Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteyford
TNA has pretty much unlimited finances to an extent, Sting is reportedly on 500K a year, Flair was on between 2 & 400K aledgedly, and a lot that is/was paid by Panda Energy rather than TNA. ECW made stars, the amount of talent that was raided from there was ridiculous, even if when they joined the big two they were going in as midcard guys. TNA has always presented itself as WWE-lite, for me that was always their problem, they had/have an amazing roster of talent but fail to capitilise on what made them different, they had an actual tag division at one point that people cared about, womens matches that drew them their highest ratings consistently and the X division. Even the six sided ring was unique. When I catch TNA now it just looks like a watered down version of Smackdown.
|
Yes I know they're bankrolled by Panda and Spike to a certain extent, but it's not enough. They need to have enough to where say CM Punk's contract comes up they can say, whatever WWE is giving you, we'll make it more and a lighter schedule. Despite what he's said about TNA in the past, that's probably enough to have anyone thinking twice about things. Now they can't go all the way to giving them the ridiculous clauses that Hall and Nash had when they jumped, but they need to be able to compete money wise. But that's just one thing that can get the ball rolling. Better booking would make the show better for sure, but it won't improve its ratings or attendance, whereas bad booking probably stands to hurt them. So it's a tough situation to be in for sure. They've had spans of good shows in the past, but did it help? Not so much. No wrestling promotion can book perfectly on a consistent basis, so you largely have to depend on momentum. I'm sure ECW was great, but it didn't help matters that they had very little money and therefor, no big stage for everyone to see this great booking that Heyman supposedly did. So they ended up going under as well.