PDA

View Full Version : Adam Jones BANNED from attending TNA events



Brewtown Andy
08-10-2007, 08:57 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20198554/


Chancery Court Judge Robert E. Lee Davies agreed, saying Jones should be prohibited from “participating in any activities that ’may involve the risk of serious personal injury.”’

“Mr. Jones is hereby restrained from providing any ’wrestling’ or ’performing services’ to TNA ... including but not limited to the TNA “Hard Justice” pay-per-view event ... for as long as this restraining order is in effect,” Davies ruled.

The injunction strictly bars Jones from participating in any TNA event, as a “wrestler, spectator, announcer, participant or otherwise ... “I
love
EVERYONE.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Justin.Strange
08-10-2007, 09:03 PM
Awesome.

Greenville 90210
08-10-2007, 09:14 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y284/fullmulletalchemist/nelson_ha_ha.jpg

The Human Target
08-10-2007, 09:19 PM
That is pretty fricking hilarious.

Brewtown Andy
08-10-2007, 09:24 PM
That is pretty fricking hilarious.Even their most well publicized PR move goes south on them. FAN-tastic.

Anyone care to lay odds on TNA being stupid enough to even let him in the building on Sunday?

Kirblar
08-10-2007, 09:25 PM
Yeah, even Vince would know better than to do this.

And that's saying something.

Greenville 90210
08-10-2007, 09:31 PM
Yeah, even Vince would know better than to do this.

And that's saying something.

Would he?

Brewtown Andy
08-10-2007, 09:41 PM
Would he?There's no upside to bringing in Adam Jones.

arthurloewenkamp
08-10-2007, 09:43 PM
I think they probably had a good feeling this might happen, it's a lot of free publicity for them, I bet some people learned about tna for the first time through this.

Kirblar
08-10-2007, 09:43 PM
There's no upside to bringing in Adam Jones.
It's like bringing in O.J. Simpson. All negative press.

Brewtown Andy
08-10-2007, 09:46 PM
I think they probably had a good feeling this might happen, it's a lot of free publicity for them, I bet some people learned about tna for the first time through this.While guesting on PTI, Patrick McEnroe referred to TNA as the Arena League of professional wrestling. I think this is a completely accurate comparison.

Oh, and the publicity bid FAILED, because their ratings went down on Thursday.

Brad N.
08-10-2007, 10:15 PM
It's like bringing in O.J. Simpson. All negative press.


Not even close. More like bringing in Mike Tyson...WWE did well with that one.

Greenville 90210
08-10-2007, 10:17 PM
Not even close. More like bringing in Mike Tyson...WWE did well with that one.

That's probably a pretty good analogy.

Brad N.
08-10-2007, 10:18 PM
Wow, I thought the Titans released Jones at one point. I'm no fan of Pacman but this kinda seems petty.

Bedlam66
08-10-2007, 10:21 PM
Who's Adam Jones?

Brad N.
08-10-2007, 10:25 PM
Who's Adam Jones?


Pacman Jones. NFL football player from the Titans in all sorts of legal trouble. Known for "makin it rain" among other things.

Bedlam66
08-10-2007, 10:30 PM
ok that means nothing to me so now i suddenly don't care.

Brewtown Andy
08-10-2007, 11:28 PM
Wow, I thought the Titans released Jones at one point. I'm no fan of Pacman but this kinda seems petty.His contract is constructed as such that the Titans would take a huge cap hit to release him. So, since he's still under contract, they're protecting what is still on some level an asset, even though he will almost assuredly never play another down in a Titans uniform.

Brewtown Andy
08-10-2007, 11:28 PM
ok that means nothing to me so now i suddenly don't care.I would have used his nickname, but he's a douche so I don't.

aj110
08-10-2007, 11:28 PM
who the fuck is "Adam" Jones?

aj110
08-10-2007, 11:29 PM
Damnit...i'm behind on the joke.

but i used curse words. so go me.

Brewtown Andy
08-10-2007, 11:33 PM
Damnit...i'm behind on the joke.

but i used curse words. so go me.+1 rep point

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 01:58 AM
TNA is the worst run wrestling organisation on the planet.

Albert
08-11-2007, 02:13 AM
And Joe is STILL jobbing, huh?

Jet
08-11-2007, 03:33 AM
Tons of free pub for TNA, doesn't seem too shabby to me.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 04:55 AM
Not even close. More like bringing in Mike Tyson...WWE did well with that one.
the difference is people liked tyson. people generally don't like jones. oh, and wwe knew how to run a wrestling company and take advantage of the publicity.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 04:56 AM
Tons of free pub for TNA, doesn't seem too shabby to me.
that meant nothing. the rating for Impact was a 1.0, same as it ever is

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 06:14 AM
the difference is people liked tyson. people generally don't like jones. oh, and wwe knew how to run a wrestling company and take advantage of the publicity.

Yes, they knew how to run a promotion then (as opposed to now). But I would disagree on people liking Tyson. At the time he was up there with Rodman for most hated and controversial figures in sports and had just served time for rape. The situations are not all that dissimilar.

bartleby
08-11-2007, 06:17 AM
the difference is people liked tyson. people generally don't like jones. oh, and wwe knew how to run a wrestling company and take advantage of the publicity.

People liked Mike Tyson?

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 06:19 AM
TNA is the worst run wrestling organisation on the planet.


I would argue that is the WWE actually. All that talent and creative forces and they can't come with any decent storylines or gimmicks and rely on Vince trying to shock the audience week after week (Vince's death and the latest illegitimate child angles to name a couple) while rely he comes off looking senile and infantile. It's a shitty company with a lot of viewers. For a multi million dollar corporation they should be performing a thousand times beter. Even though Raw, Smackdown, and ECW's ratings are in the toilet too people love ragging on TNA because they hover around a 1.0 (ECW and Smackdown aren't that far off, mind you) but at least they appear to be trying. I'm not saying they're perfect, but nothing WWE has done in the last couple years has entertained me and the few times I've tuned in to TNA I've found it quite enjoyable.

Foolish Mortal
08-11-2007, 06:24 AM
Wow, I thought the Titans released Jones at one point. I'm no fan of Pacman but this kinda seems petty.
Yeah, I could see the Titans wanting to prohibit Pacman from participating in something that could get him injured, but if the team is cutting him anyway, then what does it matter?

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 06:45 AM
I would argue that is the WWE actually. All that talent and creative forces and they can't come with any decent storylines or gimmicks and rely on Vince trying to shock the audience week after week (Vince's death and the latest illegitimate child angles to name a couple) while rely he comes off looking senile and infantile. It's a shitty company with a lot of viewers. For a multi million dollar corporation they should be performing a thousand times beter. Even though Raw, Smackdown, and ECW's ratings are in the toilet too people love ragging on TNA because they hover around a 1.0 (ECW and Smackdown aren't that far off, mind you) but at least they appear to be trying. I'm not saying they're perfect, but nothing WWE has done in the last couple years has entertained me and the few times I've tuned in to TNA I've found it quite enjoyable.
whether or not you personally are entertained by their product has nothing to do with how they are run as a company.

WWE is an extremely profitable company. TNA has never turned a profit, consistently makes horrible business decisions, horrible booking decisions. the only reason they're still in business is because their money mark hasn't decided shut them down.

You can say WWE hasn't made the most of their talent, you can say they've put out product that hasn't entertained you, but in no way is TNA a better run promotion than WWE. That's just insane. It doesn't make any sense in any possible way.

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 06:51 AM
whether or not you personally are entertained by their product has nothing to do with how they are run as a company.

WWE is an extremely profitable company. TNA has never turned a profit, consistently makes horrible business decisions, horrible booking decisions. the only reason they're still in business is because their money mark hasn't decided shut them down.

You can say WWE hasn't made the most of their talent, you can say they've put out product that hasn't entertained you, but in no way is TNA a better run promotion than WWE. That's just insane. It doesn't make any sense in any possible way.

Really? Have you seen their expense reports? I'd argue that for their size and the losses they've taken over the last few years they are far worse off despite having hudreds of millions to start with. I'm not saying they are headed for bankruptcy but WWE isn't making money hand over fist at all, man. Ticket sales, merchandise, ratings, any and all measurable money making factors are down and have been for a while. They are not as successful as you think.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 07:05 AM
Really? Have you seen their expense reports? I'd argue that for their size and the losses they've taken over the last few years they are far worse off despite having hudreds of millions to start with. I'm not saying they are headed for bankruptcy but WWE isn't making money hand over fist at all, man. Ticket sales, merchandise, ratings, any and all measurable money making factors are down and have been for a while. They are not as successful as you think.
the point is they are not losing money. TNA has never not lost money.

TNA has never increased their ratings past the same million people that
watch their show every week. They've only increased their ppv audience past the same 20,000 people that buy TNA ppv's every month ONCE, and that was when they signed Kurt Angle. And then they fucked that up and went right back to the same 20,000 people every month (even less last month.)

