News Impact Wrestling Reportedly Cancelled

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Legend
42,877
9,356
2,733
5,542.70
And they've gotten into markets they weren't in before like New York, LA and Philly. Some of the most important TV markets in the US
 

The GOAT

The Architect
Hotshot
3,322
1,752
568
375.10
I guess now might be an appropriate time to once again ponder just how different TNA may have been like these past five years if Dixie had just given Paul Heyman the 100% creative control that he wanted to run the company back in 2010. :heyman:
 

Bort

WALKEN'
Legend
4,131
1,622
668
370.70
Paul would've also run it to the ground. He might be a somewhat good booker, but he can't handle money. Do people forget the past that easily?
 

Snowman

Chillin' with the snowmies.
The IIconics
32,603
13,521
2,728
4,499.54
I guess now might be an appropriate time to once again ponder just how different TNA may have been like these past five years if Dixie had just given Paul Heyman the 100% creative control that he wanted to run the company back in 2010. :heyman:
before launching into any kind of TNA defense since that's worse killing a puppy among wrestling fans: Yes, it was stupid. Heyman wanted to

In hindsight, I wonder how much of that was Spike TV, though. In early 2011 Spike really wanted the Main Event Mafia back since "that storyline was a ratings draw", and they thought having all the old-timers around was going to bring ratings.
While it never did, getting away from the old guys did hurt the ratings quite a bit and didn't help fan sentiment much (except on here).
Although back then, the timing would have been much better. If you would have taken 2010 TNA and got rid of the NWO, Sting, Flair, Hogan, all the random dudes coming in and out... And just focused on the talent people turned on TNA to actually watch + Angle, Hardy, and Jarrett, and had Heyman booking them? Fantastic!

It is likely TNA's biggest blunder of all time, to pass on arguably the best booker in wrestling history because you didn't want to do what the company needed to do at that time.
 

JacobFox

You Can't Beat my Meowcenaries
Commissioner
45,618
9,539
2,748
16,202.53
Paul would've also run it to the ground. He might be a somewhat good booker, but he can't handle money. Do people forget the past that easily?
I'm not so sure. Heyman having 100% creative control wouldn't have included handling the money. Dixie' s parents would never have gone for that. Giving Heyman complete control as a booker would have, in my estimation, not have sunk the company down the toilet as much as Hogan's and Bischoff's work did.
 

The GOAT

The Architect
Hotshot
3,322
1,752
568
375.10
Paul would've also run it to the ground. He might be a somewhat good booker, but he can't handle money. Do people forget the past that easily?
Paul's problem with ECW is that he barely had any money to fund the place to begin with. Even with Vince paying him $1,000 a week at one point, he was bouncing checks left and right. And it's not like he blew through massive amounts of cash or anything, ECW didn't exactly have high productions values to begin with (which was one of it's main characteristics.)

Even so, an actual great wrestling mind > some ditz who knows nothing about wrestling. Even at his worst, Heyman couldn't have possibly done as bad of a job as Dixie has, and unlike with ECW, he would have had millions of dollars at his disposal to run the company with.

before launching into any kind of TNA defense since that's worse killing a puppy among wrestling fans: Yes, it was stupid. Heyman wanted to

In hindsight, I wonder how much of that was Spike TV, though. In early 2011 Spike really wanted the Main Event Mafia back since "that storyline was a ratings draw", and they thought having all the old-timers around was going to bring ratings.
While it never did, getting away from the old guys did hurt the ratings quite a bit and didn't help fan sentiment much (except on here).
Although back then, the timing would have been much better. If you would have taken 2010 TNA and got rid of the NWO, Sting, Flair, Hogan, all the random dudes coming in and out... And just focused on the talent people turned on TNA to actually watch + Angle, Hardy, and Jarrett, and had Heyman booking them? Fantastic!

It is likely TNA's biggest blunder of all time, to pass on arguably the best booker in wrestling history because you didn't want to do what the company needed to do at that time.
Yeah, she wouldn't allot him the creative control he wanted because she was so opposed to the idea of firing virtually all the older guys and centering the promotion around mostly the younger talent instead. (Like, hello.) And the funny part is that as I type this, almost none of the older talent are even still with TNA now. Hogan, Flair, RVD, Booker T., and Foley have all since returned to WWE, and even Sting finally left TNA behind so that he could finish out his career there.
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Legend
42,877
9,356
2,733
5,542.70
I'm not so sure. Heyman having 100% creative control wouldn't have included handling the money. Dixie' s parents would never have gone for that. Giving Heyman complete control as a booker would have, in my estimation, not have sunk the company down the toilet as much as Hogan's and Bischoff's work did.
100% creative control does equal 100% control of who is booked and who isn't booked, what goes down on show, how the production looks is also something that lies heavily on the person with creative control. Heyman could have easily sunk TNA. Because the man is born with a silver tongue and could have convinced Ditzie to blow money on just about anything.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bort

