Hotrod Coolbeans

Why TNA does NOT need Paul Heyman.......

Rate this Entry

19 Comments

, 08-20-2010 at 05:32 AM (3948 Views)

Before I begin, let me start by saying I believe Paul Heyman is a creative genius, Paul Heyman is a visionary and Paul Heyman is one of the greatest minds in pro wrestling history. However..............................

I have read so many TNA "fans" going on and on about how Heyman would save TNA, and about how TNA needs Heyman, but my question is this...... Does TNA need saving???

Lets consider some facts shall we my fellow wrestling fan. First off, the ratings for iMPACT! in the USA are increasing (i admit slowly) and over here in the UK the viewing figures show that iMPACT! often beats WWE RAW and constantly beats Smackdown, NXT, and all the other programs that VKM puts out. Considering these facts, does TNA need Heyman?

The storylines in TNA over the past several months have been exciting, intriguing, and intelligent (ev2.0, abyss/them, sting/nash alliance, hogan/bischoff/JJ conspiracy to name but a few). Does TNA need this side of the product saving?

The matches over the past several months have also been amazing to say the least, with the MCMG vs Beer Money series springing to mind, along with Angle vs AJ, Joe vs Hardy, RVD vs Abyss and many more. I guarantee you would not see wrestling like that in WWE. Does this need saving?

TNA is currently a profitable company, making more money than it is leaking. Did ECW ever make a profit??
TNA wrestling is only 8 years old and has way more fan awareness than ECW did, and i dare say more awareness at this early stage than WWE and WCW had at their respective 8 year stage. If TNA is this big after just 8 years, where could it be in another 8 years? another 12 years? 20 years? the possibilities are endless.

And where was Paul Heyman throughout all of this? Where has Paul. E been for the last 8 years? not in TNA thats for sure.
TNA has grown massively, both in stature and in production, without Paul Heyman, and it will continue to grow, with or without paul Heyman.

Would Paul Heyman be good for TNA? yes
Would TNA benefit from Paul's experience, ideas and knowledge? of course
Does TNA need Paul Heyman? Hell no!!!!!

Thanks for reading guys, feel free to leave comments/feedback.

Categories: Uncategorized

Email Blog Entry

« Prev Main Next »

Comments

Rassling_Fan - 08-24-2010 12:54 PM
Originally Posted by jwt15

TNA doesn't make most of their money from PPV's they get most of their money from spike who pays them to be on Spike PPV buyrates realy dont matter to TNA Money wise

It should. PPV Buy Rates would give them a huge money boost meaning more pay for the workers and thus happier wrestlers.

Also, if the Spike Money train ends, then they would be out of luck. That's the same reason WCW failed. They depended on Ted Turner's money too much so when there was a change in the guards, the new head of Turner saw WCW as a waste of money. If WCW were able to generate ratings and buyrates when they needed it, they would probably still be competing with WWE right now.
WF™ - Original Member! - 08-24-2010 01:41 PM
Originally Posted by Hotrod Coolbeans

TNA is not shown on free tv in the uk, its on Bravo, which is only available via subscription services (sky/virgin etc). Also iMPACT! is shown on a saturday night, which is when a lot of people are either out or watching "match of the day" (soccer).

All of those similarities you mentioned could be said about 90% of storylines from the last 10 years (in all wrestling companies), the majority of todays storylines are revamps/reboots of old storylines, thats not new, and its not just TNA!!

You do have to have subscription TV to view iMPACT! however you only need to have the basic SKY Subscription to view Bravo, SKYSports is a completely different subscription altogether, also, Match of the Day doesn't start until 10:30pm on a Saturday Night, iMPACT! starts at 9:00pm, not that I bother with that, I usually watch it online on a Friday Morning aswell as SmackDown! it sure as hell beats having to do any work, what I'm saying is if the WWE can get those kind of figures with a subscription channel, if they where on a channel like Bravo they would easily double their viewing figures, something I believe they should have considered doing with ECW and now NXT.

The bottom line of it though is the viewing figures are down by about 80% in the UK from what they where 10 years ago
Hotrod Coolbeans - 08-24-2010 03:18 PM
My point is that TNA is not on a free channel tho (the terrestrial 1 - 5 channels) and you do need a subscription of some kind to view the program.
I see your point but dont forget Sky sports do a much better job of advertising WWE shows than Bravo do for TNA, in fact im sure theres still a few fans that probably dont even know iMPACT! is on Bravo lol. Also with Sky Sports theres the added attraction of seeing the shows in High Def, which Bravo do not offer. So it works both ways, there is an advantage for TNA being on Bravo but it also has its disadvantages.
WF™ - Original Member! - 08-24-2010 04:19 PM
True, all I am saying is anyone who can watch WWE can watch iMPACT! but not everyone who can watch iMPACT! can see WWE, so I'd not put to much emphasis on UK ratings, in the grand scheme of things the ratings are pretty poor regardless of how WWE / TNA might try and sell it
djsoulslayer - 08-24-2010 08:08 PM
I would disagree in that TNA doesn't need saving. I think TNA needs a savior. Im not sure if Paul Heyman fits the profile but helll its worth a try. They've have given everyone else an opportunity. TNA is currently on a hybrid path of WCW and ECW. Considering these are two defunt companies, I would say TNA needs some help from someone.
Patrick - 08-25-2010 12:35 AM
What TNA needs to do is realize what made them so famous in the first place. Because what will TNA be remembered for fifteen years from now? Hiring wash ups and already set stars like Hogan and Hardy? Be remembered for making only a handful of guys famous on their own? Did ECW rely on such actions? Did WCW? Sure they had their exceptions, but not as bad as TNA. Let guys like Anderson... Anderson have full reign. A character that charismatic is just a step below the likes of The Rock IMO. And look what Dwayne Johnson did for WWF.

Develop guys like Rob Terry more than just the big guy. Make him into a HHH kind of character where he is dominate and witty. Put the older guys like Nash/Hogan/Flair to rest. They can be managers. Spotlight the X Division. I know that if I could choose a division to go it would be the knockouts. Sorry, but it is what it is. IDK. Feedback?
WF™ - Original Member! - 08-25-2010 08:12 AM
I'd hardly call Jeff Hardy washed up although he doesn't look in the best shape possible.

Jeff Hardy was a 3 time World Champion in the WWE and was enterting his peak years and a guy that would have had a definite chance to main event WrestleMania XXVI and probably would have main evneted WrestleMania XXVII, TNA made a major coup when they signed him, he was still someone Vince wanted to build his company around and was the second biggest babyface in the land behind the cash cow Cena.

Rob Terry can never be like Triple H for two simple reasons, Triple H is/was an awesome worker and could promo his ass off, Terry can't work for toffee and couldn't cut a promo if his life depended on it.