WWE has so many different revenue streams and ways to make money that when one goes down they're not hurting too badly. TV has been down lately (even though it looks like Raw rebounded last week), house shows have been up, for example. The WWE machine is self sustainable, and WWE is in position to adjust and make changes if need be to keep it that way. TNA could be out of business tomorrow if Bob Carter or whatever his name is decides he's tired of burning his money.

Look at this week. TNA signed Pacman Jones. And almost universally the mainstream press viewed it as a horrible PR Move ... FOR PACMAN JONES. Think about that. And then, during the week they've gotten the most mainstream press they've ever gotten, Impact does a .99. (We wont' even talk about how horrible a show Impact was this week, and it's probably better that new viewers didn't watch it because they might not ever watch again if they did.) But all that press meant NOTHING.

And now, even if people buy the PPV, it looks like they won't be able to deliver on Pacman Jones anyway.

Freeway
08-11-2007, 07:08 AM
the point is they are not losing money. TNA has never not lost money.

TNA has never increased their ratings past the same million people that
watch their show every week. They've only increased their ppv audience past the same 20,000 people that buy TNA ppv's every month ONCE, and that was when they signed Kurt Angle. And then they fucked that up and went right back to the same 20,000 people every month (even less last month.)

WWE has so many different revenue streams and ways to make money that when one goes down they're not hurting too badly. TV has been down lately (even though it looks like Raw rebounded last week), house shows have been up, for example. The WWE machine is self sustainable, and WWE is in position to adjust and make changes if need be to keep it that way. TNA could be out of business tomorrow if Bob Carter or whatever his name is decides he's tired of burning his money.

Look at this week. TNA signed Pacman Jones. And almost universally the mainstream press viewed it as a horrible PR Move ... FOR PACMAN JONES. Think about that. And then, during the week they've gotten the most mainstream press they've ever gotten, Impact does a .99. (We wont' even talk about how horrible a show Impact was this week, and it's probably better that new viewers didn't watch it because they might not ever watch again if they did.) But all that press meant NOTHING.

And now, even if people buy the PPV, it looks like they won't be able to deliver on Pacman Jones anyway.

Dude, even WITH the whole "Benoit killing his family" thing, WWE is making a fuckload of money. Like, HAND OVER FIST money. Tons of money. They've made money since they went public. They made money most of the years of the Monday Night Wars.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 07:17 AM
the point is they are not losing money. TNA has never not lost money.

This is exactly the point. People need to learn how to differntiate between WWE, the product, and WWE, The Corperate Machine. Whenjudging that aspect of the business, all idealistic fanboy stuff must go out the window. The only question that needs to be asked is- Are they making money?

And the answer is, yes they are.

You know, if the people in charge of the business side of things were up to scratch, TNA could be making money now. WCW limped along with a shit product for years and still managed to make a meager profit, until people decided it was a good idea to throw $500,000 at Kiss to perform on the show. Oppositely, other than a couple of blips, Paul Heyman'sECW had a fantastic product, and that still went out of business, because, as a businessman, Heyman is a monkey in a suit.

I will accept and debate any critique towards Vince McMahon with regards to the product he puts out. But one thing can never be disputed- he's a fucking fanastic businessman.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 07:19 AM
Tons of free pub for TNA, doesn't seem too shabby to me.Free pub that drove the ratings DOWN.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 07:20 AM
that meant nothing. the rating for Impact was a 1.0, same as it ever isIt was a 1 if you round up. :D

Freeway
08-11-2007, 07:20 AM
This is exactly the point. People need to learn how to differntiate between WWE, the product, and WWE, The Corperate Machine. Whenjudging that aspect of the business, all idealistic fanboy stuff must go out the window. The only question that needs to be asked is- Are they making money?

And the answer is, yes they are.

You know, if the people in charge of the business side of things were up to scratch, TNA could be making money now. WCW limped along with a shit product for years and still managed to make a meager profit, until people decided it was a good idea to throw $500,000 at Kiss to perform on the show. Oppositely, other than a couple of blips, Paul Heyman'sECW had a fantastic product, and that still went out of business, because, as a businessman, Heyman is a monkey in a suit.

I will accept and debate any critique towards Vince McMahon with regards to the product he puts out. But one thing can never be disputed- he's a fucking fanastic businessman.

Even with more entertainment-level competition than ever before, even with a roster stretched thinner than ever before, even with all these obstacles, WrestleMania 23 made more money than any other WWE event ever.

TNA lost money. ROH broke even (and probably made a teeny, tiny bit of money).

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 07:21 AM
TNA lost money. ROH broke even (and probably made a teeny, tiny bit of money).

ROH is actually a very profitablecompany, because it's run by people who know what they're doing.

ImYrWoodbury
08-11-2007, 07:22 AM
I fully expected this to be a train wreck but I was still a little curious. I mean, Kevin Federline turned out to be one of the better heels in WWE during his brief stint.

Freeway
08-11-2007, 07:24 AM
ROH is actually a very profitablecompany, because it's run by people who know what they're doing.

ROH has a fucking smart business model.

-Attract crowds.
-Sell crowds tickets.
-Put on good shows.
-Sell DVDs of said shows.
-Rinse, repeat.

The entire point of the PPV deal was to made the "crowd" slightly bigger.

TNA went to 3-hour monthly PPVs for NO REASON. There was no "buzz" around the product like there was with ROH. Heck, WWE and WCW went to monthly PPVs during the War Era where everyone was doing whatever they could to fuck the other side, and both initially lost money because of it.

lonesomefool
08-11-2007, 07:26 AM
Fuck Pacman Jones and Fuck TNA for even trying to hire the guy. He belongs in a jail cell, not a wrestling ring. Honestly, after this I hope TNA goes bankrupt and dies, they deserve it. Hiring a man like Pacman Jones is a disgrace and embarassment to the wrestling industry---and that's saying A LOT.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 07:29 AM
Really? Have you seen their expense reports? I'd argue that for their size and the losses they've taken over the last few years they are far worse off despite having hudreds of millions to start with. I'm not saying they are headed for bankruptcy but WWE isn't making money hand over fist at all, man. Ticket sales, merchandise, ratings, any and all measurable money making factors are down and have been for a while. They are not as successful as you think.
What?
In the second fiscal quarter, World Wrestling Entertainment made $137.5 million as compared to $119.3 million last year at this time.

In comparing this year to last year, Live and Televised Entertainment was $102.9 million compared to $92.6 million; Consumer Products were $26.4 million compared to $20.4 million; Digital Media was $8.2 million compared to $6.3 million; and they've still made $0 off WWE Films, even the first one, See No Evil, which probably came out in the black.

Live Event revenues were $30.1 million, up from $25.1 million last year. They ran 84 events, one less than last year, with 26 international compared to 17 last year. North American average attendance was 6,900 as compared to 5,800 last year, an increase of 19%. There is no spin here; house show business is undoubtedly up and strong, which is interesting because this is not being reflected in PPV buys or TV ratings. May be a harbinger of things to come (in the old days, the first thing that would go up when business was about to take off was the house shows), or it may just be a weird aberration. Tickets were $4 more expensive on average this year, from $42 to $46. PPV revenue was up $3.1 million thanks to WrestleMania 23. Somehow, they're getting away with claiming 80,000 tickets sold in this here public filing even though the real paid number was about 69,000. That show did $5.4 million in ticket sales.

PPV Revenues were $39.8 million as compared to $38.1 million last year. If you think about how gigantic WrestleMania was, that right there should tell you how not gigantic everything else was given they only made $2 million more this year.

Merchandise was $5.4 million as compared to $5.2 million last year. Per head was $12.75, which is really excellent, actually.

TV Rights Fees were $23.9 million as compared to $20.8 million last year.

WWE 24/7 did $1.3 million, which is up from $700,000 last year. They're getting new subscribers.

Home Video was $14.8 million as compared to $12.1 million last year.

Licensing was $7.7 million as compared to $5.2 million last year, due to more toys being sold.

Magazine revenues were $3.7 million as compared to $3 million last year. They only did three issues this quarter as opposed to seven, so each issue sold way more copies.

Digital Media was $8.2 million as compared to $6.3 million last year, up 30 percent. WWE.com went from $2.9 million to $4.6 million, which is very good and a hell of a lot better than the ProElite.com site (and F4Wonline.com, in fact) have done. WWEShop was $3.6 million as compared to $3.4 million. For people who hate, say, John Cena and demand he lose the title, you have to take into account that when merchandise sales go up and the per-head is approaching $13 at house shows, well, certain guys are over and making good money for the company.Are buyrates WAY down, other than WM23? Sure. But they made more money this quarter than last year's same quarter. Can't argue with results.

lonesomefool
08-11-2007, 07:30 AM
I fully expected this to be a train wreck but I was still a little curious. I mean, Kevin Federline turned out to be one of the better heels in WWE during his brief stint.

