Thread: Should TNA even have their own "answer" to WrestleMania?
View Single Post
Old 12-28-2007, 09:50 AM   #17
BigDaddyCool
Pelvic Sorcerer
 
BigDaddyCool's Avatar
 
Posts: 64,762
BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)BigDaddyCool makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alienoid06 View Post
Slammiversary is closer to their equivalent to Summerslam. TNA's "big three" PPVs are Bound For Glory, Slammiversary and Lockdown (probably in that order).

Xero, BDC and KK seem to think that it's a good idea for TNA to have a "big four," or something similar.
I never said that. I said they only need to keep the ppvs they are making money on. I never gave a solid number. If they are breaking even or making money on every ppv, then keep them all. If they can only make money on 1, then keep that one, and make it extra special, make that the equilient of Maina or Starcade. If by scaling down, they get to a point where they only have 4 or 5, make those bigger shows of equal importance.

Also, their ppv titles suck.
BigDaddyCool is offline   Reply With Quote