The offical TNA thread - News, Spoilers and the rest...

the flananator

Riddle101 wrote: »

Hogan and Bischoff might have thought that making changes and going on the road might be a new game changer for TNA.

You're stating the obvious here, but the point people are making is that the move was really badly executed and poorly thought through, resulting in a financial crisis where everyone's behind on pay, top talent are sending out feelers to WWE and the company has let go its version of Droz, resulting in a PR calamity.

As for the talent. I don't think anyone knows really what the talent thinks right now. I've been anticipating that Sting has been planning to leave for a long time anyway. He just doesn't look like he's really into it anymore, and I suspected that once this Ace & 8s/MEM storyline is over, he will retire. But I don't think it's TNA's financial difficulties that would result in him wanting to leave. Things might look grim now, but I still think people are over reacting.

Its been widely reported that Sting is looking to jump ship to WWE, possibly for a big money match with the Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Not retire. The fact that this offer has been on the table for years but he's only keen for it now is quite telling; its as if he's realized TNA has gone as far as its going to go.

She said there are new talent over the next couple of months, so it doesn't seem to bad if they're able to still bring talent in. For all the releases we've seen, we've also seen some old faces return.

It's not like they're in a bidding war with WWE for Prince Devitt or coughing up for Batista though. The names I've heard they're in negociations with are Davey Richards and Generation Me. Excuse me if I'm not giddy with excitement at those "game changers". And that they can hire these guys is not a good indication of their financial situation either; Richards will work your show for a couple of hundred quid and a ham sandwich.

It used to be TNA that would snap up top indie talent like AJ Styles and Samoa Joe and make them a central part of the show, while WWE would focus on the dull muscle heads. But that's not true at all anymore. WWE snap up all the top names like Danielson, Dean Ambrose, etc. while TNA try and convince Matt and Nick Jackson to come in for whatever's left in the penny jar and feel of Christie Hemme's arse. The two lads had to ask for their release last time around because they said they couldn't live on what TNA were paying them.

And as for this talk of TNA being a "young comapny" that "needs time"...its been around for 11 years. That's longer than ECW and almost as long as WCW. In that time, ECW had turned itself into a global brand, one that was still white hot years after its demise if the sales of the Rise and Fall of ECW DVD and the buys for the 1st One Night Stand PPV are anything to go by. And WCW was the biggest wrestling company in the world at one point. TNA has achieved very little by comparison. It's been given enough leeway by now.

GTR63

the flananator wrote: »

And as for this talk of TNA being a "young comapny" that "needs time"...its been around for 11 years. That's longer than ECW and almost as long as WCW. In that time, ECW had turned itself into a global brand, one that was still white hot years after its demise if the sales of the Rise and Fall of ECW DVD and the buys for the 1st One Night Stand PPV are anything to go by.

Ecw was never a global brand in its 11 year existence.

the flananator

GTR63 wrote: »

Ecw was never a global brand in its 11 year existence.

They sold ECW videos in HMV in Dublin. Fans from Germany to the UK were had to get their hands on ECW swag. It was a global brand.

GTR63

the flananator wrote: »

They sold ECW videos in HMV in Dublin. Fans from Germany to the UK were had to get their hands on ECW swag. It was a global brand.

If thats the case then TNA must be a global juggernaut as they have an actual tv deal in multiple countries. I would say 90% of the fans ECW had only watched it after they sold their library to WWE. Cause if they were that popular they wouldn`t of gone belly up. It was a lot easier then to be around then too as wrestling was clearly in its boom years which it hasn`t been in since.

Riddle101

the flananator wrote: »

You're stating the obvious here, but the point people are making is that the move was really badly executed and poorly thought through, resulting in a financial crisis where everyone's behind on pay, top talent are sending out feelers to WWE and the company has let go its version of Droz, resulting in a PR calamity.

The moves were made though, and while we can go on and on about whether it was right or wrong, TNA did it. They went on the road before, and did the live things and it turned out good results. So maybe there was a belief within the company that they could do it on a permanent basis. Not to mention as I already said before, the fans were calling for TNA to change their game and saying they need to get out of the Impact Zone. You can't seem to win with wrestling fans, because they want it one way and the other.

As for the PR calamity. It's common knowledge that TNA has a poor talent relations record. Look at Daffney and her lawsuit, and the amount of lawsuits they've had from former talents. But that's TNA for you, and it's been going on for years so it doesn't really have to do with them making changes, but more so that they need to get their heads out of their asses.