JacobFox

You Can't Beat my Meowcenaries
Commissioner
45,618
9,539
2,748
16,202.53
100% creative control does equal 100% control of who is booked and who isn't booked, what goes down on show, how the production looks is also something that lies heavily on the person with creative control. Heyman could have easily sunk TNA. Because the man is born with a silver tongue and could have convinced Ditzie to blow money on just about anything.
As even Dixie Carter did not have 100% control of the finances, I disagree. I'm not saying Heyman would have succeeded or failed though. I simply presented my own hypothetical about how I thought it could have worked, not that it would have worked. And the variable I felt made the difference would have been the financial restrictions.

And you're right, Heyman could have sunk TNA. I didn't say he would have been an unchallenged success, just that as a booker with no financial control, he may have helped the company. He may have also run it into the ground. Both options would have been possible. I just don't think it would have been any worse than what Hogan and Bischoff did.
 

Red Rain

The Bully
Technician
4,699
4,155
948
2,788.97
100% creative control does equal 100% control of who is booked and who isn't booked, what goes down on show, how the production looks is also something that lies heavily on the person with creative control. Heyman could have easily sunk TNA. Because the man is born with a silver tongue and could have convinced Ditzie to blow money on just about anything.
You are presumming Paul Heyman would have asked Dixie to expend exorbitant amounts of money when that isn't his MO at all.
Paul Heyman has no history of being a heavy spender (though he has no history of not being a heavy spender), so why not give him a second chance?
The budget was small in ECW and it fell apart. WWE gave him power, but only enough that they felt comfortable with.
It is possible to pull the reigns and impose limits if understand micromanagement.

The assumption Paul Heyman would tank TNA has no real logical foundation and is based purely on caution and speculation. TNA has more money, an asset Paul Heyman had very little of and managed success.
 
  • Applause
Reactions: JacobFox

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Legend
42,877
9,356
2,733
5,542.70
You are presumming Paul Heyman would have asked Dixie to expend exorbitant amounts of money when that isn't his MO at all.
Paul Heyman has no history of being a heavy spender (though he has no history of not being a heavy spender), so why not give him a second chance?
The budget was small in ECW and it fell apart. WWE gave him power, but only enough that they felt comfortable with.
It is possible to pull the reigns and impose limits if understand micromanagement.

The assumption Paul Heyman would tank TNA has no real logical foundation and is based purely on caution and speculation. TNA has more money, an asset Paul Heyman had very little of and managed success.
You do know this is the same guy who took ECW's budget to help fund the filming of Rollerball, right?
 

Red Rain

The Bully
Technician
4,699
4,155
948
2,788.97
You do know this is the same guy who took ECW's budget to help fund the filming of Rollerball, right?
He had an idea he believed would work. A great deal of his own ideas have worked.
ECW was an idea. The safe choice would have been to remain in WCW.
McMahon took risks. Some worked and some failed. Austin, more or less, saved WWE and it was never McMahon's choice to center his company around the guy.
Heyman made a mistake. He had no idea that film would bust. He, likely, would choose different today.
Today Heyman wears suits, but back then he dressed disheveled. He's learned and made a better choice.

TNA is failing. Heyman could not have made things worse. The bigger argument might be whether or not Heyman's vision would go over in today's society.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacobFox

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Legend
42,877
9,356
2,733
5,542.70
He had an idea he believed would work. A great deal of his own ideas have worked.
ECW was an idea. The safe choice would have been to remain in WCW.
McMahon took risks. Some worked and some failed. Austin, more or less, saved WWE and it was never McMahon's choice to center his company around the guy.
Heyman made a mistake. He had no idea that film would bust. He, likely, would choose different today.
Today Heyman wears suits, but back then he dressed disheveled. He's learned and made a better choice.

TNA is failing. Heyman could not have made things worse. The bigger argument might be whether or not Heyman's vision would go over in today's society.
Just because one is a visionary and takes risks, does not mean one has to burn all ones money. McMahon is a prime example of that.

Heyman was/is a creative visionary, but he could not handle a budget or the logistics of running a company long term successfully. And that's coming from his own god darn mouth.

Just because you wanna take a risk or follow a dream doesn't mean you have to bankrupt yourself.
 

Log in

or Log in using