Federline was a damn good heel, because he's just naturally an unlikeable guy. I thought he was damn entertaining, but the WWE was complete morons for having K-Fed pin John Cena on national TV. Even though Cena lost because of Umaga or Nitro, it was still stupid to have the image of Kevin Federline, pinning the WWE champion and biggest star in the company.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 07:33 AM
Federline was a damn good heel, because he's just naturally an unlikeable guy.

I will also give K-Fed considerable credit- he was smart enough to realise how he was going to be recieved and just went along with it wholeheartedly. Compare his professionalism with the Jackass guys disrespectful attempts to get themselves over at the expense of the wrestlers, and it becomes evn more stark.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 07:38 AM
I will also give K-Fed considerable credit- he was smart enough to realise how he was going to be recieved and just went along with it wholeheartedly. Compare his professionalism with the Jackass guys disrespectful attempts to get themselves over at the expense of the wrestlers, and it becomes evn more stark.So you're saying that KFed knew his role and shut his mouth? ;)

Damian696
08-11-2007, 07:50 AM
This is exactly the point. People need to learn how to differntiate between WWE, the product, and WWE, The Corperate Machine. Whenjudging that aspect of the business, all idealistic fanboy stuff must go out the window. The only question that needs to be asked is- Are they making money?

And the answer is, yes they are.

You know, if the people in charge of the business side of things were up to scratch, TNA could be making money now. WCW limped along with a shit product for years and still managed to make a meager profit, until people decided it was a good idea to throw $500,000 at Kiss to perform on the show. Oppositely, other than a couple of blips, Paul Heyman'sECW had a fantastic product, and that still went out of business, because, as a businessman, Heyman is a monkey in a suit.

I will accept and debate any critique towards Vince McMahon with regards to the product he puts out. But one thing can never be disputed- he's a fucking fanastic businessman.

... as long as it doesn't involve body buliding ... or football ... or movies ... or ... anything else besides wrestling. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 07:50 AM
They may have found a compromise.... :(

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2969037

But the highlight of the story is this:
A TNA spokesman told The Tennessean early Friday that despite the restraining order "Adam will appear as scheduled at the 'Hard Justice' pay-per-view event this Sunday night."DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 08:01 AM
... as long as it doesn't involve body buliding ... or football ... or movies ... or ... anything else besides wrestling. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

That's his only flaw- he needs to realise he's good at one thing and stick with it.

Although I think all the WWE Films have ended up making a profit. I may be wrong about that, though.

Damian696
08-11-2007, 08:12 AM
That's his only flaw- he needs to realise he's good at one thing and stick with it.

Although I think all the WWE Films have ended up making a profit. I may be wrong about that, though.

I wasn't sure about the movies, but according to the financial report posted by Andy


they've still made $0 off WWE Films, even the first one, See No Evil, which probably came out in the black.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 08:14 AM
That's his only flaw- he needs to realise he's good at one thing and stick with it.

Although I think all the WWE Films have ended up making a profit. I may be wrong about that, though.
the key is, he tried something, it didn't work. so he either stopped or changed. The movies for instance. No more theatrical releases now, they'll focus on low cost productions and sell them on dvd for a profit. But the movie experiment was worthwhile because if it worked it could have worked huge. but it didn't, so they're changing plans. the other key is that he did it in such a way that it didn't kill the wwe that it didn't work.

Freeway
08-11-2007, 08:55 AM
The sad thing is that WWE's brands are currently doing about...

RAW: 4.0 [4.61 million viewers]
Smackdown: 3.0 [3.45 million viewers]
ECW: 1.7 [1.96 million viewers]
TNA: 1.1 [1.27 million viewers]

WWE PPVs: 200,000 on average for minor shows; WrestleMania traditionally does about 1,000,000 buys; other "big four" shows do between 450,000 to 600,000 depending on card
TNA PPVs: 20,000 to 25,000 [peak was 65,000]

This means that WWE is getting about 4% of the RAW audience, 6% of the Smackdown audience and 10% of the ECW audience to buy an average, shitty PPV event. TNA's getting 2% of the Impact audience, which was much smaller to begin with. TNA's BEST SHOW got a whopping 5% retention. WrestleMania got 22% of RAW, 29% of Smackdown and 51% of ECW's viewers to buy the fucking thing.

This is, of course, assuming there's no overlap between audiences, but it shows an interesting point: TNA should stop fucking caring about ratings and care more about PPV buys. WWE's business model is all about getting people to watch TV enough that they'll care about the upcoming PPV enough to buy it.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 09:00 AM
Yes, they knew how to run a promotion then (as opposed to now). But I would disagree on people liking Tyson. At the time he was up there with Rodman for most hated and controversial figures in sports and had just served time for rape. The situations are not all that dissimilar.

Give him a break, he's the biggest WWE mark on the board.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 09:03 AM
Give him a break, he's the biggest WWE mark on the board.
you could try finding fault with my points instead of tossing out insults.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:07 AM
Give him a break, he's the biggest WWE mark on the board.

Brad's argument was backed by emotion. Mine, Andy, and smokinblues' were backed by cold, hard facts. Hence, we win.

This is not a discussion about profesional wrestling. It's a discussion about business. And if you've seen the numbers and you're still telling us we're wrong, then I'm sorry, but we're not the Marks in this conversation.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 09:09 AM
you could try finding fault with my points instead of tossing out insults.

Mike Tyson was not liked. Its ridiculous to think that. Vince used him to get a lot of mainstream exposure. Something TNA could never do. But it is very similar to the Adam Jones situation...its just that TNA can't do anything right.

If Pacman Jones was a bigger piece of shit and in the mainstream news more, Vince would sign him and make money off of it.

Freeway
08-11-2007, 09:09 AM
Brad's argument was backed by emotion. Mine, Andy, and smokinblues' were backed by cold, hard facts. Hence, we win.

This is not a discussion about profesional wrestling. It's a discussion about business. And if you've seen the numbers and you're still telling us we're wrong, then I'm sorry, but we're not the Marks in this conversation.

At the time, WrestleMania 14 was the BIGGEST SHOW they had ever done. Huge PPV numbers, great mainstream press, and it made Steve Austin look like a fucking star to beat the champion with Mike Tyson counting the pin. It's an iconic moment.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 09:12 AM
Mike Tyson was not liked. Its ridiculous to think that. Vince used him to get a lot of mainstream exposure. Something TNA could never do. But it is very similar to the Adam Jones situation...its just that TNA can't do anything right.

If Pacman Jones was a bigger piece of shit and in the mainstream news more, Vince would sign him and make money off of it.
you can nitpick whether or not tyson was popular. that's not the point. he was 100x the celebrity jones is, and opinion was at least mixed. you may not remember, but tyson had plenty of defenders. Pacman is a complete fuck up on every level, with much fewer if any supporters.

and your post is right to some extent. if it were a good business decision to do something with pacman wwe probably would have done it. but it's not. and for TNA you could argue it's exponentially worse, because a lot of the publicity they're getting is calling them the 'arena league' of wrestling. So they're drawing a lot of bad publicity to themselves that's not helping their business, and putting them on the public radar screen just about when congress is getting ready to look at the industry. yeah, tna is a much better run business. they sure show vince. :roll:

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:12 AM
And also, to comment on a trend I'm seeing here, and also to, once again, paraphrase a quote from the great Bobby Heenan...

... comparing Mike Tyson, to Pacman Jones, is like comparing ice cream, to horse shit.

Freeway
08-11-2007, 09:17 AM
And also, to comment on a trend I'm seeing here, and also to, once again, paraphrase a quote from the great Bobby Heenan...

... comparing Mike Tyson, to Pacman Jones, is like comparing ice cream, to horse shit.

It's just like comparing WWE to TNA.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 09:18 AM
you can nitpick whether or not tyson was popular. that's not the point. he was 100x the celebrity jones is, and opinion was at least mixed. you may not remember, but tyson had plenty of defenders. Pacman is a complete fuck up on every level, with much fewer if any supporters.

and your post is right to some extent. if it were a good business decision to do something with pacman wwe probably would have done it. but it's not. and for TNA you could argue it's exponentially worse, because a lot of the publicity they're getting is calling them the 'arena league' of wrestling. So they're drawing a lot of bad publicity to themselves that's not helping their business, and putting them on the public radar screen just about when congress is getting ready to look at the industry. yeah, tna is a much better run business. they sure show vince. :roll:

Now...let's not get carried away. I never said TNA is a better run business.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 09:20 AM
Now...let's not get carried away. I never said TNA is a better run business.
but that was the larger point of the discussion that the tyson point was just a small piece of.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:20 AM
It's just like comparing WWE to TNA.