Its been widely reported that Sting is looking to jump ship to WWE, possibly for a big money match with the Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Not retire. The fact that this offer has been on the table for years but he's only keen for it now is quite telling; its as if he's realized TNA has gone as far as its going to go.

Yeah those rumors have been going around in years, but if Sting does finally go to WWE it might have more to do with Sting wanting to bow out wrestling in possibly the biggest dream match of the last twenty years. Undertaker and Sting, which has been on the tables for years now. Do you think if Sting really cared about TNA's finances he would have stayed there as long as he did? He could have went to WWE anytime he wanted for a much bigger paycheck and probably and better contract. But he always stayed loyal to TNA, just like he did with WCW. So I reckon it's more to do with Sting wanting to finish his last remaining time with WWE before he retires for good.

It's not like they're in a bidding war with WWE for Prince Devitt or coughing up for Batista though. The names I've heard they're in negociations with are Davey Richards and Generation Me. Excuse me if I'm not giddy with excitement at those "game changers". And that they can hire these guys is not a good indication of their financial situation either; Richards will work your show for a couple of hundred quid and a ham sandwich.

Regardless, they've brought back Suicide, Homicide and Petey Williams and are said to be bringing in new talents. I;m just saying, if they can still afford to bring in talent then maybe it's not all bad. The people released were Gutcheck Contestants who sucked anyway, three Knockouts being Madison Rayne who's having a baby, Tara who's old and not really going to be missed and Taeler Hendrix who I could do without. Maybe the Blossom Twins as well, but they were guthecks as well. D.O.C is the only one I was unhappy about getting released but that was Bruce Prichard's fault. Either way, they're getting rid of guys who aren't really worthy keeping and bringing in old faces and new guys who might add to it a bit.

It used to be TNA that would snap up top indie talent like AJ Styles and Samoa Joe and make them a central part of the show, while WWE would focus on the dull muscle heads. But that's not true at all anymore. WWE snap up all the top names like Danielson, Dean Ambrose, etc. while TNA try and convince Matt and Nick Jackson to come in for whatever's left in the penny jar and feel of Christie Hemme's arse. The two lads had to ask for their release last time around because they said they couldn't live on what TNA were paying them.

What do you expect? WWE are the major leagues and more capable of getting talent then TNA. Everyone who comes into the wrestling business wants to wrestle for the major leagues. Why would you work for TNA, when you can get better pay and a bigger platform in WWE? Besides the few guys who actually do sign with TNA, ultimately it's up to the wrestler to decide where he wants to go. Chances are they will choose WWE almost all the time. So I wouldn't really rag on TNA for their inability to get talents from the indy circuit against WWE.

And as for this talk of TNA being a "young comapny" that "needs time"...its been around for 11 years. That's longer than ECW and almost as long as WCW. In that time, ECW had turned itself into a global brand, one that was still white hot years after its demise if the sales of the Rise and Fall of ECW DVD and the buys for the 1st One Night Stand PPV are anything to go by. And WCW was the biggest wrestling company in the world at one point. TNA has achieved very little by comparison. It's been given enough leeway by now.

I agree with most of what you said. It's disappointing that TNA have not grown very much in the last 11 years. I'm one of those guys who thinks TNA are like chickens with their heads cut off because they don't seem to have long term plans for expansion or anything like that. But I suppose that is why i'm defending Bischoff and Hogan's actions on here about going on the road etc, because I think they're trying at least.

However that being said, I disagree about ECW being a global brand. As good as ECW was, and as revolutionary as they were, I think TNA are bigger then ECW ever was. They only got tv exposure in the very late 90s and then eventually lost their tv timeslot and unable to get a new one. I don't really see a global brand compared to TNA who have a tv timeslot every week, mainstream exposure and are still going after 11 years, where as ECW went bankrupt in 9 years.

Jester252

TBF TNA TV slot is due to Hogan. ECW slot was due to the product.
BTW I not saying TNA is bad its just telling of the brand.

GTR63

Jester252 wrote: »

TBF TNA TV slot is due to Hogan. ECW slot was due to the product.
BTW I not saying TNA is bad its just telling of the brand.

They had TV slots well before Hogan arrived.

the flananator

The moves were made though, and while we can go on and on about whether it was right or wrong, TNA did it. They went on the road before, and did the live things and it turned out good results.

