TNA having financial problems?

[Michael Coello]

Mar 26, 2010 21:45:45 GMT -5 Rorschach said:

Mar 26, 2010 21:34:35 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

Then you're getting into the whole "WWE-Rejects" arguement, where you either for or against judging people based on previous employer than actual experience or worth.

Ok, and I can understand that. Everyone might NOT have gotten a fair shake up north, and hey, some of these guys, as I said, still have a lot of career ahead of them. But here is where my issue really comes in....I think TNA made a big mistake in bringing them ALL in at once like they did. Part of what made the nWo work like it did was how it was paced. For a good little while (what, three weeks to a month?) it was just Hall and Nash showing up and talking smack and punking announcers. Then it progressed from there, and it was drawn out a bit so that it wasn't like WCW was saying that their OWN wrestlers weren't worthy of attention (I know...they did that eventually) but rather, it was a shock and a surprise when another former WWF guy showed up on Nitro amongst WCW talent. They didn't double their roster size overnight, as TNA has seemed to. They were still promoting their OWN wrestlers as stars, and still more or less providing a solid alternative to RAW.

With TNA, they've brought SO MANY ex-WWE guys in at one shot that it's congested all the top spots and programs with them. I understand wanting to get big "names" to pop big ratings....but there's only so much airtime per week, and when nine out of ten of your top programs revolves around ex-WWE talent...there's too much of it on display, IMO. Sure TNA stars are getting time too...but it doesn't seem like they're getting enough, or getting a fair chance to establish themselves and their characters each week. They weren't established as their OWN thing on Monday nights before being infused with talent from the WWE...so it makes it really, really hard to think of them as being their own company and not a "second choice" company for former WWE stars.

Except they're not making some nWo. All the guys brought in are working in different areas, and especially not as strong as they were shown then.

[xxshoyuweeniexx]

For the record, I'd be for ex-WWE talent if they were doing something revolutionary (we have no idea what the f*** Orlando Jordan is doing, so let's wait on that). Remember when Diesel and Razor Ramon, WWF midcarders, came to WCW? Remember the NWO that came from that? Remember all the good that came from that talent and that roster overall before it all went to hell? It was new, it was different, it was interesting. The thing is, The Bandpac isn't revolutionary like NWO. Hogan-Flair isn't revolutionary, neither are their avatars.

Is the revolution coming with this talent or...what?

[Michael Coello]

Mar 26, 2010 21:53:58 GMT -5 xxshoyuweeniexx said:

For the record, I'd be for ex-WWE talent if they were doing something revolutionary (we have no idea what the f*** Orlando Jordan is doing, so let's wait on that). Remember when Diesel and Razor Ramon, WWF midcarders, came to WCW? Remember the NWO that came from that? It was new, it was different, it was interesting. The thing is, The Bandpac isn't revolutionary like NWO. Hogan-Flair isn't revolutionary, neither are their avatars.

Is the revolution coming with this talent or...what?

Who's calling it a revolution? Since Day 1, it's mostly been them going about how, with Hogan in charge, it's time to party and stuff and other guys going after them to fight them on it.

[xxshoyuweeniexx]

Mar 26, 2010 21:55:45 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

Mar 26, 2010 21:53:58 GMT -5 xxshoyuweeniexx said:

For the record, I'd be for ex-WWE talent if they were doing something revolutionary (we have no idea what the f*** Orlando Jordan is doing, so let's wait on that). Remember when Diesel and Razor Ramon, WWF midcarders, came to WCW? Remember the NWO that came from that? It was new, it was different, it was interesting. The thing is, The Bandpac isn't revolutionary like NWO. Hogan-Flair isn't revolutionary, neither are their avatars.

Is the revolution coming with this talent or...what?

Who's calling it a revolution? Since Day 1, it's mostly been them going about how, with Hogan in charge, it's time to party and stuff and other guys going after them to fight them on it.

I get that, but I just hate how money is spent on a retread. Was there really need to waste money on a retread of NWO?

That was my whole thing, spending money on something worth while. I just felt it could have been spent wisely on something else.

[comahan]

Has anyone blamed the ninjas yet? Cause im fairly sure theyre responsible for this as well.

[Michael Coello]

You know, checking the roster, TNA doesn't have more than 70 wrestlers on payroll.

[greeby]

I felt TNA had a shot at being that youthful alternative, after BFG 09. Sting rode off into the sunset, Booker was gone, Steiner was winding down. The Turning Point double-whammy, the rise of the Pope. They even got Don West off the mic, which was the big stumbling block for me watching TNA.

Then the news that Hogan was coming in, which sounded like the biggest step backwards TNA could possibly make. Then when he showed up and all the cynical comments about who he was gonna bring with him turned out to be true. What I wonder is why it took the Impact Zone so long to start an "SOS" chant like they did at the last PPV

[soultsukino]

Wait, when did TNA start making a profit? Seriously, I was still under the assumption (from dixie's ownj words) that TNA operated at a million dollar loss every year.

[Rorschach]

Mar 26, 2010 21:53:50 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

Mar 26, 2010 21:45:45 GMT -5 Rorschach said:

Ok, and I can understand that. Everyone might NOT have gotten a fair shake up north, and hey, some of these guys, as I said, still have a lot of career ahead of them. But here is where my issue really comes in....I think TNA made a big mistake in bringing them ALL in at once like they did. Part of what made the nWo work like it did was how it was paced. For a good little while (what, three weeks to a month?) it was just Hall and Nash showing up and talking smack and punking announcers. Then it progressed from there, and it was drawn out a bit so that it wasn't like WCW was saying that their OWN wrestlers weren't worthy of attention (I know...they did that eventually) but rather, it was a shock and a surprise when another former WWF guy showed up on Nitro amongst WCW talent. They didn't double their roster size overnight, as TNA has seemed to. They were still promoting their OWN wrestlers as stars, and still more or less providing a solid alternative to RAW.

