Yeah, this one sure looks pretty. Bet someone feels good they have a nice new belt when their lower card's getting paid peanuts. File that one under "unnecessary expense".
(edited by JST on 15.3.11 1946) My side is the side of love, peace and submachine guns.
So instead of spending money on a new belt; why not just bring back the old one? Is each new long-term champion going to get their own vanity belt now?
Originally posted by InVerseKnowing TNA, they probably lost the old belt.
We should be so lucky. It's still on Eric Young last I checked, which means they're planning to use it in whatever program they've got planned for him and his brain-damage gimmick.
Originally posted by thecubsfanThey could've had Sting swap belts with Eric Young. The Hardy belt belongs in a brain damage storyline.
I gurantee that you just put more thought and logic into the decision than TNA did.
They were already planning to bring in a new TNA Title. They were supposed to give it to Anderson, but for whatever reason his title reign was cut short.
Everyone that's bitching about them bringing in a new belt when they're not paying the lower card talent anything doesn't seem to be very educated about the cost of title belts. They could have given all they money they spent on the belt to one of the wrestlers and they still wouldn't be getting paid shit.
Originally posted by InVerseEveryone that's bitching about them bringing in a new belt when they're not paying the lower card talent anything doesn't seem to be very educated about the cost of title belts. They could have given all they money they spent on the belt to one of the wrestlers and they still wouldn't be getting paid shit.
The point is that they wasted at least a grand if not more on a new belt for Sting when the old one would have done just fine. And that's not even taking into consideration what they spent on the Jeff Hardy belt which will probably never be seen on TV again if Jeff is released.
In the grand scheme of things that's not a lot of money but spending money needlessly (on top of the guranteed big money contracts signed to older ex-WWE talent) is one of the reasons WCW lost so much money.
Changing the belt every few months isn't going to help draw in viewers or get anyone over. I didn't like it when the WWE did it, and I don't like it when TNA does it. At least the WWE has stuck with the Spinner belt long after it stopped becoming a vanity belt just for Cena.
It's less the lower-card talents and more the vendors/indy bookings that they're allegedly stiffing for months on end. A $250 belt is good for paying off at least a couple of those bookings. For a company that's bleeding money and is supposedly in a continual state of stress about short-term finances, shelling out on a vanity belt and then another new title belt in the space of a coupla months seems silly.
Then again, this is a company that's paying Hulk Hogan more than any active wrestler to do pretty much nothing, so it's par for the course.
Originally posted by PaulKTF The point is that they wasted at least a grand if not more on a new belt for Sting when the old one would have done just fine. And that's not even taking into consideration what they spent on the Jeff Hardy belt which will probably never be seen on TV again if Jeff is released.
Chalk one up to be uneducated about the cost of title belts. Do we even know that TNA actually paid for the Jeff Hardy custom belt and it wasn't one he bought himself? It's not uncommon for wrestlers to shell out for their own vanity belts.
Here's a thought, though. Everyone who's so concerned about TNA's finances should start buying every TNA PPV. (You don't have to watch it, of course, that would be overkill.)
Originally posted by PaulKTFAt least the WWE has stuck with the Spinner belt long after it stopped becoming a vanity belt just for Cena.
Not a point in your favour. The WWE belt is hideous. If they're keeping it around because they're too cheap to buy a replacement, I'd be glad to pay for it myself.
Originally posted by InVerseHere's a thought, though. Everyone who's so concerned about TNA's finances should start buying every TNA PPV. (You don't have to watch it, of course, that would be overkill.)
I'd point out what a ridiculous argument this is, but I'm fairly certain you know how facetious you're being. We should all just stop discussing wrestling on the internet because InVerse seems to find it so eyerollingly pointless.
(Actually, we probably should stop discussing wrestling on the internet, but for entirely different reasons.)
Originally posted by PaulKTFAt least the WWE has stuck with the Spinner belt long after it stopped becoming a vanity belt just for Cena.
Not a point in your favour. The WWE belt is hideous. If they're keeping it around because they're too cheap to buy a replacement, I'd be glad to pay for it myself.
I wouldn't mind seeing it replaced with something more traditional too; but that wasn't my point. Plus I bet it still sells a ton of replicas to the kids.
Originally posted by InVerse Here's a thought, though. Everyone who's so concerned about TNA's finances should start buying every TNA PPV. (You don't have to watch it, of course, that would be overkill.)
At that point you start opening up questions about violations of the Geneva Convention.
Nice report! NXT is the only WWE product I watch on a regular basis / follow more than passively. When I went to Florida in December for SHINE I also checked out an NXT house show at the FCW arena.