When was this? TNA has an appalling live attendance record outside of the UK.

So maybe there was a belief within the company that they could do it on a permanent basis. Not to mention as I already said before, the fans were calling for TNA to change their game and saying they need to get out of the Impact Zone. You can't seem to win with wrestling fans, because they want it one way and the other.

There's no question that being in the Impact Zone was having a negative effect on the product. But taking TNA out of there without a solid financial plan was madness. It just wasn't viable. TNA Impact is a successful TV show. Like the Walking Dead, or Friends. It's one of the top TV shows on Spike. But as an overall wrestling company, its hugely unsuccessful. Their live touring, PPVs, video game etc. are all failures, usually financially, often critically.

Yeah those rumors have been going around in years, but if Sting does finally go to WWE it might have more to do with Sting wanting to bow out wrestling in possibly the biggest dream match of the last twenty years. Undertaker and Sting, which has been on the tables for years now. Do you think if Sting really cared about TNA's finances he would have stayed there as long as he did? He could have went to WWE anytime he wanted for a much bigger paycheck and probably and better contract. But he always stayed loyal to TNA, just like he did with WCW. So I reckon it's more to do with Sting wanting to finish his last remaining time with WWE before he retires for good.

Sting is reportedly on a fat money contract, as Scott Hall would say. Supposedly one of the sweetest deals in the business. Plus, they treat him like a legend in TNA, while for along time it was very unclear how he would be treated in WWE. He saw how they managed DDP, Goldberg etc. He is allowed to show up looking like crap in TNA and just wear a t-shirt in the ring, and no one says boo to him. He won't get away with that in WWE; he'll have to get in shape. I agree with you that there must be a big appeal to him to go to WWE, get the Hall of Fame treatment etc. and go out on a high. But there can be no question of just how comfy Sting has been in TNA for years, he's been very reluctant to leave. You'd think it would take something big to shake him. I'd say its a combination of things for him.

Regardless, they've brought back Suicide, Homicide and Petey Williams and are said to be bringing in new talents. I;m just saying, if they can still afford to bring in talent then maybe it's not all bad. The people released were Gutcheck Contestants who sucked anyway, three Knockouts being Madison Rayne who's having a baby, Tara who's old and not really going to be missed and Taeler Hendrix who I could do without. Maybe the Blossom Twins as well, but they were guthecks as well. D.O.C is the only one I was unhappy about getting released but that was Bruce Prichard's fault. Either way, they're getting rid of guys who aren't really worthy keeping and bringing in old faces and new guys who might add to it a bit.

Bringing in guys like TJ Perkins and Homicide can't be your example of "TNA doing just fine", surely? Williams etc. are on measly per night deals. They can only afford to bring in talents who WWE or Japan don't want, so they can pay them peanuts.

What do you expect? WWE are the major leagues and more capable of getting talent then TNA. Everyone who comes into the wrestling business wants to wrestle for the major leagues. Why would you work for TNA, when you can get better pay and a bigger platform in WWE? Besides the few guys who actually do sign with TNA, ultimately it's up to the wrestler to decide where he wants to go. Chances are they will choose WWE almost all the time. So I wouldn't really rag on TNA for their inability to get talents from the indy circuit against WWE.

TNA used to get all the top indy names though. There was a perception that guys like Joe, Daniels etc. would be better off in TNA because WWE "Wouldn't know how to use them". But TNA has proven time and time again that in can't create stars, so if you are a young wrestler you are better off in WWE. But it doesn't have to be like this; if TNA could offer a worker like Devitt or Sami Callihan a competitive offer of pay for less dates (like WCW used to do), allow them to skip WWE's dreaded developmental system, and convince them that their talent wouldn't be squandered, there would be no reason TNA couldn't be competitive in snapping up top talent. But right now neither the will nor the finances seem to be there. It costs TNA $600,000 for one taping on the road. They could have signed Devitt for that.

However that being said, I disagree about ECW being a global brand. As good as ECW was, and as revolutionary as they were, I think TNA are bigger then ECW ever was. They only got tv exposure in the very late 90s and then eventually lost their tv timeslot and unable to get a new one. I don't really see a global brand compared to TNA who have a tv timeslot every week, mainstream exposure and are still going after 11 years, where as ECW went bankrupt in 9 years.

