Page 2 of 30 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 1191

Thread: Impact Wrestling General Discussion

  1. #41
    Henchman 21
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    First off, TNA having Tito and Rampage pulled was a major positive for them. Those guys added nothing to the promotion at all in my opinion.

    As for how much pull Spike and Viacom may have over TNA, I still think it's at best minimal. Clearly they had influence on TNA bringing in the MMA guys, but not for one second do I believe that they're responsible for TNA letting the likes of Morgan, Joey Ryan, DOC, Mickie James, Tara and others go. That's on Dixie Carter and whatever issues the company is having. I do believe that TNA is in some trouble here; what I'm also saying though is that unlike WCW back in 2001, they'll be able to get out of trouble because their network still wants them and can bring someone in (whether it's themselves or another) to at least try something different. Till they aren't in control of Panda though, it's not good.
    Having them pulled at the time they were was not 100% positive simply that they were involved in major story lines at the time. This is where I question the influence Spike has on Impact. Now it might have been that whoever was making the decisions for TNA was clueless on the status of Tito and Rampage. Either way it made no sense to go the route they were going if they knew the two of them were going to be gone soon. Especially Tito as I really feel they were working on Bully breaking off with the entourage of female Brooke, Tito and Taz. With Tito gone it really hampers that.

    As far as if it would be better for Spike to keep/buy TNA or someone else that really comes down to who else would be interested in buying TNA. To really answer that we have to know how much money, connections and interest the other potential buyer has. Even staying with Spike would have a lot to do with how much Viacom is on board. We know that in the past MTV tried doing their own wrestling company/show to horrible results. But if they wanted to try again, going with an established company would be a good way to go. So if TNA could end up with shows on Spike and MTV and real backing by Viacom it would be good to stay there.

  2. #42
    They may have been involved in the storylines, but they added nothing to them. Bully is still breaking off on his own with Brooke and Taz, and the Main Event Mafia is doing whatever the hell they were supposed to be. If anything subtracted from those angles, it's the poor booking that has been going on.

    I wouldn't want MTV to go anywhere near TNA. As you said, they failed horribly with wrestling before (Wrestling Society X, that other promotion I can't remember, and even WWE Heat on there was a joke) and I frankly think they'd try to make it more into what their current image is, which TNA doesn't need. Really the only two entities that I think would be interested in buying TNA right now would be Spike/Viacom or (gulp) Bischoff; the guy wanted to buy WCW all those years ago and I'm sure he'd love to try again. I'm hoping there will be more suitors though if it does go up for sale. Hell, what's Ted Turner doing?


  3. #43
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,839
    I shudder to ask but since I haven't turned on MTV for almost ten years (watched the Beavis and Butthead returns online), what IS there current image?

  4. #44
    Reality Champ
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    6,693
    Quote Originally Posted by T.O. View Post
    I shudder to ask but since I haven't turned on MTV for almost ten years (watched the Beavis and Butthead returns online), what IS there current image?
    A lot of reality shows geared towards the 16-24 demographic. And The Challenge, which is the best show on TV.

    And WWE Heat wasn't a joke til the WWE made it a joke. Heat was really solid for several years before falling apart, that wasn't MTV's fault.

  5. #45
    Oliver
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    Here's a question; would it be better for Spike to buy TNA and own it themselves, or should someone else try to swoop in and buy the company?
    Possibly Spike buy it outright. The trouble is, who else can buy it, and run it, as a company? How much is it going to cost to buy? WCW cost Vince $3 million or something in that region, and it was haemorrhaging money at the time. TNA are trying to streamline their business so that it's a viable concern for someone to buy - perhaps that's the secret behind all of the releases? Carter's trying to smarten up their books to make a better sale? Without any really recognisable talent, though, what's it worth - somewhere in the hundreds of thousands? Maybe a round million?

    I don't think Vince would swoop in a buy them out ala WCW - it's not worth his bother. He'd do far better to let them go under and the hoover up the four or five talents that might be able to achieve something in WWE now (I'm thinking they'd scoop up the chance to resign Hardy for a couple of years, and Roode would be able to reach the main event in WWE with ease, Magnus could walk into WWE right now and reach the top in four years or so - he's got way too much potential for them to turn down the chance to have him, Aries could get in there, and then for some reason I feel like they'd be interested in Kenny King but I have no idea why) than take on a bunch of people on contracts who he'd have no use for.

