FORUM HOME > Wrestling > US Independents
NWA-TNA doing something stupid.

AnubisPosted on 08/29/04 at 23:00:36

See, I'm not just all anti-WWE.  I'll call anyone who fucks up.

On that note, I seriously think NWA-TNA is over-hyping Jeff Hardy/Jeff Jarrett.  I know Hardy is talented and all, but in all honesty, he's not a credible main event at this juncture.  Despite that, they have Jarrett coming out saying this is the "biggest match of his career".  Who the fuck is responsible for that tripe?  Oh yeah, Russo.  Forgot.

Russo is an idiot.  He should be fired and strung up for his stupidity.  I'm sorry, Hardy can't handle the main event as of yet.  They haven't built him up properly.  He should be in the X-Division until he can work his way up.

Jarrett has taken on the likes of Ken Shamrock, Ron Killings, and A.J. Styles, yet Hardy is his biggest match ever?  Methinks this is idiotic.  Not a good way to sell their last weekly PPV.
Snabbit888Posted on 08/29/04 at 23:17:48

#1, from what I gather, Russo really doesn't have much (if any) creative power in NWA-TNA, so it's not his fault.

#2, Jeff Hardy is perceived as a big time wrestler coming to TNA.  I think he should be pushed as such.

#3, do you have anything positive to say about anyone or anything?  You're allowed to have your views and all, don't get me wrong, but you seem to hate 99% of everything wrestling related.  Why do you watch then?  Not an attack... I'm just curious as to what you really do enjoy.
AnubisPosted on 08/30/04 at 00:09:07

Fair enough question.  For one, I love the X-Division.  Petey Williams is already one of my new favorite wrestlers.  That flip piledriver is one one of the most awesome and convincing moves I've ever seen.

As for Jeff Hardy, don't get me wrong.  I like him.  I just think this is a case of "too much, too fast".  I don't see him as a legitimate threat to Jeff Jarrett.  Ron Killings was in a nice feud with him and then that seemed to get just summarily dumped in favor of the Hardy/Jarrett program.  I think that was a mistake.  Ron Killings is mega-over and a blast to watch despite not being the best.  (I know not everyone is gonna be the most awesome ring worker, I'm realistic.)  I think they should have milked more out of Killings/Jarrett and put Hardy in the X-Division to work his way up.  He's not a big-leaguer, not like Sting or someone else of that calibur.

Speaking of Sting, he's another wrestler I like.  I only wish he'd come back to NWA-TNA.

I like A.J. Styles, I like Rob Van Dam (you know this; he's being used terribly now to the point that I think even you'd agreed he's being misused), I like the Rock (can't do nothing about that, though), I like the Hurricane, I like Ric Flair (too bad he's in Triple H's shadow now), I like Randy Orton and think the program with him and Triple H will be a success, I like Goldberg, and I like 2/3 of what NWA-TNA does.

The reason you hear me complain so much is likely because when things are good, I feel no need to comment.  If I like something, everything's cool.  I usually only speak my mind on things I don't like and things I disapprove of.  That's just how I am with forums, I use forums to vent my frustrations.

I guarantee, though, that I don't dislike everything.  Mainly, I just don't like the current trend.  I'd much rather go back to 1987 or 1997.
darkmimePosted on 09/04/04 at 00:50:55

I agree completely, Hardy went from a midcard tag team in the WWF, to out of wrestling, to being booed out of the building in RoH to...Main Eventer?

Not a very reasonable chain of events, you'd think he'd have to win at least a few matches first.

What next? Jeff Jarrett vs Ron Simmons?
Snabbit888Posted on 09/04/04 at 02:39:15

Now this might be a bit of a different level, but if say, Hulk Hogan came into TNA, he should have to be a midcarder for awhile just because he's been out of wrestling for awhile?  Jeff Hardy holds more name value in TNA than the majority of their roster to the mainstream public.  Is he more deserving of this push than someone like Christopher Daniels?  No, probably not.  But a casual wrestling fan has a better chance of knowing who Hardy is than Daniels, so I think the main event push of Hardy is the best thing they can do right now all things considered.
Rick GarrardPosted on 09/04/04 at 03:19:16

In that same sense though Ryan, isn't it telling the guys that have gone out week after week to build TNA from nothing, that they mean nothing to the company by pushing a new guy over ANY of the guys that have been there for the full two years?  

I'd bring Hardy in, give him the main event push, and then have the entire roster at the command of Jarrett, jump Hardy in the ring.  Setting up a Hardy vs TNA feud.  At least it's a feud that would last as long as Hardy was with TNA.
Snabbit888Posted on 09/04/04 at 03:40:10

It's a mixed thing really.  There's pros and cons both ways.  TNA is in a difficult period right now where they're trying to do monthly PPVs and be able to get people to watch their TV show, and unfortunately, the casual fan more than likely isn't going to tune in if they see AJ Styles being advertised for the show.  However, some of the fair weather fans from the Attitude Era might here Jeff Hardy being advertised and go, "Oh yeah.  I remember him."  It's kind of a rock and a hard place situation.
Rick GarrardPosted on 09/04/04 at 03:57:52

If it didn't work with Sting or Luger, I really don't think that Hardy is gonna that big of an "impact".  (pun intended)
AnubisPosted on 09/04/04 at 05:37:32

I don't see NWA being in hard times.  Where is that coming from?  They're further along now than they were, say, a year ago.

In reality, NWA shouldn't be targetting the WWE fanbase.  That won't work.  They would need people much better than Jeff Hardy to do that.  The Rock?  Yeah.  Triple H?  Yeah.  Goldberg?  Yeah.  Jeff Hardy?  I don't think so.  NWA is looking for the fringe fanbase, it's looking for the wrestling purists out there who are sick of WWE's crap.  Considering they're on television now, that's better than they were at the beginning of the year.  They're not suffering financially, either.