TNA would have went bankrupt in 2002 if Panda didn't buy them, and would have went bankrupt many times since then if not for the Carters. Hell, they'd be going bankrupt NOW with this TV touring fiasco if it weren't for those mad hicks in Nashville. Its remarkable ECW was as successful as it was without any financial backing. At its height, ECW's PPVs got more buys and its live shows were better attended than TNA's are now. And the revenuesof the Rise and Fall DVD and ONS PPV are something TNA could only ever dream of.

gnfnrhead

Devitt keeps being mentioned but honestly, he would be mad to leave NJPW now. He is not far off being a main event level star in one of the best promotions in the world.

As for TNA trying to sign the top Indy guys, they should make sure Aries stays in or around the main event and use him as an example. If you work hard, that can be you in a year or two. If you put in the same amount of effort he did, we'll give you the same treatment he got. etc. Cant ask for fairer than that.

the flananator

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Devitt keeps being mentioned but honestly, he would be mad to leave NJPW now. He is not far off being a main event level star in one of the best promotions in the world.

Agreed. But is common knowledge there's a WWE offer on the table for him when he wants it, same thing Danielson had. He'll end up in WWE eventually. TNA can't offer him a competitive counter offer. That's my point.

As for TNA trying to sign the top Indy guys, they should make sure Aries stays in or around the main event and use him as an example. If you work hard, that can be you in a year or two. If you put in the same amount of effort he did, we'll give you the same treatment he got. etc. Cant ask for fairer than that.

This time last year year Aries were two of the hottest acts in the business. Now a year later...they are mid card, losing out on airtime to the likes of Devon and Mr. Anderson. It's a real shame. TNA's track record of building new stars is really, really shocking. Monty Brown, Tomko, Alex Shelley, Samoa Joe, The Pope, James Storm..the list goes on. All these guys, to varying degrees, got over with TNA's audience, and seemed on the verge of breaking through as legit, home grown stars. And in almost every case TNA grossly mis booked them and killed all and any star power they once had. I think Joe is probably the biggest travesty. There was a time when he was legitimately one of the hottest acts in the business. You'd wonder what could have been had he gotten that Umaga deal in the end. Pope is one that really annoys me; in late 2009/early 2010 he really looked and acted like a star on Impact. I was sure they had a sure fire hit on their hands with him. He came across as a big time act. Then they cut his balls off at Lockdown 2010 after building him up, and he was screwed. Cue two years later and they did the exact same thing to Storm. It's almost like they want their acts to fail.

gnfnrhead

That offer will be left for quite a while if it even exists. Recently someone on twitter said they hope he gets signed. He made a point of replying by stating that he already is signed. Guy hardly ever even wrestles in America. Dont see why he would suddenly pack up and move continent for a development deal when he is at the tip of the main event of the current best promotion in the world.

Umaga was created as a reaction to Joe's popularity, so I have no clue what you're talking about there.

eireannBEAR

ECW a wold wide company???? ffs more wwe propaganda. :rolleyes:

Machismo Fan

the flananator wrote: »

When was this? TNA has an appalling live attendance record outside of the UK.

They average about 2500-3000 for TV's which isn't awful (though clearly not enough).

And comparing ECW and TNA isn't comparing like with like. ECW had the advantage of a booming industry at the time. Wrestling was really hot then and a rising tide was inevitably going to lift all boats.

Jester252

GTR63 wrote: »

They had TV slots well before Hogan arrived.

But their current one is based on Hogan. Hence why he has not taken a cut and Brookie still has her "job"

GTR63

Jester252 wrote: »

But their current one is based on Hogan. Hence why he has not taken a cut and Brookie still has her "job"

How is it based on Hogan they just renewed their deals. Spike I hope help paid to get Hogan. Brooke has her job for the same reason as Garret nepotism thats it. Dixie is hardly the hardest person to convince and manipulate.

the flananator

gnfnrhead wrote: »

That offer will be left for quite a while if it even exists. Recently someone on twitter said they hope he gets signed. He made a point of replying by stating that he already is signed. Guy hardly ever even wrestles in America. Dont see why he would suddenly pack up and move continent for a development deal when he is at the tip of the main event of the current best promotion in the world.

You're missing the point champ. The argument we're having is over TNA blowing it's financial load on these TV tapings. Another poster made the point that they are still signing talent so they must be fine; I made the point the talent they are signing are cheap as chips so its not a good reflection on their money situation. Devitt was used as an example as someone they could look at signing if they were serious about snapping up top independent talent. Whether he should or would leave Japan anytime soon is besides the point.