  6. #46
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    Don't really buy any rumors of TNA getting sold off any time soon, but if they did Ollie is probably right about how it would go down. I think he may be underrating the price a little, especially if TNA still has a TV deal. The lack of being on television is the only reason WCW went out so cheaply, and while TNA has far less market penetration than WCW had they are still far and away the 2nd best known company in the US. Hard to say for sure though, who knows? I doubt WWE would buy it either way, there are quite a few talents they could use but not really any that they need by any stretch.

    And if they were interested in Kenny King, it would probably be because A. he's awesome and B. WWE seems to really want that African-American main eventer, and will likely hire any with even a marginal chance of reaching that level. To get a guy who is more or less Shelton Benjamin with mic skills would definitely not be a waste of their time.

  7. #47
    Oliver
    Guest
    If the rumours on Ethan are true and it is who the MP is saying it is, I'm on board with TNA for the near future at least.

  8. #48
    Henchman 21
    Guest
    When comparing WCW to TNA and possible buys many factors need to be looked at. For instance like Miz said WCW had no tv deal. Also Vince was buying the video library more than the promotion. TNA does not have the known names like WCW did but they do not have the huge contracts attached to those names either. Also it is a question of debt. It has been posted that TNA owes vendors but WCW might have also and possibly in even larger amounts.

    As far as MTV I do not want them writing for TNA. But if TNA could get on their network while doing their own thing it could be good. One of TNA's problems is exposure and marketing and being on MTV could help with that.

    One idea is where Universal could fit into this. From what I understand they did not want Impact to leave and they have connections in TV. So perhaps they could get involved. Not saying a full on purchase but work as partners. Again it could help with marketing not to mention TV production.

  9. #49
    The Underage Pessimist Subho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    899
    ^^ That.

    I thought it was another Judas Mesias kind of character when the news appeared, though.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post
    Pretty much this. Not really sure what happened exactly to cause the change, but they've definitely gone off the track I was enjoying so much earlier this year. I'm still enjoying Impact pretty consistently but they've gone down a bit while WWE came up in quality tremendously, especially compared to the first 6 months of the year.
    You're not sure what caused the change? You and Shane talked about it on your show. The Bound For Glory series, along with the dminished roster, and Kurt Angle's idiocy caused the change. They had to cram all their top tag teams into the BFG series in order to have one, making the tag titles completely irrelevant and destroying at least 6 months of story between 6 men. Then Kurt Angle decided to attempt murder and instead of being fired, as he should have been, they put him in rehab and had AJ Styles rush his transformation back to P1 in order to have Aces & Eights lose a member. The real question as to what's happening is, "Why was TNA unwilling to release Kurt Angle and have Main Event Mafia lose another member?" or at the very least, "Why didn't TNA have Chris Sabin fill the final slot in the 10-man tag?" I really think this was the night everything started to unravel for TNA. The double-switch of the X-Title and Option C from Aries to Sabin was ridiculous, as well, but they could have recovered from that. The decision to keep MEM instead of A & E and quick-turn AJ Styles because of it was just boneheaded and has screwed up the company for indefinite months to come. I also believe some of this is stemming from their other boneheaded decision to make Kurt Angle the second member of the HOF.

  11. #51
    Unless TNA is going completely belly up, I doubt Vince and WWE get involved. Part of the reason Vince bought WCW (other than the fact it was incredibly cheap) was because he wanted the extensive video library in order to make more money (which he's done a good job at as the WCW DVDs have proven to be quite popular) and because he wanted to continue WCW as a separate brand. The only reason that didn't end up happening was because he couldn't find a TV deal for it and because that Booker T-Buff Bagwell match was so awful that he gave up and went with the Invasion angle (Vince really has to stop with those split second decisions there). I don't think TNA has built up enough of a great video library for Vince to think he can make a buck off it, and he certainly isn't going to want to make it a separate brand. So to me he's out of the question.


  12. #52
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    I doubt TNA will just fold. There is definitely money to be made here.

    Marketing has always been an issue for TNA. They have a decent enough roster to garner some attention, but their live events pull no better than most indy events.

    I say keep Hogan on payroll, but cut his salary and appearances. Vince is the biggest authority in WWE, but only shows on screen a handful of times a year. Hogan should do something similar, and then be the advertising voice of TNA. When they are showing a Spike TV commercial for impact, have Hogan introduce it with his famous voice, and a shot of him on the screen. "This week on TNA wrestling, brother" and then have the standard Spike TV voice over guy give the highlights, and end it with Hogan with "Whatcha gonna do, brother". Maximize the time you have with him, without exhausting his name power. As an onscreen GM, you're not getting your money's worth since he's just not great at it.