With TNA, they've brought SO MANY ex-WWE guys in at one shot that it's congested all the top spots and programs with them. I understand wanting to get big "names" to pop big ratings....but there's only so much airtime per week, and when nine out of ten of your top programs revolves around ex-WWE talent...there's too much of it on display, IMO. Sure TNA stars are getting time too...but it doesn't seem like they're getting enough, or getting a fair chance to establish themselves and their characters each week. They weren't established as their OWN thing on Monday nights before being infused with talent from the WWE...so it makes it really, really hard to think of them as being their own company and not a "second choice" company for former WWE stars.

Except they're not making some nWo. All the guys brought in are working in different areas, and especially not as strong as they were shown then.

You're still not getting my point. I wasn't trying to say that they ARE making an nWo v 2.0 with ALL of the ex-WWE guys. My point with that was that, rather than bring in new guys one at a time ALONGSIDE the TNA "originals" with the sort of patience and foresight that Bischoff HAD when he was doing the nWo....they've brought everyone that was on the market in at one fell swoop. They've not paced this well at ALL, and as a result, the "originals" (in my opinion) are being marginalized and minimized, and for new fans like myself who've already seen the exploits and characters of Kennedy, Hardy, RVD and Shannon Moore played out for ages in the WWE...we're not being given even CLOSE to as much reason to care about the originals as we are the "free agents".

Look, I guess what I'm getting at is...it seems like they're trying to cram an entire existence of a company into a single year. It took time for WCW to get established, and even when they DID launch Nitro to compete with RAW on Mondays, it was put over as it's OWN thing before they brought in Hall and Nash and the rest of the big name WWE stars that were "on the market". They had a distinct look and feel and flavor all their own, and they had stars of their very own that they pushed to titles, and made big deals out of. Seems like TNA, instead of first establishing their own identity and brand name on Mondays...they just skipped that step, said "Here's a bunch of guys you knew before and you watched them THEN...watch them now!" and they just tried to be NITRO at it's peak (complete with random signing of WWE talent) before they'd even BEGUN to be NITRO breathing down Vince's neck with hot young stars and fresh stories and exciting matches.

Just what it seems like to me. Maybe I'm the only one. I don't know.

[dh03grad]

TNA's purpose as a company at this point is to deliver quality ratings to Spike. It is a television driven company rather than WWE which is PPV/ live show driven. If TNA continues 0.9 ratings with the large recent expenditures, Spike/ Bob Carter will close the check book. I look at Hogan and all of the signings as 2010 being the hail mary bomb for TNA. If this fails, Bob Carter will either sell the company to Bischoff or fold.

[JMA]

And as for people to dump:

Bubba the Love Sponge
Chelsea
Jimmy Hart
The Nasty Boys
Desmond Wolfe
Jeremy Buck
Jesse Neal
Hermie Sadler
Shark Boy
Rhino
Eric Young

That would free up some much needed space.

[donners]

Mar 26, 2010 20:41:13 GMT -5 Dave at the Movies said:

I'm going to call major newz on this. TNA has been making a profit for like almost four years now. Sure they may not be doing big business like WWE but they are far from suffering financially. How in the hell would Meltzer or Behrens know about how TNA is doing financially? I know they have stooges on the inside but even those backstage wrestling ring crew guys wouldn't know about TNA finances.

Only two years, and that's after six years of losses. The expenditure under Hogan would be massive, not just from the talent, but putting on live shows is a far greater expense.

[azz0r]

"The almost rise, nah didnt rise, and fall of TNA" DVD is going to make more money than TNA ever did.

[Michael Coello]

Well, what makes live TV so expensive versus taped?

[donners]

Mar 27, 2010 6:43:02 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

Well, what makes live TV so expensive versus taped?

It was a TNA official who said it just after the first live Monday show. I think it could have been Bischoff.

I presume they have to have a lot more people involved in production, as rather than having four days to edit it right, they have a matter of seconds (at least every second week).

Also, they can't split three shows over two nights like they often did, which really increases the costs for workers - pay per appearance, travel, etc.

[slickster]

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.

[Michael Coello]

Mar 27, 2010 7:34:41 GMT -5 @slickster said:

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 doubt you sell much papers if you write how all feds, not just TNA, are all fine and dandy.

[Spudz]

Mar 26, 2010 22:10:31 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

You know, checking the roster, TNA doesn't have more than 70 wrestlers on payroll.

I think on air talent is included in that peformer count.. The current count I have is 48 male wrestlers including Foley and 10 female wrestlers.

Then you have several annoucers,interviewers and refs, and finally there Hogan, Bischoff, Flair, BTLS, Jimmy Hart, Chelsea and OJ's 2 friends that have roles on tv. Thats over 80 peformers and that not including the several security guards that we see just about every week.

[Michael Coello]

Mar 27, 2010 8:42:59 GMT -5 Spudz said:

Mar 26, 2010 22:10:31 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

You know, checking the roster, TNA doesn't have more than 70 wrestlers on payroll.

I think on air talent is included in that peformer count.. The current count I have is 48 male wrestlers including Foley and 10 female wrestlers.

Then you have several annoucers,interviewers and refs, and finally there Hogan, Bischoff, Flair, BTLS, Jimmy Hart, Chelsea and OJ's 2 friends that have roles on tv. Thats over 80 peformers and that not including the several security guards that we see just about every week.

I doubt their security guards are draining their finances deeply. Same goes for some people on the roster like Chelsea or OJ's associates.

[Mesousa]

Eric just PWNED Dave.

But yeah, at least TRY to fire peopel, TNA, you're not even using some of them!

Shark Boy is TNA's Funaki!