Umaga was created as a reaction to Joe's popularity, so I have no clue what you're talking about there.

According to reports at the time, Joe was originally who WWE had in mind for the Umaga role, or so rumor had it. Cheers for nit picking one part of an otherwise long post for the sake of an argument, though.

And comparing ECW and TNA isn't comparing like with like. ECW had the advantage of a booming industry at the time. Wrestling was really hot then and a rising tide was inevitably going to lift all boats.

I made the comparison to undermine the argument that TNA is a "young company". It isn't. Within the context of what ECW achieved in a shorter time frame than TNA, the point is valid. By the way, was wrestling in a boom period when the Rise and Fall DVD was released, or ONS aired? Wrestling fans will still put their hands in their pockets if they think the product is worth investing in. After 11 years, everyone knows better than to waste their cash on TNA.

hey average about 2500-3000 for TV's which isn't awful

It is when each show is costing you $600,000 to put on.

Jester252

GTR63 wrote: »

How is it based on Hogan they just renewed their deals. Spike I hope help paid to get Hogan. Brooke has her job for the same reason as Garret nepotism thats it. Dixie is hardly the hardest person to convince and manipulate.

Which is why it's bleeding out. Spike lander her with Hogan who in turn landed TNA on the road.

Machismo Fan

Is anybody (bar that one fellow) actually arguing that TNA's finances are fine and dandy? They wouldn't be taking measures to get them in order if they weren't.

And comparing TNA and ECW (and WCW) in business terms is pointless because market conditions (both within the wrestling industry and the world as a whole) are vastly different. Yes, 2500-3000 isn't enough but considering Smackdown tapings (which I assume are more expensive than iMPACT!'s tapings) can sometimes only draw 4000-5000 they're by no means awful.

I don't think TNA are in too much trouble (though I could easily be in serious denial) because worse comes to worse I think they're capable of getting things together to avoid going under.

And if Hogan never came to TNA, they'd still without a doubt be on Spike every week. He has literally nothing to do with their TV deal.

Headshot

They have a very good roster is all I can see going for it at the moment

If they got rid of hogan, bischoff and the likes of ****ing waste of spaces like Garett and Wes and concentrate on what made them different than WWE and that for me was the X division

I dont personally like trible threat matches, its okay having the odd one or 2 but its a tad ridiculous for me now

the flananator

Machismo Fan wrote: »

And comparing TNA and ECW (and WCW) in business terms is pointless because market conditions (both within the wrestling industry and the world as a whole) are vastly different.

You've made this exact point already, and I've already responded to it.

Yes, 2500-3000 isn't enough but considering Smackdown tapings (which I assume are more expensive than iMPACT!'s tapings) can sometimes only draw 4000-5000 they're by no means awful.

What would you define as being awful, then? Whatever you want to call it, its not enough to cover costs, and that's the bottom line. They're hemorrhaging money at the moment.

GTR63

Jester252 wrote: »

Which is why it's bleeding out. Spike lander her with Hogan who in turn landed TNA on the road.

By landing them in the road do you mean the sh*t as when he joined they made some Stewart Downing level bad signings and this decision to go on the road full time was a rash decision.

Machismo Fan

the flananator wrote: »

You've made this exact point already, and I've already responded to it.



What would you define as being awful, then? Whatever you want to call it, its not enough to cover costs, and that's the bottom line. They're hemorrhaging money at the moment.

Awful is what they do at house shows ie. sub 1000 (though clearly on average they make money on house shows or else they'd stop running them so that's a moot point). And all you did was qualify why you compared TNA to ECW, when the comparisons don't hold up.

And just for the record, the young company stuff is a load of nonsense. If TNA are a young company then Twitter is an infant. 11 years is a long time in business.

They knew full well the costs of going on the road (they did it before, they know how much it costs) and decided they needed to take the punt on it (a now or never kind of thing). They'll spend the next few months trying to make cuts and make it work and if they can't they'll move on and do something else. There's no point getting overly hung up on it.

the flananator

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Awful is what they do at house shows ie. sub 1000 (though clearly on average they make money on house shows or else they'd stop running them so that's a moot point). And all you did was qualify why you compared TNA to ECW, when the comparisons don't hold up.

