Stables are old.

[metylerca]

I seriously am convinced that there has been at least one multi-man stable in TNA at every point since it's inception. They're always out to "take over" TNA via chicanery. The concept is as dead as the on-screen authority figure. Can anybody point me to a time where there wasn't a heel stable trying to control the company or destroy it from within?

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

I don't think that the Christian Coalition was trying to take over. They were just dicking around.

[SOR]

WWE and ROH always have stables also. Where is there "Stables are old" thread?

[metylerca]

Aug 15, 2013 22:15:23 GMT -5 SOR said:

WWE and ROH always have stables also. Where is there "Stables are old" thread?

This isn't WWE or ROH discussion..

[metylerca]

Aug 15, 2013 22:14:36 GMT -5 El Cokehead del Knife Fight said:

I don't think that the Christian Coalition was trying to take over. They were just dicking around.

Was Planet Jarrett still around in 2007? That's when the Coalition was at it's strongest.

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

Aug 15, 2013 22:15:23 GMT -5 SOR said:

WWE and ROH always have stables also. Where is there "Stables are old" thread?

Because TNA are never without a heel stable running rampant?

[SOR]

Aug 15, 2013 22:16:59 GMT -5 metylerca said:

Aug 15, 2013 22:15:23 GMT -5 SOR said:

WWE and ROH always have stables also. Where is there "Stables are old" thread?

This isn't WWE or ROH discussion..

Yes basically my point is how come people don't have complaints about it when they do it?

I mean the WWE hasn't been without a stable for a long period of time in years nor has ROH. Every company does the stable thing it isn't a huge deal.

As for a time TNA didn't do a "take over" angle. Jeff Jarrett, AMW and Gail Kim in 05 come to mind. They wanted to dominate the company but not control it.

[metylerca]

Aug 15, 2013 22:19:42 GMT -5 SOR said:

Aug 15, 2013 22:16:59 GMT -5 metylerca said:

This isn't WWE or ROH discussion..

Yes basically my point is how come people don't have complaints about it when they do it?

I mean the WWE hasn't been without a stable for a long period of time in years nor has ROH. Every company does the stable thing it isn't a huge deal.

It isn't as rampant or to the forefront there, when it goes on, which isn't as often as TNA. This is a thread on the TNA board, I'm talking about TNA here.

[SOR]

Aug 15, 2013 22:21:26 GMT -5 metylerca said:

Aug 15, 2013 22:19:42 GMT -5 SOR said:

Yes basically my point is how come people don't have complaints about it when they do it?

I mean the WWE hasn't been without a stable for a long period of time in years nor has ROH. Every company does the stable thing it isn't a huge deal.

It isn't as rampant or to the forefront there, when it goes on, which isn't as often as TNA. This is a thread on the TNA board, I'm talking about TNA here.

Okay, Well in answer to your OP

1. Jarrett, AMW and Gail Kim never were trying to take over TNA. They just wanted to keep Jarrett on top of TNA

2. Kings Of Wrestling were never trying to take over TNA. They just felt Jarrett being on top was best for everyone

3. Team Canada. They felt Canadian athletes were best, never tried to take over TNA

4. 3 Live Kru were just dudes who wanted to hang out and have fun. Never tried to take over TNA.

5. The Beautiful People. Just girls who knew they were hot. Never tried to take over TNA.

6. Diamonds In The Rough. Stable about building guys up to eventually become a stable of champions. Never tried to take over TNA.

7. E.G.O. Current stable that are about dominating but not taking over

8. Main Event Mafia 2013. Current stable that want to simply end Aces and Eights.

9. Sertonin. Group dedicated to simply making Raven happy. Never wanted to take over TNA

10. The Front Line. Wanted to fight off Main Event Mafia didn't want to take over TNA.

I'm sure there's several others I'm missing also. 2 babyface stables in there but there's still 8 heel stables who didn't want to take over.

[Djm Doesn't Find You Funny]

Aug 15, 2013 22:31:14 GMT -5 SOR said:

Aug 15, 2013 22:21:26 GMT -5 metylerca said:

It isn't as rampant or to the forefront there, when it goes on, which isn't as often as TNA. This is a thread on the TNA board, I'm talking about TNA here.

Okay, Well in answer to your OP

1. Jarrett, AMW and Gail Kim never were trying to take over TNA. They just wanted to keep Jarrett on top of TNA

2. Kings Of Wrestling were never trying to take over TNA. They just felt Jarrett being on top was best for everyone

3. Team Canada. They felt Canadian athletes were best, never tried to take over TNA

4. 3 Live Kru were just dudes who wanted to hang out and have fun. Never tried to take over TNA.

5. The Beautiful People. Just girls who knew they were hot. Never tried to take over TNA.

6. Diamonds In The Rough. Stable about building guys up to eventually become a stable of champions. Never tried to take over TNA.

7. E.G.O. Current stable that are about dominating but not taking over

8. Main Event Mafia 2013. Current stable that want to simply end Aces and Eights.

9. Sertonin. Group dedicated to simply making Raven happy. Never wanted to take over TNA

10. The Front Line. Wanted to fight off Main Event Mafia didn't want to take over TNA.

I'm sure there's several others I'm missing also. 2 babyface stables in there but there's still 8 heel stables who didn't want to take over.

How are 1, 6, 7 not trying to take over?

Anyway, stables ARE old, but so are heel GMs, heel/face commentary teams, the Rock & Roll Express Formula for Tag Matches, and every babyface that has ever used their own variation of the Five Moves of Doom.

The wrestling industry isn't known for being very innovative very quickly. Of course, if TNA does do something innovative, it's bad because TNA.

[Emmet Russell]

Until they get rid of Lockdown as a PPV they will always have a stable feud - I just wish it wasn't the main focus each year. I'm still okay with stable warfare but it's hard to disagree it's getting a tad old by this point.

[Deleted]

I don't really mind stables. Right now two of my favorite things in WWE are The Sheild and The Wyatt Family. Chikara a company that I am a huge fan of had more then half the roster a part of different stables. Even an event named King of Trios that is great because of so many groups. But it is the execution in TNA that bugs me. It just seems like they shuffle members and roles and everything whenever they need a new stable. Who will be in the stable this time, who will fight against the stable this time, who will make a counter stable this time, who will be the "secret member" this time. It just recycles and recycles over and over. Its boring and predictable.

[Bram wants to 'urt you]

I just find it odd that no stable has ever kept horses.

[________ has left the building]

Aug 16, 2013 3:57:47 GMT -5 Bram wants to 'urt you said:

I just find it odd that no stable has ever kept horses.

Close enough.

[________ has left the building]

I have no problem with stables. I do have a problem with the super stable trying to take over the promotion. And TNA use this gimmick way too much.

[Deleted]

Stables like Daniels, Kaz and Roode are alright because they're not trying to TAKE OVER TNA or DESTROY IT FROM DA INSIDE.

TNA's has been lousy with these kind of stables for too long, but I'm sure people who just want to defend TNA will either just say "WWE did it" (the new Simpsons Did It around here apparently) or claim its different or acceptable because its TNA.