    And the roster purge was necessary. TNA should have a revolving door of former WWE talents like and RVD, DOC (Gallows) and Mr Anderson, while keeping a select few homegrown talents under longer and better contracts. Guys like RVD should come in, win a couple, put over the TNA regular, and then walk away. No more than 12 month contracts at a time, while someone like Magnus should be signed for 3 years.

    As for the roster being top heavy, this is where they should have less restrictive contracts, and more pay per appearance or monthly contracts. Should Robbie E really be a regular? Let him work the indies.

    And, let Sting go. This isn't to benefit WWE in signing him, but there's only so much he can do for TNA, and what else is left? He's been GM, World Champ, put over younger stars, headed a stable, heel, face....etc. I doubt he's the most expensive talent on the roster, but I doubt he's worth what he's been paid at this point.

    And to finish off, this will probably be the most controversial note, let go of guys in the top who aren't being used much. Why is Samoa Joe still on the roster? He floats around the same level, but hasn't done a fucking thing. James Storm, Kurt Angle, and I'd even say AJ Styles are all expendable at this time. I'm not saying they are useless like Sting is, but it really feels like they are being held in TNA because of the fear of them being stars in WWE or in AJ's scenario because he's been there from the beginning. Well, so what? Let WWE scoop up Kurt, AJ, Joe and Storm. IT doesn't matter what they do with these guys. WWE won't hire 4 guys like that without dropping a few names from their roster. Would anyone be surprised if a Drew MacIntyre, Jack Swagger, Brodus Clay or Big E Langston end up released anytime soon? Maybe not, but there's bound to be releases if WWE hires former TNA guys to make room. TNA could pick these guys up, and suddenly there are no gaping holes in the roster. Or, if WWE doesn't hire them, hire guys like Chris Masters, John Morrison and MVP who would fit into those types of roles as well.

    I think it's a pretty strong fact at this point that the former WWE names aren't adding much to TNA in terms of brand growth. If Hogan, Sting and Angle have added to the ratings or buyrates, I don't think losing them now will hurt as much as they've gained. Bully Ray is the star. Let him shine. If in 6-12 months he's in a position to be let go, do it. He's older, and there's a lot of heel talent in TNA that can excel.

    TNA has to cut their budget. Cut down on pyro, excessive roster signings, live touring...etc. It's not the end, but the signs are there that it is looming.
    This is probably one of the best posts on the subject that I've seen.

    TNA doesn't need Joe, AJ or even Kurt Angle. It's like they keep them out of some sort of blind loyalty. When has the WWE ever done that?

    And if house shows aren't drawing (they aren't), then cut down on them. WCW completely stopped touring. I'd argue that it hurt them in the long run, but when their house shows were money losers it didn't make sense to do them.

    Put on a house show in a market a week or two (or a month) before tickets to a pay per view go on sale. Raise your brand awareness in that market for a reason, not just because you think that a company should tour. By this point they should have a pretty good idea of what markets their house shows do draw in, so they should steer their TV tapings to those markets if they're going to stay on the road (which I think that the should).

    And I understand that they don't want to be seen as "below" WWE, but they are. Lower pay per view prices. They were a pioneer in scaling back the number of PPV's (though I think they scaled back by two too many), now drop the prices. It costs, what, $45 for the PPV? More in HD! If their pay per views were $25, I'd buy every one on principle. It's an important argument that I had (and eventually won) with my partners: eventually you hit a point where you're making less off of a more expensive product because you're charging more than people are willing to pay.

    I would keep Hogan, but I'd try to get him out there into the world more and on TV less. It's like I said in another thread: Hogan has name value.

    He's a guy that any media person in any market, regardless of whether or not they want to cover wrestling, will be willing to speak to. But it's not his job to arrange interviews (unless that's in his contract, in which case I stand corrected). His main role should be touring and promoting TNA, not being on TV every week and exposing his age and newfound weakness on the mic.

    But he needs to be on a tighter leash. When he's out promoting TNA, he needs to toe a certain company line. No shooting, no talking about how he'd book things, no deciding live on air that James Storm should be champion and not Bobby Roode (though I think we can all agree that it worked out for the best). He needs to be coached in the art of media appearances, something that he clearly never was.