Lex Luger isn't a draw, no, but if they could get Sting for a big contract he'd do good for the company.  I also think Hardy has a place, it's just not in the main event.  The X-Division is where he belongs.  At least the X-Division isn't billed as "inferior" to the top tier, thanks to good booking of the talent there.  NWA works all its titles close to equal.

They should have some more traditional stuff, and they're doing good bringing in the likes of Dusty Rhodes and Larry Zbyszko, but if they could get one top draw they'd have it made.  Jeff hardy probably doesn't even draw as well as most people in the NWA.
Snabbit888Posted on 09/04/04 at 05:38:04

Perhaps.  I didn't get to watch, but it might be perception too.  With Sting and Luger, it never seemed like they were around for any amount of time.  It seemed like they were special appearances.  Hardy seems like he is going to be around long enough where he's considered a TNA talent as opposed to a one-and-done kinda guy.
Snabbit888Posted on 09/04/04 at 05:39:42

Just because TNA is on TV now doesn't mean they're "better off."  I can't imagine them making a lot of money right now.
meetzorakPosted on 09/04/04 at 19:58:03

but now that are on tv maybe they can be bought out by WWE ;D.


NO I'M JUST PLAYING PLEASE VINCE STAY FAR AWAY VERY FAR AWAY GO TRY TO BUY OUT ROH!
darkmimePosted on 09/06/04 at 03:13:58

Last I checked they were still paying to be on TV, which is something that is almost never done :-/

They can stay in business until either;

A. They start making some profits

or

B. Panda Energy (or whoever the hell it is that is supporting them) gets sick of losses.
AnubisPosted on 09/10/04 at 09:05:45

I haven't heard any such thing about them paying to be on television.  If that were the case, there wouldn't be any commercials.
Critic of the DawnPosted on 09/10/04 at 23:23:13

For the record, I have heard that TNA is paying for their timeslot, but I couldn't name a source off the top of my head.

Even so, of course there would be commercials.  Fox simply wasn't sold on TNA as a major source of revenue, so they gave TNA a lousy timeslot and required them to pay for the privelage.  TNA and Panda Energy were convinced that the exposure was worth the money and therefore agreed to the deal.  Why would Fox choose not to show commercials?  Most of a television stations' revenue comes from commercials, so if they can get TNA to pay for their timeslot and put commercials there, they'll do it.  It's more money in their pockets, after all.  Granted, it's not exactly nice to TNA, but it's the best offer they've gotten.

All things considered, I expect Panda Energy to cut the cord, so to speak, within 2 years at the most.  While I'd welcome some competition in Wrestling again, I just don't think TNA is capable of taking on WWE's checkbook.

Oh, and why should Vince buy out ROH, meetzorak?  It's a great independent promotion (probably the biggest in the country) which isn't trying to directly compete with him - it actually makes money by relying on the sale of DVDs and video tapes rather than trying to get onto TV or PPV.  Strong WWE DVD sales would indicate that it's not hurting WWE's marketshare in that division either.  Instead ROH is building stars that Vince might be able to recruit in the future.  Really, there's no reason he should go after them because they're no threat and because leaving them to develop new talent gives them yet another source of potential new talent - Eddie Guerrero, Nunzio, Spanky and Paul London are all ROH alum that WWE has (or has had) under contract that show enormous potential if properly utilized.  Granted, ROH's ex-owner turned out to be a nasty person, but that's why he's the ex-owner.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Rick GarrardPosted on 09/11/04 at 07:19:30

As far as paid programming goes, you buy the timeslot, and then sell your own commercial time during it if you so choose.  That's how ECW did theirs when they were buying their timeslot on the regional SportsChannel's.

In TNA's case, I'm pretty sure they are indeed buying their timeslot, but in the deal, FOX Sports Net kept the rights to some of the ad slots during the program.  

I'll bet that most of you didn't know that even WWE pays for it's timeslot for RAW.  In turn for paying for the guaranteed 2 hours and 5 minutes of live programming each week, WWE in turn brings along ad revenue to SpikeTV, which is pretty large compared to most of Spike's other programming.

Television is quite a fun industry to research if you have the time.  There are quite a bit of interesting facts out there.  One of my favorites is that most shows use the 100 episode mark as their milestone signifying that they have enough programs in the can to have a successful run in syndication.  100 episodes means that if a show is aired every weekday, you can air 20 weeks worth of shows without ever showing the same show twice.  This is why shows like Cheers, Friends, Seinfeld and especially M*A*S*H, have had such a successful run well after their first original programming run on US network television.  :)
darkmimePosted on 10/03/04 at 21:53:47

I am almost certain that Spike TV pays WWE aroudn 24 million dollars a year for Raw.  ???
Rick GarrardPosted on 10/04/04 at 01:24:54

and in turn Viacom, the parent corporation of Spike TV, owns a large number WWE stock shares.  They are major investors into WWE programming, but in return WWE ad revenue comes back to them at a hopefully higher amount than the amount they pay WWE, thusly WWE and it's advertisers in turn are paying for the TV spot.  It's pretty much how ALL television works.

And that is also why there are what are called "Ratings sweeps" periods in February, November and one other month as that is when advertising rates are set based on television ratings.  It is also during those specific times when television programmers go into overdrive with "specials", "special interviews", and "one time only airings" of certain programs in an effort to spike ratings during those weeks to get a highly ad rate for the entire ad rate period.  If they set ad rates appropriately, they would take the average over a specific number of weeks, but that is not how it's done currently.