It's true. And it breaks my fuckin' heart, man. I want TNA to succeed. I want there to be two major forces in wrestling again. Hel, I'd like ROH to be up there ikn five years time and posibly make it three. But just because of that, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend TNA doesn't fuck. And it's not my fault if they fuck up alot.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 09:22 AM
but that was the larger point of the discussion that the tyson point was just a small piece of.

Yeah...I was only disagreeing with you saying people liked Tyson but, now that I've thought about it, you're right that more people like him than Pacman. Hence, Vince using him.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 09:22 AM
It's true. And it breaks my fuckin' heart, man. I want TNA to succeed. I want there to be two major forces in wrestling again. Hel, I'd like ROH to be up there ikn five years time and posibly make it three. But just because of that, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend TNA doesn't fuck. And it's not my fault if they fuck up alot.
that's the most frustrating part. tna has the talent to be one hell of an alternative product. they just making just about every mistake they could possibly make.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:22 AM
Now...let's not get carried away. I never said TNA is a better run business.

You came in claiming anybody critisizing TNA was a Mak, when the whole thrust of the discussion was which was the better run company. What the fuck else were we supposed to assume?

You also just casually ignored the positive mentions of ROH in this thread.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 09:23 AM
It's true. And it breaks my fuckin' heart, man. I want TNA to succeed. I want there to be two major forces in wrestling again. Hel, I'd like ROH to be up there ikn five years time and posibly make it three. But just because of that, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend TNA doesn't fuck. And it's not my fault if they fuck up alot.

TNA bookers/writers shouldn't be allowed to watch WWE. Then they wouldn't try and copy them so much. Its sad.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 09:24 AM
You came in claiming anybody critisizing TNA was a Mak, when the whole thrust of the discussion was which was the better run company. What the fuck else were we supposed to assume?

You also just casually ignored the positive mentions of ROH in this thread.

Calm down.

I was just saying smokinblues is a WWE defender til his dying day. ;)

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:26 AM
TNA bookers/writers shouldn't be allowed to watch WWE. Then they wouldn't try and copy them so much. Its sad.

They're not specifically trying to copy them, I don't think. They're just headed up by a guy who's only ever had one idea in his life.

And, aso, had they been watching and copying WWE between Januar and April, they would actualy have been making a good product.

Freeway
08-11-2007, 09:26 AM
The biggest problem with TNA is it's a bunch of WWE cast-offs, a bunch of indie-rific smaller guys and a handful of guys that could be stars if given a push.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 09:27 AM
The biggest problem with TNA is it's a bunch of WWE cast-offs, a bunch of indie-rific smaller guys and a handful of guys that could be stars if given a push.I would argue the biggest problem is that they don't charge admission to the iMPACT Zone.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:27 AM
I was just saying smokinblues is a WWE defender til his dying day. ;)

I just get so sick of tham mentality. Critisizing everything WWE does does not a person a better WWE fan. The same as loving everything they do sure as Hell doesn't.

Blastbeat Science
08-11-2007, 09:31 AM
whenever i tell people i like pro wrestling i always make sure to say "but not the shit on tv"

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:32 AM
whenever i tell people i like pro wrestling i always make sure to say "but not the shit on tv"

Yeah, that makes you a more legitimate fan than me.

:roll:

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 09:33 AM
I just get so sick of tham mentality. Critisizing everything WWE does does not a person a better WWE fan. The same as loving everything they do sure as Hell doesn't.

Uh-huh.

I don't criticize everything they do. I think you have me confused with someone else.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:34 AM
Uh-huh.

I don't criticize everything they do. I think you have me confused with someone else.

I'm just a little frustrated today.

Freeway
08-11-2007, 09:35 AM
I would argue the biggest problem is that they don't charge admission to the iMPACT Zone.

How does WWE make money?
-Admission to events [they tour extensively so they don't kill territories]
-Selling ad space during televised events
-Charging for pay-per-view events
-Merchendise [DVDs, t-shirts]
-Charging for video on demand [WWE 24/7]
-WWE Films [well, in theory...]

Blastbeat Science
08-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Yeah, that makes you a more legitimate fan than me.

:roll:

that wasn't my point at all, what i'm saying is that to me wwe and tna are what's embarrassing and retarded about pro wrestling.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 09:40 AM
that wasn't my point at all, what i'm saying is that to me wwe and tna are what's embarrassing and retarded about pro wrestling.

So aren't you, by extention, calling their embarrassing and retarded? Or even just anybody who doesn't consider them to be that bad?

LeggoMyEggolas
08-11-2007, 10:26 AM
Ferrall was talking about this last night. He said Jones should go right back at them and sue for "torturous punishment" or something like that. In a weird way, he's kinda right. The guy is on the shelf for a year and as far as I know because of the suspension, he's not getting paid, so the guy (as vile as he is) does need to make a paycheck somehow. Of course, both parties in this are kinda skeevy which doesn't help matters, Jones for being who he is, and the Titans for going under the table and being able to "judge-shop" to get the judge they wanted to inflict the punishment.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 11:46 AM
How does WWE make money?
-Admission to events [they tour extensively so they don't kill territories]
-Selling ad space during televised events
-Charging for pay-per-view events
-Merchendise [DVDs, t-shirts]
-Charging for video on demand [WWE 24/7]
-WWE Films [well, in theory...]And admission to the iMPACT Zone is free, and TNA's merchandise variety sucks.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 11:48 AM
Ferrall was talking about this last night. He said Jones should go right back at them and sue for "torturous punishment" or something like that. In a weird way, he's kinda right. The guy is on the shelf for a year and as far as I know because of the suspension, he's not getting paid, so the guy (as vile as he is) does need to make a paycheck somehow. Of course, both parties in this are kinda skeevy which doesn't help matters, Jones for being who he is, and the Titans for going under the table and being able to "judge-shop" to get the judge they wanted to inflict the punishment.Jones still has a couple of years left on his contract. Theoretically, the Titans would be able to trade him in a year.

And 2) He won't actually start missing paychecks until the second week of September.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 11:51 AM
Phooey.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2969037


NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Adam "Pacman" Jones can appear at a wrestling show Sunday, with a couple of provisions: The suspended Tennessee Titans cornerback won't be allowed to touch or be touched, use or be hit by any object or anything else that could injure him.

That doesn't leave much for Jones.

But at least he can be in the building for the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view event. The arrangement was approved by a Tennessee judge Saturday following an agreement among the Titans, Jones' attorney and lawyers for TNA Entertainment.

Taxman
08-11-2007, 12:01 PM
They need to leave PacMan alone! :x

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 02:41 PM
Brad's argument was backed by emotion. Mine, Andy, and smokinblues' were backed by cold, hard facts. Hence, we win.

This is not a discussion about profesional wrestling. It's a discussion about business. And if you've seen the numbers and you're still telling us we're wrong, then I'm sorry, but we're not the Marks in this conversation.

Really? I've forgotten more about the wrestling business than all of you combined will ever know. I've never said WWE was a failure of a company or anything like that. My point being their product is piss poor and has been for quite some time, that's my opinion. Are they making money? Sure, nothing close to what they used to but it's hard for a near billion dollar corporation to not make money.

My point was and still is to point how how funny it is that back in the day people used to argue that despite WCW raking in more money and higher ratings that WWF had a better product therefore they were a better promotion. This would be during the Attitude era and I agreed (although I thought at the time ECW was better than both) but now many of these same marks are arguing WWE is the better promotion based on the size of the company. Ring of Honor blows both companies out of the water, again, my opinion.

It is rather funny though anytime I make the slightest positive remark about TNA I see the same marks cracking wise with the typical hivemind Figure Four comebacks and it's the very reason I usually stay out of the circle jerk that is the wrestling thread these days. You guys are more than entitled to keep up your silly argument as I really couldn't care less about TNA, WWE, or Pacman. My only point initially was how similar this situation is to the Mike Tyson deal.

Edit: In case anyone didn't get it much of this post was in character. Suicide Spyke Hain returns!

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 02:43 PM
At the time, WrestleMania 14 was the BIGGEST SHOW they had ever done. Huge PPV numbers, great mainstream press, and it made Steve Austin look like a fucking star to beat the champion with Mike Tyson counting the pin. It's an iconic moment.

Again, not true. Go back and watch the media exposure from that period. WWF had press from Entertainment Tonight and other areas (you also have to factor in how much more popular the business was then) but ESPN mocked them and Tyson to no end.

Foolish Mortal
08-11-2007, 02:44 PM
Phooey.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2969037

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Adam "Pacman" Jones can appear at a wrestling show Sunday, with a couple of provisions: The suspended Tennessee Titans cornerback won't be allowed to touch or be touched, use or be hit by any object or anything else that could injure him
I don't see the point of him making an appearance if he can't do anything.

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 02:44 PM
And also, to comment on a trend I'm seeing here, and also to, once again, paraphrase a quote from the great Bobby Heenan...