  13. #53
    Henchman 21
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    It costs, what, $45 for the PPV? More in HD! If their pay per views were $25, I'd buy every one on principle. It's an important argument that I had (and eventually won) with my partners: eventually you hit a point where you're making less off of a more expensive product because you're charging more than people are willing to pay.
    I agree in general they should look into lowering the price of their PPVs but it is a matter of how low and will it increase buys to make it worth it. For instance your suggestion is almost half. Thus they would have to almost double their buys to make it worth it. I mean a high number of buys looks good in reporting but really as the song says, it is all about the benjamins. On top of that they have to be careful of coming off as a poor product as they are trying to grow. By that I mean they are still exposing fans to their product and to low a price will could give them a cheap feel. Granted they are not on WWE level but contrary to what some might say they are not on level of some backyard promotion.

  14. #54
    Lowering the price I don't think makes them feel cheap; that will only happen if the production levels feel cheap (which in my opinion they don't). The only problem I'd have with lowering the prices for PPV's is that TNA doesn't hold that many as of right now. If they did one every month, lowering the price would be fine, but if they run just four during the year then they need to have great buyrates almost every time, otherwise they're in the same exact spot.


  15. #55
    Henchman 21
    Guest
    Do not underestimate the mentality of some people when it comes to such things. I remember hearing of a guy who bought a ski resort in MI and wanted to keep prices low so anyone could go skiing. Business was slow and he got feedback that people thought the place must be dumpy due to low prices. So he raised prices and business picked up. So while lowering prices some will not give them a cheap feel to some people a large dip in price could.

    The number of PPVs does not really factor into the price beyond what I said about lowering prices only works if it increases buys and at a higher percentage. Like if you cut prices in half you need to at least double the buys and that is just to break even. If you get more than double then it can be worth it.

  16. #56
    I get your point, but to Coach's original point, I don't think lowering it $20 dollars from it's current price would lead to people feeling TNA is cheap. If they lowered it to like $10 or even single digits, then I'd say that would be cheap.


  17. #57
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Henchman 21 View Post
    Do not underestimate the mentality of some people when it comes to such things. I remember hearing of a guy who bought a ski resort in MI and wanted to keep prices low so anyone could go skiing. Business was slow and he got feedback that people thought the place must be dumpy due to low prices. So he raised prices and business picked up. So while lowering prices some will not give them a cheap feel to some people a large dip in price could.
    That's a solid point, but it wouldn't have an effect in the TNA PPV business. People tune in weekly, and are constantly seeing advertisements for the shows with free TV. A ski hill doesn't have a free option to try it, or 16 hours of build up to the final event.

    I think the cheaper PPVs is a good idea, and it's something I've wanted WWE to do. Why should anyone the same price pay for Battleground as they do for the Royal Rumble? Keep the top PPVs at the current price, but drop the prices of a show like No Way Out, Battleground, Over the Limit or whatever. Do it once, and see the result. I suspect there's be more buys, but there's no way of knowing if it would mean more profit.

    In TNA's case, take the comment from COACH that they cut back too many PPVs, and add 2 more to the calendar at the cheaper price. Destination X on PPV for 29.95? That show might have been the exact point TNA flushed away their supposed momentum, but it was a very well built show. Or No Surrender, since that leads into Bound for Glory.

  18. #58
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,087
    I get the theory behind quarterly pay per views, but it seems to be backfiring. Rather than building up for three months to the PPV, they've started with the "free PPV" episodes of Impact and building toward them.

    Six PPV's per year give them fewer shows to try and convince people to order, but little enough time between shows that they're forced to build to the PPV's instead of "free" Impact episodes.

    Give special, bigger, events free on TV quarterly, rather than quarterly PPVs and PPV-quality Impact every month.

  19. #59
    Yeah, that's correct. Sure I have enjoyed the free PPV quality shows of Impact but I feel there should have been at least 1.5 to 2 month build to Bound for Glory. It wasn't possible because of the monthly free specials on the tv.

    Does NFL have PPVs? Is the PPV model worth following if they can't generate enough buys? Could they be earning more by completely moving to free tv and earning from advertisements and in-show advertisements? They do need someone from marketing to reach out to people, that much I am sure. And no need for someone from wrestling business either.

  20. #60
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,087
    When the ides of them dropping PPVs was floated, I had two ideas.

    One was the six PPV model.

    The other was to build to a monthly free show on Spike TV. Do it on a Sunday, like a PPV, and do it live from somewhere.

    I'd say to try it a few times and see what they get. It can only add ad revenue for Spike (what else are they airing worth advertising on, on a Sunday?) and TV rights for TNA.

  21. #61
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    TNA doesn't need Joe, AJ or even Kurt Angle. It's like they keep them out of some sort of blind loyalty. When has the WWE ever done that?


