for the rest of that decade. It was his presence and charisma as well as the WWF 'machine' that truly got him over.
The WWF managed just fine without a slew of guys from previous generations in the late 90s and late 80s clogging up the roster. Then again you could argue the other way and say the WWF in the mid-90s suffered with the departure of Hogan amongst others though I personally feel this was more due to the cartoony, kid-freindly direction the company took.
I am not saying there is NO place for the old timers in TNA but what do The Nasty Boys really offer that Team 3D don't already? Personally I'd get rid of both teams. However I feel that Flair acting as a mouthpiece for AJ is a good move, Hogan having chosen guys to go against Flair's squadron is a good idea although I think Abyss is a very poor choice as his main guy. I like Abyss as a wrestler but he just doesn't fit in the role, I think he'd be prefect in a secondary role similar to face Kane in '99/2000. Not sure who I'd have in his place but if there isn't anyone then you should scrap the storyline rather than shoe-horn someone into it.
This has turned into a bit of a rant but to summarise I think TNAs long-term success rides mostly on the development of hot, interesting, fresh characters and storylines rather than the name value of Hulk Hogan. WWE had the right idea with Hogan, use him occassionally to pop a PPV buy rate, people will pay to see him in 'one more match' but once he's on weekly TV I think people who tune in to see him the first time grow bored of the same old schtick very quickly. TNAs future rests on guys like Pope, Anderson, AJ, Morgan, Wolfe, Storm & Roode, it is up to them to up their game not just in the ring but from an all round perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Mar 27, 2010 16:09:59 GMT -5
TNA's house show attendance and PPV buys are estimated since they don't have to release that information, unlike WWE.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 27, 2010 16:27:40 GMT -5
TNA: when you don't like the message shoot the messenger. Now Mr. Meltzer if you will put on this blind-fold and stand against that wall with Mr. Storm.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Mar 27, 2010 16:37:30 GMT -5
Well, I presume Dave Meltzer has plenty of connections within TNA including office people he talks with regularly. If he's going to say something like this he's got a good reason to do so. Remember, he KNEW about the Bret Hart-WWE deal before it was announced but chose not to say anything concrete so that none of his sources would be punished for leaking it. Dave chooses to not go into detail on some major stories until other parts of them are leaked first so he can protect his sources. That might be the case here. lol really? |
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Mar 27, 2010 16:40:13 GMT -5
YA RLY
|
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Mar 27, 2010 16:46:00 GMT -5
Even though TNA is recently saying they are making a profit, how much of that monetary gain is wiped out by paying staff members, wrestlers, different house show arenas, travel costs,etc. Running a wrestling company requires a lot of cash. Panda and Spike are covering the big name contracts and some of the day to day operations. But the overall cash reserves might be dropping down. Spike keeps the ad revenue from Impact. How long before Panda Energy stockholders demand that their investment in TNA to start to pay off? Bob Carter can decide at any moment to pull the plug.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 27, 2010 16:51:39 GMT -5
Well as quick to write off Meltzer as knowing nothing about TNA finances as some have been the same can be said to those who keep saying TNA has been making a profit the past couple years. The only proof anyone has is that 'somebody said it at some point. I think that's a pretty good point. They don't have to release financial records, so the idea that they're making a profit came from someone saying it a few years ago to a wrestling news writer and being taken as truth then. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Mar 27, 2010 16:54:33 GMT -5
The thing is, this is a conversation and story that's been talked about before, when they had Angle and Sting join in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Mar 27, 2010 16:58:36 GMT -5
I notice Bisch doesn't even actually address the point, just goes back to his 1990s bag of dirt sheet insults instead. And why the hell would Dave Meltzer make up bad NEWZ about TNA? It's in his financial best interest for TNA to succeed as that would help the wrestling industry and would by extension mean more money in his pocket. See also Alvarez's 'Gold Boat' theory. I've heard that theory. It's a good theory. "I DON'T EVEN CARE IF IT F***ING SINKS!" |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 27, 2010 17:04:49 GMT -5
The thing is, this is a conversation and story that's been talked about before, when they had Angle and Sting join in the first place. Until they're public, it always will be. But if there's anything that's going to fuel reasonable questions of their financial state, it's a time like this where they hire so many new people including some of the biggest names out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Mar 27, 2010 17:14:40 GMT -5
I would imagine that the finances aren't working out the way they wanted to. They're reducing house shows in the short term, and they've brought in a large influx of talent. Their revenue they get from Spike is on a contract basis, so that means it's a constant, and they're going to have to get their money from PPV buys, merch sales, and house shows. Their PPV buys are lackluster, and since they're paring down house shows, that's going to affect their merch sales. So I wouldn't be surprised if TNA is in the red again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Mar 27, 2010 17:18:11 GMT -5
Where is the house show talk about them reducing their number? Seems every week they add new shows to the calender.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2010 17:42:36 GMT -5
Where is the house show talk about them reducing their number? Seems every week they add new shows to the calender. It was something Bischoff said on Facebook. He was in favor of cutting or stopping house shows altogether to save cash for the time being. FYI: Saw Panda Energy's offices today around Spring Valley and Midway in Dallas, very Titan Tower looking, made me chortle. |
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Mar 27, 2010 20:41:27 GMT -5
It wasn't just Bischoff. I hear tell it's Hogan that was in favor of it, too. I don't know where they had house shows before, but they're staying within a day or so of Orlando. I think the furthest away they're going is a couple of dates in IL and MO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crusty Ruffles on Mar 27, 2010 20:51:12 GMT -5
As far as house shows, does it really pay to them to come to Green Bay when they draw maybe 100 paid? Sure, it was a great show and selfishly I'd LOVE for them to come back but...probably not.
Now somewhere they could *legit* draw and not have to paper the whole building...why wouldn't they? Scale back the house shows to where they can avoid papering the arena so heavily and they'd be good to go.
|
|