... comparing Mike Tyson, to Pacman Jones, is like comparing ice cream, to horse shit.

Good to know you support a rapist.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 02:57 PM
And admission to the iMPACT Zone is free, and TNA's merchandise variety sucks.

Can you imagine if there was ever a "TNA films" divison? Low budget rip-offs of SEE NO EVIL (starring Abyss), THE MARINE (starring Double J), and THE CONDEMNED (starring Sting). Ha!

Freeway
08-11-2007, 03:01 PM
Again, not true. Go back and watch the media exposure from that period. WWF had press from Entertainment Tonight and other areas (you also have to factor in how much more popular the business was then) but ESPN mocked them and Tyson to no end.

So? WWE never really gave a shit about what sports journalists thought of them. They're an "entertainment" company. Any publicity is good publicity as long as it's continuous.

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 03:20 PM
So? WWE never really gave a shit about what sports journalists thought of them. They're an "entertainment" company. Any publicity is good publicity as long as it's continuous.

I agree, but people who say that any publicity is good don't know anything about P.R. or marketing. Yes, it's nice to get your name out there and have people talking, but anyone knowledgeable will tell you Chris Benoit, Steroids, and Congress breathing down Vince's neck is not good publicity.

I was making the point that for the most part the Tyson deal and the Jones deals are very similar. They are. Tyson had recently served prison time for rape. He was a hated figure. He appeared on a wrestling show and was mocked for it by legit sports press. Tell me how the Jones situation is any different. That's where all this started. I am not a TNA loyalist nor do I even like Pacman at all. I don't think it's a smart move either, but if you claim that it got people talking about the WWF as Tyson is concerned then I can't understand how this deal is any different.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 03:23 PM
I agree, but people who say that any publicity is good don't know anything about P.R. or marketing. Yes, it's nice to get your name out there and have people talking, but anyone knowledgeable will tell you Chris Benoit, Steroids, and Congress breathing down Vince's neck is not good publicity.

I was making the point that for the most part the Tyson deal and the Jones deals are very similar. They are. Tyson had recently served prison time for rape. He was a hated figure. He appeared on a wrestling show and was mocked for it by legit sports press. Tell me how the Jones situation is any different. That's where all this started. I am not a TNA loyalist nor do I even like Pacman at all. I don't think it's a smart move either, but if you claim that it got people talking about the WWF as Tyson is concerned then I can't understand how this deal is any different.the jones situation is different because there won't be a million people buying a ppv to watch jones. tyson added tons of buys to mania that year and tons of buzz, and is 1000 times the celebrity that Jones is. Jones drove viewers away from Impact.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 03:26 PM
Really? I've forgotten more about the wrestling business than all of you combined will ever know. I've never said WWE was a failure of a company or anything like that. My point being their product is piss poor and has been for quite some time, that's my opinion. Are they making money? Sure, nothing close to what they used to but it's hard for a near billion dollar corporation to not make money.

My point was and still is to point how how funny it is that back in the day people used to argue that despite WCW raking in more money and higher ratings that WWF had a better product therefore they were a better promotion. This would be during the Attitude era and I agreed (although I thought at the time ECW was better than both) but now many of these same marks are arguing WWE is the better promotion based on the size of the company. Ring of Honor blows both companies out of the water, again, my opinion.

It is rather funny though anytime I make the slightest positive remark about TNA I see the same marks cracking wise with the typical hivemind Figure Four comebacks and it's the very reason I usually stay out of the circle jerk that is the wrestling thread these days. You guys are more than entitled to keep up your silly argument as I really couldn't care less about TNA, WWE, or Pacman. My only point initially was how similar this situation is to the Mike Tyson deal.

Edit: In case anyone didn't get it much of this post was in character. Suicide Spyke Hain returns!
but the discussion wasn't about quality of the product or opinions about the quality of the product, it was about how it was run as a business. you said TNA was better. By any measurable statistic it's just not true.

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 03:31 PM
the jones situation is different because there won't be a million people buying a ppv to watch jones. tyson added tons of buys to mania that year and tons of buzz, and is 1000 times the celebrity that Jones is. Jones drove viewers away from Impact.

Well, I would argue that there may have been a few added buys to Mania, but again that era was so much different to today it's hard to compare the two. Yes, we agree that Tyson was 1,000 times the star but that's not my point. I don't like either and was only saying they aren't all that different. I do disagree on Jones driving away viewers though. While they went down from their previous 1.1 to 1.0 a rating that low can hardly be blamed on anyone or thing. Raw goes up and down by bigger margins all the time and I wouldn't say it is because of wrestler X or Y or celebrity Z appearing. Are people actually saying that? That Jones' promo on Impact caused a .1 drop in the ratings? That's just grasping at straws to argue the point that TNA fucked up by bringing him in.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 03:32 PM
Well, I would argue that there may have been a few added buys to Mania, but again that era was so much different to today it's hard to compare the two. Yes, we agree that Tyson was 1,000 times the star but that's not my point. I don't like either and was only saying they aren't all that different. I do disagree on Jones driving away viewers though. While they went down from their previous 1.1 to 1.0 a rating that low can hardly be blamed on anyone or thing. Raw goes up and down by bigger margins all the time and I wouldn't say it is because of wrestler X or Y or celebrity Z appearing. Are people actually saying that? That Jones' promo on Impact caused a .1 drop in the ratings? That's just grasping at straws.
even if he didn't drive it away, he certainly didn't add anything, now did he?

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 03:34 PM
the jones situation is different because there won't be a million people buying a ppv to watch jones. tyson added tons of buys to mania that year and tons of buzz, and is 1000 times the celebrity that Jones is. Jones drove viewers away from Impact.

All that is true except the bolded. TNA is probably just losing viewers because they've sucked for so long...

Mike Tyson is a bigger name too and they had good buildup.

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 03:36 PM
but the discussion wasn't about quality of the product or opinions about the quality of the product, it was about how it was run as a business. you said TNA was better. By any measurable statistic it's just not true.

I do believe TNA has a better product. As a business it's impossible to compare a near billion dollar corporation with several decades behind it to a relative upstart. Again, if we only look at how large a company is or how profitable they are, or the ratings well, then for a large chunk of the 1990's WCW was better. I won't argue that WWE is a better business than TNA, that's not up for debate really and maybe I could have been more clear on that. But yeah, my opinion still stands that WWE has been unwatchable for a long time and while TNA isn't great I find myself more entertained when I do tune in. That's all.

My above post I really wanted to toss in as many bad wrestling cliches but left out "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "only the strong survive".

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 03:37 PM
even if he didn't drive it away, he certainly didn't add anything, now did he?


Nope.

Albert
08-11-2007, 03:37 PM
All that is true except the bolded. TNA is probably just losing viewers because they've sucked for so long...

I don't know - their ratings had actually been going up a little lately, even if only in small decimal points.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 03:38 PM
and let's just say for argument's sake that it was a bad decision to get the bad pr that WWE got for bringing in tyson. So What? WWE is/was so big that a mistake like that here and there isn't going to hurt them. One of their biggest stars killed his family and it only brought the rating down for two weeks, and house show attendance is up.

TNA is not in a position to be making bad decisions. And again, since anybody who doesn't praise everything that's NOT wwe gets labeled a mark, let me reiterate: I would love nothing more than for TNA to be putting out an awesome product and be a major competitor for WWE. But I can't pretend that the crap they've been putting out there is awesome just because it's not WWE.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 03:39 PM
and let's just say for argument's sake that it was a bad decision to get the bad pr that WWE got for bringing in tyson. So What? WWE is/was so big that a mistake like that here and there isn't going to hurt them. One of their biggest stars killed his family and it only brought the rating down for two weeks, and house show attendance is up.

TNA is not in a position to be making bad decisions. And again, since anybody who doesn't praise everything that's NOT wwe gets labeled a mark, let me reiterate: I would love nothing more than for TNA to be putting out an awesome product and be a major competitor for WWE. But I can't pretend that the crap they've been putting out there is awesome just because it's not WWE.

Agreed.

But WWE has been making a lot of crap decisions.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 03:40 PM
I do believe TNA has a better product. As a business it's impossible to compare a near billion dollar corporation with several decades behind it to a relative upstart. Again, if we only look at how large a company is or how profitable they are, or the ratings well, then for a large chunk of the 1990's WCW was better. I won't argue that WWE is a better business than TNA, that's not up for debate really and maybe I could have been more clear on that. But yeah, my opinion still stands that WWE has been unwatchable for a long time and while TNA isn't great I find myself more entertained when I do tune in. That's all.

My above post I really wanted to toss in as many bad wrestling cliches but left out "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "only the strong survive".
For a large chunk of the late 90's wcw was better, and almost put WWE out of business at one point. But when WCW went out of business they kinda lost their place in the discussion.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 03:44 PM
Good to know you support a rapist.

Don't twist my fucking words, Brad. You know what I meant.

Smokinblues
08-11-2007, 03:51 PM
Don't twist my fucking words, Brad. You know what I meant.
I wouldn't worry too much. He's the one who tried to make the point that WWE is the worst run wrestling orgranization in the world, and started taking shots at folks when he couldn't back it up.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 03:57 PM
I wouldn't worry too much. He's the one who tried to make the point that WWE is the worst run wrestling orgranization in the world, and started taking shots at folks when he couldn't back it up.

I just won't stand for that kind of fucking slander. Anybody with half a brain could figure out I was talking in terms of celebrity. Before he was a convicted rapist, Mike Tyson was one of the most internationally recognised sportsmen on the planet. Pacman Jones was, is, and always will be a joke, who has done borderline nothing except getting arested. Tyson's reputation was ruined by his crimes. Pacman's celebrity is his crimes. So comparing them is absurd.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 04:17 PM
I just won't stand for that kind of fucking slander. Anybody with half a brain could figure out I was talking in terms of celebrity. Before he was a convicted rapist, Mike Tyson was one of the most internationally recognised sportsmen on the planet. Pacman Jones was, is, and always will be a joke, who has done borderline nothing except getting arested. Tyson's reputation was ruined by his crimes. Pacman's celebrity is his crimes. So comparing them is absurd.

Yeah...but the WWE got him after he was a rapist.

Is a celebrity rapist any better than a regular rapist?

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 04:30 PM
Yeah...but the WWE got him after he was a rapist.

Is a celebrity rapist any better than a regular rapist?

Even then, he's was a bigger star than Pacman Jones will ever be. How is this not sinking in? Is everybody just being hard-headed intentionally? Am I pleased they did business with a convicted rapist? No. Not even sort of. This is not an argument about morality, just like the last one wasn't an argument about product quality. Even after his convicting, Mike Tyson was, and is, actually, a bigger star than Pacman Jones can ever hope to be, for more legitimate reasons. So to compare the two is, frankly, insane. In. Sane.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-11-2007, 04:31 PM
And can we please stop with the undertones that seem to suggest I condone rape?

Thank you.

Greenville 90210
08-11-2007, 04:41 PM
Even then, he's was a bigger star than Pacman Jones will ever be. How is this not sinking in? Is everybody just being hard-headed intentionally? Am I pleased they did business with a convicted rapist? No. Not even sort of. This is not an argument about morality, just like the last one wasn't an argument about product quality. Even after his convicting, Mike Tyson was, and is, actually, a bigger star than Pacman Jones can ever hope to be, for more legitimate reasons. So to compare the two is, frankly, insane. In. Sane.

Tyson is a bigger star. No one is arguing that.

But they are both shitheads.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 06:36 PM
Tyson is a bigger star. No one is arguing that.

But they are both shitheads.The difference is that Tyson is probably slightly mentally ill, whereas Adam Jones CHOOSES to be a douche.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 06:39 PM
I wouldn't worry too much. He's the one who tried to make the point that WWE is the worst run wrestling orgranization in the world, and started taking shots at folks when he couldn't back it up.And edited in that he was posting "in character" to avoid admitting he was wrong about WWE's revenue streams.

Albert
08-11-2007, 06:40 PM
The important thing is, will Eric Young get revenge for that HUMILIATING tar and feathering from Robert Roode and Ms. Brooks?

The Human Target
08-11-2007, 07:54 PM
This thread got fucking sweet.

And when people find out abut me watching wrestling, I too add "but not that shit on tv."

Just like when people find out I read comics, and I tell them I don't read Superman books.

I'm an indie sheep!

Brad N.
08-11-2007, 09:47 PM
And edited in that he was posting "in character" to avoid admitting he was wrong about WWE's revenue streams.

The in character bit referred to much of the over-the-top aspects of the post. I stand by everything else. I never said they don't make money. It's hard for such a huge company not to, but they aren't nearly as successful as they have been or could be. I'm rather enjoying how this argument turned out.

Brewtown Andy
08-11-2007, 11:45 PM
And edited in that he was posting "in character" to avoid admitting he was wrong about WWE's revenue streams.
The in character bit referred to much of the over-the-top aspects of the post. I stand by everything else. I never said they don't make money. It's hard for such a huge company not to, but they aren't nearly as successful as they have been or could be. I'm rather enjoying how this argument turned out.
Really? Have you seen their expense reports? I'd argue that for their size and the losses they've taken over the last few years they are far worse off despite having hudreds of millions to start with. I'm not saying they are headed for bankruptcy but WWE isn't making money hand over fist at all, man. Ticket sales, merchandise, ratings, any and all measurable money making factors are down and have been for a while. They are not as successful as you think. *cough*

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-12-2007, 03:19 AM
The difference is that Tyson is probably slightly mentally ill, whereas Adam Jones CHOOSES to be a douche.

I don't buy that, frankly. Tyson's just a cock.

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 04:44 AM
I don't buy that, frankly. Tyson's just a cock.Would you agree that of the two, Tyson is the one that seems mentally unbalanced?

lonesomefool
08-12-2007, 05:53 AM
Would you agree that of the two, Tyson is the one that seems mentally unbalanced?

I dont think that's even debatable. Werent there tons of stories in recent years, that the reason Tyson sucked so much at his last couple of fights because he was so doped up on "happy" pills. Not that his mental health makes it ok for what he did, but Pacman is just a street thug who got money, Tyson is that as well, only he lives on the planet Mars while the rest of us are on Earth.

Really, the difference between Pacman Jones and a lot of the rap stars out there isnt that much, but I dont listen to rap in part because there are so many thugs, and I will not be supporting TNA while they support a human being like Pacman Jones.

For the record, when the WWE was doing it, I was totally against them using Tyson as well.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 06:39 AM
*cough*
They just posted one of their best quarters ever, but they could do better, so TNA's a better run organization. Don't you see?

Brad N.
08-12-2007, 08:11 AM
*cough*

It still doesn't say they're not making money. They are not making money hand over fist (as I said) but they're not heading into bankruptcy either (as I said). They are not nearly as successful as they were depite your numbers showing them more profitable in some areas over last year.

Brad N.
08-12-2007, 08:11 AM
They just posted one of their best quarters ever, but they could do better, so TNA's a better run organization. Don't you see?

I really enjoy straw man arguments.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 09:22 AM
from the latest observer.



To no surprise given it was the quarter that contained Wrestlemania, the most financially successful event in company history, WWE just finished it's most lucrative wrestling quarter in its history.

The company grossed 137,511,000 during the months of April, May, and June and finished with a misleading $7,046,000 in proifts. Because they opted to declare 15,662,000 in losses for the movie "The Condemned" during a quarter they knew would be successful, it made the difference in what would have been a quarter with a 16.9 million. (The numbers dont' hadd up because declaring the losses before taxes chaned teh quarterly estimated tax bill).

and



Wrestlemania is now projected at doing a pro wrestling record 1,188,000 buys due to the involvement of Donald Trump...The live gate was $5.4 million, merchandise sales $1.6 million, both records for North American wrestling promotions...shipped 312,000 dvds in the first two months of release, on par with the record set for Wrestlemania 22.

Due to Wrestlemania and changes in business that have created stronger revenue streams in teh dvd market and 24/7, as well as international growth the company is on part ot break the record set in 2000-01 of 456,043,000 in total revenue for the year. They will likely not beat the 1999-2000 record for 68,937,000 in total profits, but have a shot at the no.2 mark.

now, what were you saying about business being down in every way?

lonesomefool
08-12-2007, 09:37 AM
Oh, and as for the whole TNA/WWE which is better debate. The way I see it is like this

TNA has the better roster of wrestlers
WWE is booked FAR better

It's just that simple for me, as much shit as the WWE pulls, a lot of TNA's storylines are pure and utter shit. I firmly believe the only time something GOOD actually comes out from one of their storylines, like Rhino/James Storm, it's by total accident. Russo, Mantel and Jarrett book like chickens with their heads cut off.....

Freeway
08-12-2007, 09:38 AM
From the latest Figure Four Weekly, paraphrased:

Revenue Generators:
-Live & Televised Entertainment: $102.9m [up from $92.6m]
-Consumer Products: $26.4m [up from $20.4m]
-Digital Media: $8.2 [up from $6.3m]
-Live Events: $30.1m [up from $25.1m] (Lots of overseas shows; domestic average attendance was 6,900...up from 5,800 last year)
-PPV Revenues: $39.8m [up from $38.1m] (Huge Mania numbers; other numbers were down slightly, but PPV prices were up slightly to compensate)
-Merchandise: $5.4m [up from $5.2m] (Average per head is $12.75)
-TV Rights Fees: $23.9m [up from $20.8m]
-WWE 24/7: $1.3m [up from $0.9m]
-Home Video: $14.8m [up from $12.1m]
-Licencing: $7.7m [up from $5.2m]
-Magazine Revenues: $3.7m [up from $3m]

Yes, even with the whole murder-suicide, all numbers were up. Only the $15.7m loss they took on the Condemned hurt 'em.