Your entire argument for the comparison not holding up is that ECW existing during a boom time, which doesn't hold up at all. By that logic, XPW should have been a multi-million dollar company by the end of 1999. ECW was a brand fans still wanted to spend money on well into the 2000's. TNA is a brand no one wants to spend money on, ever.

There's no point getting overly hung up on it.

That's generally the sentiment about TNA, isn't it? Don't get hung up about it. Don't spend money on it. It's not to be taken seriously. It must be pretty heart breaking for guys like Roode, Storm, Styles etc. who are so talented and have busted their butts for the best part of a decade trying to make the product work, only to be constantly undermined by the gombeens who run this circus of a business. Tragic.

Machismo Fan

the flananator wrote: »

Your entire argument for the comparison not holding up is that ECW existing during a boom time, which doesn't hold up at all. By that logic, XPW should have been a multi-million dollar company by the end of 1999. ECW was a brand fans still wanted to spend money on well into the 2000's. TNA is a brand no one wants to spend money on, ever.

Not at all, that's like saying that if wrestling was booming now DG:USA would make millions (and I'd guess that XPW did much better than DG:USA do). Not to mention there was nothing that could be gotten from XPW that wasn't already provided by ECW.

And I won't deny that TNA have steadily, consistently driven away their customer base and haven't grown since 2007, I wrote a three part article on it last year for a website. But at this stage I really don't see the point of getting worked up over it. At this stage I just want an enjoyable TV show every week which for the most part we get (especially the last four weeks).

the flananator

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Not at all, that's like saying that if wrestling was booming now DG:USA would make millions.

Great, you you agree there are many more factors at play to a wrestling company's success than just happening to exist in a boom time. So we can factor it out as a major defining difference in ECW's success and TNA's failure.

A But at this stage I really don't see the point of getting worked up over it. At this stage I just want an enjoyable TV show every week which for the most part we get (especially the last four weeks).

So your contribution to the discussion is principally "calm down there lads". Cheers.

Machismo Fan

the flananator wrote: »

Great, you you agree there are many more factors at play to a wrestling company's success than just happening to exist in a boom time. So we can factor it out as a major defining difference in ECW's success and TNA's failure.

So your contribution to the discussion is principally "calm down there lads". Cheers.

ECW didn't succeed. And yeah, pretty much.

the flananator

Machismo Fan wrote: »

ECW didn't succeed. And yeah, pretty much.

My entire argument pertaining to ECW's "success" was in reference to its superior PPV, merchandising and generally more consistent live attendance to that of TNA's, you spanner. Perhaps you should write a 3 page article on how to follow a linear argument.

Machismo Fan

the flananator wrote: »

My entire argument pertaining to ECW's "success" was in reference to its superior PPV, live attendance and merchandising to that of TNA's, you spanner.

There's absolutely no need for any name calling and insults. TNA do about the same TV rating in a depressed market, they do about the same live attendances (3000-6000 people depending on the show), I have no idea how ECW PPV's did, TNA international distribution is leaps and bounds ahead of ECW's and ECW went out of business (something that it remains to be seen whether TNA will do).

Comparing a number three and a number two company in vastly different market conditions achieves nothing as there's too many variables. Also what difference does it make how TNA did vs. ECW? We're kind of arguing about nothing here.

the flananator

Machismo Fan wrote: »

There's absolutely no need for any name calling and insults. TNA do about the same TV rating in a depressed market, they do about the same live attendances (3000-6000 people depending on the show), I have no idea how ECW PPV's did, TNA international distribution is leaps and bounds ahead of ECW's and ECW went out of business (something that it remains to be seen whether TNA will do).

Comparing a number three and a number two company in vastly different market conditions achieves nothing as there's too many variables. Also what difference does it make how TNA did vs. ECW? We're kind of arguing about nothing here.

To give you an idea of their PPV revenue, their first ever PPV did over 100,000 buys. That's almost double what TNA's highest drawing PPV ever with Angle vs. Joe in the main did. I brought up ECW originally to dismiss the idea that TNA is a young company that needs time to grow, as suggested by one poster on here. My point was that ECW existed for a shorter space of time than TNA, but still achieved as much if not more than TNA in many areas. You do not seem to dispute this, yet keep bringing me round in a circular argument. Like a spanner would

gimmick

The Flananator. - less of the insults please. Smileys do not make them ok. No more.