    I can think of quite a few other relatively useless members of the WWE roster, but that's not to say the point isn't well taken. A lot of good ideas in this thread as to the format of TNA's schedule. I really liked the idea of quarterly PPVs with "Clash of the Champions" style episodes of Impact in between, but the balance doesn't seem quite right after seeing it in action. Will be interesting to see what gets tweaked as they reassess what they want to do in the coming year.

  22. #62
    h8makingnames
    Guest
    Well, according to the main page Hogan is staying since they offered him more. Really doesn't make sense if they're cutting the budget.

    Also, I just realized there are only two face Knockouts left. There're what, five Knockouts in the company at the moment? Shouldn't one be a tweener?

  23. #63
    Henchman 21
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post


    A lot of good ideas in this thread as to the format of TNA's schedule. I really liked the idea of quarterly PPVs with "Clash of the Champions" style episodes of Impact in between, but the balance doesn't seem quite right after seeing it in action. Will be interesting to see what gets tweaked as they reassess what they want to do in the coming year.
    If the balance seems off due to the PPV like Impacts and them being two weeks that could be fixed if they do end up going back to a set place for Impact. I mean they may still due two weeks filming at a time but they could also do weekly live shows.

    As far as the resigning of Hogan I know a lot of people are saying it is for to much but all I have read is it was for a bit more than WWE offered and that he will be making for the year what Rock and Brock make per match. That does not seem much to me.

  24. #64
    Those guys make a ton of money per appearance dude. It's not as bad as I think some people will make it out to be, but when you are spending over 100,000 a year at least for one guy who doesn't wrestle when you are having financial issues (small or large) and could've used that cash for young talent, it's not a good move.


  25. #65
    Henchman 21
    Guest
    One of the biggest problems TNA has is marketing and name recognition. That is where Hogan has value. It has not been as good as it could or probably should be but he can garner attention for them. It will be interesting to see what kind of media blitz he does this year for BFG. I think TNA is banking on that and the potential for a nostalgic interest in Hogan that could happen at any time. When it comes to things that are popular it is like a roller coaster. Up and down. Look at Charlie Sheen. He was popular for awhile then he disappeared. He had a resurgence with Two and a Half Men then he had his melt down and started to fade, got some popularity thanks to his rants, was kinda quiet for awhile and now he is getting popular again. Now hoping for a spark of interest in Hogan is expecting a lot BUT it could happen. We have seen it happen before with him as his career has been up and down.

  26. #66
    That's way too much to ask for. Hogan has been doing the media blitz for BFG since he came in there, and it's really done nothing. Hell the only eventful thing he's done during the media build up is claim that Bobby Roode wasn't the guy, and that resulted in more controversy than anything else. On top of that, BFG is so close at this point that I don't really think we'll see him do that much media for it, which ultimately gives no gain to TNA.

    I won't deny that Hogan does give TNA at least a little bit of exposure, and I certainly won't fault him for taking their money (any one of us would've done it too). But from TNA's perspective, signing a guy back for at least a decent amount of money to give you not a whole lot when you could've gone and signed other people to me just isn't a good move.


  27. #67
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,839

  28. #68
    No. No. No. No. No. No.


  29. #69
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,839
    You asked for Hogan giving a little bit of exposure.

  30. #70
    That was the other guy!


  31. #71
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,839

  32. #72
    It's like looking at Hayden Christensen's career.


  33. #73
    h8makingnames
    Guest
    I wish Hogan would do what everyone wants him to do, die......rect to DVD sequels of No Holds Barred and Suburban Commando B-)

  34. #74
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    Argh...... please let it be a false rumor......

  35. #75
    Which rumor?


  36. #76
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    Just saw the Hogan thing today, was hoping it was unsubstantiated but seems to be true. Argh.

  37. #77
    Henchman 21
    Guest
    Could they be setting it up that Morgan comes back and apologizes to Hogan and says he now sees the bad decisions were Dixie's. Thus leading to a Hogan/Morgan team up. Hogan managing Morgan to the top. Probably not but a guy can dream.

  38. #78
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I doubt it is the plan. Maybe if Morgan comes back they can play back into that story, but there doesn't really seem to be any indication of that at the moment.

  39. #79
    h8makingnames
    Guest
    I was thinking the same thing, but having Hogan admit he made mistakes and now he's going to fix them.

    Well now MP says no contracts have been signed and they're still negotiating.

  40. #80
    I think this ultimately comes down to Hogan can suck it up and take less money from WWE to be a part of Wrestlemania XXX. I believe that's what he ultimately wants to do, but his ego concerning his pay is likely to be the biggest obstacle.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •