This year; TNA turns 9 years old. They still run almost all of their events and Pay-Per-Views out of a single, small location.
For the first few years I thought they just needed to build up enough of a profit to be able to afford to tour on a regular basis like bigger promotions (IE: WWE, WCW) did, but here we are in 2011 and all they've done is move from an arena at a fairgrounds to a soundstage in a theme park where people don't even have to pay to attend TV tapings (or PPVs, I think?).
Now, to their credit; I didn't think they'd last 5 years; much less 9, so huzzah for that.
Obviously they must be turning some sort of profit but every time I watch Impact, the small size of the arena reminds me of watching WCW Saturday Night (for obvious reasons).
They do tour, worldwide even. The problem is the place they get are not the greatest in the place to go and the crowds are half the size if that of a regular WWE house show. The crowd was probably the loudest I have been in a long time and I usually go to a WWE event once or twice a year.
TNA gets paid a good chunk of cash to just sit in Universal studios. I think they are also under a contract for a certain amount of dates of filming, so that may explain why most of the PPVs are there. From what I understand, the line is about an hour or two deep to get in. I'll let you know since I am going there at the end of March. So, there are kinda stuck at the park for their shows, but they are not running the risk of going to a location where there will be 30 people for a televised. WWE also pads their audience with free tickets as well for companies or organizations that are sponsoring the event.
TNA was doing live PPVs in other parts of the country up until last year. I think part of the reasoning is that they are one of the few wrestling companies not losing a ton of cash. It doesn't shock me that TNA wants to say at home since it follows what WCW. However, they needed to move on, but they only moved on after the interest was generated when they signed Hogan. There is no one on the WWE roster or out there minus Rock who could do what Hogan did for WCW. If Cena, Orton or even Edge left, you would see a small bump in the ratings as well as the IWC burying them for leaving.
The other problem for TNA is most of the talent they have now doesn't want to do the WWE death march of traveling. Its one of the reasons they signed with TNA is to be in one spot all year and occasionally travel twice a year for house shows or world tours. If they go on tour 300 days a year, they might not have a roster left. I also think WWE is insane for having as many travel dates out there. The crowds just get smaller due to the fact we see them almost three times a year around here. I am sure its more in bigger markets like LA, NY or Philly.
When TNA held Against All Odds a few years back in Greenville, SC, the Bi-Lo Center was sold out. This is the same location the WWE has broadcast many a RAW and SmackDown.
I've only ever heard good things about their house shows: the matches run longer, the performers are accessible, etc. Even if they wouldn't tour nationally, they could easily make the Southeast a home region to tour.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Originally posted by PaulKTFObviously they must be turning some sort of profit
Really? Can you expand on that?
Well, they've literally never been profitable. They're bankrolled by two things, Panda Energy providing a vanity project for its owner's daughter and the false promise that the only thing they need to succeed before the money starts rolling in is the next thing they don't have yet (weekly TV, SpikeTV, Sting, Thursday nights, Kurt Angle, two hours, Mick Foley, Hulk Hogan, Monday nights, Jeff Hardy, ECW, heel Hulk Hogan and Jeff Hardy, the next thing).
The thing is I heard last year TNA was actually self sufficient as of 2009. I think Flair's contract is with Panda Energy. I am not sure who has to pay Hogan or Eric, TNA or Panda. If its TNA, I could them losing money. Yet, I don't think they are that as bad off as the IWC makes it seem. Of course, without having the books in front of us, we may not know how they did this year until later in the winter if they post their fiscal report. My guess is Hogan's contract broke the bank for the next few years and that is part of the reason for them not going to film live events. Yet they just signed Mickie and Matt, probably fairly discounted, but they are signed.
It's amazing that this company has gone practically nowhere in nine years.
I'm dying for them to pick a direction and to see that direction out. I think I lost interest in always having another 'major announcement that is going to change the face of TNA', well TNA has changed faces more than Michael Jackson.
TNA isn't a public company, so nobody knows exactly what they are making or losing. I've heard that TNA is sucking up money with all the contracts, but I've also heard that they actually make money because Spike pays them for the show. Spike is also rumored to pay for some of Sting's contract, so it is possible they've fronted the bill for Hardy, Anderson, etc.
Probably won't be a 1980's style touring company, but really, is it that necessary in this day and age? As for profitability, it might be better off never showing a profit. Company needs a loss leader, thus it keeps TNA. If they start making money, that might make them less attractive to Panda. In all likelihood WCW could have survived for years losing money post March '01 had the AOL merger, which turned out to be a disaster more biblical than anything WCW could have ever conceived of being, not occurred.
It seems like they're pulling the trigger on potential PPV feuds too soon... Eddie/Booker and Booker/RVD are two potentially good upper-card feuds, and in the period of a month they're both there on free TV.