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 09:41 AM
Yes, even with the whole murder-suicide, all numbers were up. Only the $15.7m loss they took on the Condemned hurt 'em.And you can't even fault them for that loss, because they tried to create a new stream which was less crazy than the WBF and XFL, it failed, and now they've abandoned it.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 09:43 AM
From the latest Figure Four Weekly, paraphrased:

Revenue Generators:
-Live & Televised Entertainment: $102.9m [up from $92.6m]
-Consumer Products: $26.4m [up from $20.4m]
-Digital Media: $8.2 [up from $6.3m]
-Live Events: $30.1m [up from $25.1m] (Lots of overseas shows; domestic average attendance was 6,900...up from 5,800 last year)
-PPV Revenues: $39.8m [up from $38.1m] (Huge Mania numbers; other numbers were down slightly, but PPV prices were up slightly to compensate)
-Merchandise: $5.4m [up from $5.2m] (Average per head is $12.75)
-TV Rights Fees: $23.9m [up from $20.8m]
-WWE 24/7: $1.3m [up from $0.9m]
-Home Video: $14.8m [up from $12.1m]
-Licencing: $7.7m [up from $5.2m]
-Magazine Revenues: $3.7m [up from $3m]

Yes, even with the whole murder-suicide, all numbers were up. Only the $15.7m loss they took on the Condemned hurt 'em.

why do you hate TNA?

Freeway
08-12-2007, 09:46 AM
why do you hate TNA?

The booking is illogical and non-sensical and the free TV matches make me not care about PPV matches that I have to pay for.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 09:47 AM
The booking is illogical and non-sensical and the free TV matches make me not care about PPV matches that I have to pay for.
but they're the world's best run wrestling organization!

Freeway
08-12-2007, 09:47 AM
but they're the world's best run wrestling organization!

Samoa Joe isn't their champion. He was the single hottest act in North America until TNA put Angle over him.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 09:53 AM
Samoa Joe isn't their champion. He was the single hottest act in North America until TNA put Angle over him.
c'mon now. be serious. booking the hottest act in the country in such a way that he's now viewed as just another guy can't possibly be worse than a stupid storyline that ends up not really affecting a character one way or another.

Freeway
08-12-2007, 09:56 AM
c'mon now. be serious. booking the hottest act in the country in such a way that he's now viewed as just another guy can't possibly be worse than a stupid storyline that ends up not really affecting a character one way or another.

Well, they got John Cena over by having him win good matches against their top guys (Benoit, Jericho, Angle, Taker, Orton, Michaels, Helmsley, JBL, Umaga, Khali...), but that's just as silly as getting Umaga over by having him destroy midcarders for our amusement. Joe's streak was a mix of the two, so ending it and establishing Joe as nothing special was a fantastic, money-making idea.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-12-2007, 11:53 AM
Well, they got John Cena over by having him win good matches against their top guys (Benoit, Jericho, Angle, Taker, Orton, Michaels, Helmsley, JBL, Umaga, Khali...), but that's just as silly as getting Umaga over by having him destroy midcarders for our amusement.

I actually love that. I could watch Umaga smash the shit out of guys all day.

Brad N.
08-12-2007, 12:38 PM
The booking is illogical and non-sensical and the free TV matches make me not care about PPV matches that I have to pay for.


And that is different from WWE how?

Brad N.
08-12-2007, 12:40 PM
And with that I'll take my leave of you fine young gents. Good luck arguing with yourselves and patting each other on the backs. Classy all the way, kids.

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 01:01 PM
And with that I'll take my leave of you fine young gents. Good luck arguing with yourselves and patting each other on the backs. Classy all the way, kids.Good job trying to get your gimmick over, BTW.

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 01:04 PM
I currently hate the product WWE is putting out with the passion of 1,000 suns.

But from a moneymaking business standpoint, WWE is waaaaay better than TNA.

Is that in part because WWE has a built in audience that sees it as the only game in town and will support it no matter what? Yes.

Is it also in part because WWE is sitting on tons of money so they can coast where TNA has to attempt to climb? Yes.

But even if both of those factors were equal, WWE would be a better run company than TNA.

And I'd rather watch a TNA PPV than a WWE PPV by a wide margin.

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 01:24 PM
And I'd rather watch a TNA PPV than a WWE PPV by a wide margin.Do you mean watching iMPACT is more likely to cause you to watch a TNA PPV or that the PPVs are just better? Because I suspect that it's probably not #1.

Foolish Mortal
08-12-2007, 01:39 PM
Good job trying to get your gimmick over, BTW.
Too bad none of you jabronis would sell to Bradtinator. :no:

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 01:44 PM
Do you mean watching iMPACT is more likely to cause you to watch a TNA PPV or that the PPVs are just better? Because I suspect that it's probably not #1.

That the PPVs are better, of course.

I'd rather watch any of the three WWE programs than IMPACT, if I was going in cold with no knowledge of anything that happened on any of the shows.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
08-12-2007, 01:48 PM
That the PPVs are better, of course.

I'd rather watch any of the three WWE programs than IMPACT, if I was going in cold with no knowledge of anything that happened on any of the shows.

For three weeks, I actually thought Impact wasn't that bad. It still wasn't great, but it was a drastic improvement. However, the last two weeks have been...

... shocking. Perhaps the worst it's ever been. And I hear thie weeks show was hideous.

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 01:52 PM
For three weeks, I actually thought Impact wasn't that bad. It still wasn't great, but it was a drastic improvement. However, the last two weeks have been...

... shocking. Perhaps the worst it's ever been. And I hear thie weeks show was hideous.

I haven't watched it in months.

What got better?

It breaks my heart more than WWE does, as TNA has a roster full of guys I like.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 01:53 PM
And with that I'll take my leave of you fine young gents. Good luck arguing with yourselves and patting each other on the backs. Classy all the way, kids.
for the most part we were having a fine discussion until you started with the gimmick and ignoring facts and the name calling and such.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 01:55 PM
I haven't watched it in months.

What got better?

It breaks my heart more than WWE does, as TNA has a roster full of guys I like.
they had a couple of really solid shows. one even with a match that went more than 5 minutes. they have so much potential. that's the maddening part.

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 02:00 PM
they had a couple of really solid shows. one even with a match that went more than 5 minutes. they have so much potential. that's the maddening part.

Thats the big problem for me.

I don't expect Khali vs Carlito (or whatever) to be a good match. Thats a symptom of a bigger WWE problem.

But not being able to book a good Low Ki vs Alex Shelley match? Thats just sad, even if you only have a one hour show.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 02:01 PM
Thats the big problem for me.

I don't expect Khali vs Carlito (or whatever) to be a good match. Thats a symptom of a bigger WWE problem.

But not being able to book a good Low Ki vs Alex Shelley match? Thats just sad, even if you only have a one hour show.
there have been tons of successful one hour wrestling shows. that's just an excuse.

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 02:15 PM
there have been tons of successful one hour wrestling shows. that's just an excuse.

Is it being used as an excuse? Yes.

But do I think running a one hour wrestling show without squash matches is in fact much harder than doing same thing with a two hour show? Yes.

ECW actually does a good job with just an hour.

But they have a roster of six guys, and one belt.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 02:18 PM
Is it being used as an excuse? Yes.

But do I think running a one hour wrestling show without squash matches is in fact much harder than doing same thing with a two hour show? Yes.

ECW actually does a good job with just an hour.

But they have a roster of six guys, and one belt.

there's no good reason not to have the occassional squash match in tna.

is it harder? only in the sense that you have to be willing to not cram all your talent on every show. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that when they get two hours the show won't be paced any better, it will be impactx2.

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 02:33 PM
there's no good reason not to have the occasional squash match in tna.

is it harder? only in the sense that you have to be willing to not cram all your talent on every show. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that when they get two hours the show won't be paced any better, it will be impactx2.

Occasional squash matches would be fine. But if you went back and looked at all the classic hour hour wrestling programs, I think you'd find that almost every match is a squash match. And that wouldn't fly in the modern wrestling world, unless you the time to shift your fans expectations.

I agree that TNA getting two hours for Impact is in no way a guarantee that the quality will go up. But, from everything I've heard about TNA and how Dixie Carter wants things run, I think it is going to help at least a little bit.

But I stand by the idea that in the current market a two hour show is much easier to run than a one hour program, especially when working with the default assumption that there will be one three hour PPV a month that the tv show is designed to sell.

TNA, with a one hour show, would be much better off not running as many PPVs as they do.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Occasional squash matches would be fine. But if you went back and looked at all the classic hour hour wrestling programs, I think you'd find that almost every match is a squash match. And that wouldn't fly in the modern wrestling world, unless you the time to shift your fans expectations.

I agree that TNA getting two hours for Impact is in no way a guarantee that the quality will go up. But, from everything I've heard about TNA and how Dixie Carter wants things run, I think it is going to help at least a little bit.

But I stand by the idea that in the current market a two hour show is much easier to run than a one hour program, especially when working with the default assumption that there will be one three hour PPV a month that the tv show is designed to sell.

TNA, with a one hour show, would be much better off not running as many PPVs as they do.

the great ppvs are one of the few things it's doing right - russo gimmick ruined matches being the exception. they just need to dedicate the tv time they do have to building ppv sales. they've thrown a lot of money away for no good reason just with very basic simple mistakes.

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 02:44 PM
the great ppvs are one of the few things it's doing right - russo gimmick ruined matches being the exception. they just need to dedicate the tv time they do have to building ppv sales. they've thrown a lot of money away for no good reason just with very basic simple mistakes.

Not to change the subject too much, but this reminds me of something.

RoH booker Gabe Sapolsky is hailed as a genius by a lot of people.

And I'm not claiming he isn't a good booker.

But his real "genius" is the fact that he tends to book things so very simply, and doesn't make many of the very basic mistakes that TNA (and to a much less extent WWE) does.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 02:59 PM
Not to change the subject too much, but this reminds me of something.

RoH booker Gabe Sapolsky is hailed as a genius by a lot of people.

And I'm not claiming he isn't a good booker.

But his real "genius" is the fact that he tends to book things so very simply, and doesn't make many of the very basic mistakes that TNA (and to a much less extent WWE) does.
yep. same thing with ufc. you don't have to like the fighting to see the very basic and simple angles and promotion they're using to do more buys than WWE, with only one hour tv shows.

The Human Target
08-12-2007, 03:10 PM
yep. same thing with ufc. you don't have to like the fighting to see the very basic and simple angles and promotion they're using to do more buys than WWE, with only one hour tv shows.

I think a main point of legit sports (be it MMA or whatever) that wrestling companies and fans need to get is this- wrestlers need no other reason to go out and have a good match beyond the fact that wrestling is their job.They all theoretically love to wrestle and want to be good at it. Thats all the motivation you need for regular matches.

Princesa
08-12-2007, 03:20 PM
Adam should sue. The NFL banned him and is not paying him, let him do wrestling or match what they were going to pay him.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 03:21 PM
Adam should sue. The NFL banned him and is not paying him, let him do wrestling or match what they were going to pay him.
his suspension doesn't end his contract. if his contract prevents him from wrestling then the titans have every right to keep him from wrestling.

Princesa
08-12-2007, 03:23 PM
his suspension doesn't end his contract. if his contract prevents him from wrestling then the titans have every right to keep him from wrestling.


I doubt the courts will uphold their right to stop him from making a living. Again they are not paying him.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 03:27 PM
I doubt the courts will uphold their right to stop him from making a living. Again they are not paying him.
but they are not paying him because the terms of his existing contract say they can do that when he gets suspended. and besides, they've worked out a deal where he can appear at tna and get paid, just not be involved physically.

Princesa
08-12-2007, 03:37 PM
but they are not paying him because the terms of his existing contract say they can do that when he gets suspended. and besides, they've worked out a deal where he can appear at tna and get paid, just not be involved physically.I


I still think he has a big fat lawsuit and I'd love to see the No Fun League taken down a peg or two. I'm not at all a fan of Adam--I'd have cut him long ago (as they should) --but the League is too arrogant for me. There are lots of things leagues have done that have not held up to legal muster.

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 03:57 PM
there have been tons of successful one hour wrestling shows. that's just an excuse.And they're called "Nitro" and "Raw."

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 03:59 PM
I still think he has a big fat lawsuit and I'd love to see the No Fun League taken down a peg or two. I'm not at all a fan of Adam--I'd have cut him long ago (as they should) --but the League is too arrogant for me. There are lots of things leagues have done that have not held up to legal muster.A lot of "legal muster" goes out the door when you have the phrase "collectively bargined" in place. :)

And the nature of NFL contracts is that the cap hit is too much for the Titans. Notice the Bears cut Tank Johnson because he was making less than $1 million a year. Adam Jones was a top 10 draft pick, so he's probably making $2 million a year or so, not to mention (and this is the big cap point) whatever his signing bonus is.

Greenville 90210
08-12-2007, 07:20 PM
I like seeing Human Target and Smokinblues getting along. I'm glad this thread has gotten nice.

I pretty much agree with Target. I would rather watch a TNA ppv cause there will be more good matches. But I would rather watch all three WWE shows before Impact. I enjoy watching RAW and ECW but a lot of the guys don't really excite me in the ring. I can't stand everyone having the same style...

EDIT: Its weird how this thread has replaced the Official Wrestling Thread.

Smokinblues
08-12-2007, 07:31 PM
I like seeing Human Target and Smokinblues getting along. I'm glad this thread has gotten nice.

I pretty much agree with Target. I would rather watch a TNA ppv cause there will be more good matches. But I would rather watch all three WWE shows before Impact. I enjoy watching RAW and ECW but a lot of the guys don't really excite me in the ring. I can't stand everyone having the same style...

EDIT: Its weird how this thread has replaced the Official Wrestling Thread.
just because we don't always see eye to eye doesn't mean we don't get along. any perceived animosty is just mistaken jest.

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 07:32 PM
I like seeing Human Target and Smokinblues getting along. I'm glad this thread has gotten nice.

I pretty much agree with Target. I would rather watch a TNA ppv cause there will be more good matches. But I would rather watch all three WWE shows before Impact. I enjoy watching RAW and ECW but a lot of the guys don't really excite me in the ring. I can't stand everyone having the same style...

EDIT: Its weird how this thread has replaced the Official Wrestling Thread.We weren't going to get mainstream posters into the wrestling thread to talk about this, which is why I created the new one.

Justin.Strange
08-12-2007, 08:02 PM
So...what happened?

Brewtown Andy
08-12-2007, 10:33 PM
So...what happened?From Figure Four Weekly Online: (http://www.f4wonline.com)
Tenay is calling out Pacman. I have no idea what this accomplished. Basically, Ron Killings came out and they challenged each other, but then security jumped Killings as he tried to get to the ring. And that was the end.

Wait, I guess not, they cut backstage after an interview and PACMAN WAS DOWN, COVERED IN BLOOD. Tenay was like, HOLY SHIT, WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACT? The best part was the fans cheered when they saw him down. Pretty good idea, really.

Greenville 90210
08-13-2007, 01:13 AM
I thought Killings was done with TNA. Oh well, he deserves a little push.

Brad N.
08-13-2007, 02:28 PM
I know I said I'd stay out of this thread but I wanted to pop back in and apologize for the way I was acting. It's not really like me and there's no excuse for it. Technofear, Smokinblues, and Brewtown Andy I'm sorry for getting a little over the top and out of line in a civilized discussion. It's really not an issue to get all pissy about and I'm not sure where or why I got defensive, but it doesn't matter.

I started out by making the point that in my humble opinion TNA hiring the douchebag Pacman Jones was pretty similar to when the WWF hired the douchebag Mike Tyson, that's all. Somehow it turned into another WWE Vs. TNA argument which is odd because I'm not even a WWE hater or TNA fan per se. So yeah, nothing to see here, move along.

Smokinblues
08-14-2007, 06:36 PM
thanks brad.

so, what did TNA get from all that publicity from Pacman Jones? A letter from Congress demanding details of their nonexistant drug program.

Brewtown Andy
08-14-2007, 06:40 PM
thanks brad.

so, what did TNA get from all that publicity from Pacman Jones? A letter from Congress demanding details of their nonexistant drug program.On the upside, they weren't sued for $63,000,000 billion dollars.

Brad N.
08-14-2007, 06:40 PM
thanks brad.

so, what did TNA get from all that publicity from Pacman Jones? A letter from Congress demanding details of their nonexistant drug program.

Eeep. Looks like he's already a cancer in TNA too!

Brad N.
08-14-2007, 06:41 PM
On the upside, they weren't sued for $63,000,000 billion dollars.

there is that.

lonesomefool
08-14-2007, 07:05 PM
I thought Killings was done with TNA. Oh well, he deserves a little push.

He quit, but TNA came to him and said he could continue to work with AAA in Mexico and gave him a raise, so he signed.

I think it's funny that no one remembers, 5 years he ago he was the NWA champion. The guy just got shoved deeper and deeper into the mid-card scene to the point, he went from headlining PPV's, to working PPV warmup matches.

Brewtown Andy
08-14-2007, 07:24 PM
I think it's funny that no one remembers, 5 years he ago he was the NWA champion. Twice.