News Impact Wrestling Reportedly Cancelled

[Jacob Fox]

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]

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.

 

[Stopspot]

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]

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.

 

[Stopspot]

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.

 

[The GOAT]

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.

McMahon banked pretty much everything he had on the success of the first Wrestlemania. If it had failed, McMahon would have been out of the game right then and there. But the success paid off, and paid off big time.

I think you're being a little too critical of Heyman. How is taking a calculated risk and investing in one particular thing that didn't pay off proof that Heyman "can't handle a budget"? ECW was always extremely low budget because Paul flat out didn't have the money to begin with and unless he convinced some millionaire to invest in it (and why would they?), it wasn't gonna last in the long run anyway. Besides, Paul Heyman in 2010 was a much wiser Paul Heyman than the one from the mid/late-90's.

 

[Stopspot]

I think you're being a little too critical of Heyman. How is taking a calculated risk and investing in one particular thing that didn't pay off proof that Heyman "can't handle a budget"? ECW was always extremely low budget because Paul flat out didn't have the money to begin with and unless he convinced some millionaire to invest in it (and why would they?), it wasn't gonna last in the long run anyway. Besides, Paul Heyman in 2010 was a much wiser Paul Heyman than the one from the mid/late-90's.

Tons of wrestling companies start with about or less of a budget than ECW, but still grow steadily. AAW, AIW, ROH and so forth. ECW never did have much of a budget yes, which to any reasonable human being would mean "let's keep track of the money we have" rather than "Let's go wild!".

 

[The GOAT]

Tons of wrestling companies start with about or less of a budget than ECW, but still grow steadily. AAW, AIW, ROH and so forth. ECW never did have much of a budget yes, which to any reasonable human being would mean "let's keep track of the money we have" rather than "Let's go wild!".

Where's the evidence that he even spent massive amounts of cash all the time or something? He tried to do as many possible tasks as he could all by himself for a reason - because he knew he didn't have the money to employ other people to help him. Whoever did help him were the very wrestlers who were apart of ECW and did as much as they could because they wanted ECW to succeed. I wouldn't exactly call that being irresponsible with money.

I'm sure he overspent here and there but that still isn't comparable in my eyes to what it would have been like spear-heading a company like TNA where money was no longer an issue.

 

[Red Rain]

Tons of wrestling companies start with about or less of a budget than ECW, but still grow steadily. AAW, AIW, ROH and so forth. ECW never did have much of a budget yes, which to any reasonable human being would mean "let's keep track of the money we have" rather than "Let's go wild!".

How old are those companies that you mentioned? Did they not all begin after ECW went under? Would it not be fair to presume that they learned from Paul Heyman's mistakes?
Wrestling was relatively hot in ECW's day so risks were going to be taken. (As of matter of fact, spending money was thoroughly commonplace to keep up during the Attitude Era)
These days wrestling is a bit passe so being conservative makes sense in light of what is going on these days.

Wrestling then and now has changed. It's a tad unfair to believe that today's companies are wise, but Paul Heyman somehow just isn't privy.

 

[Jacob Fox]

It's pretty much all speculation that all these other wrestling companies started out with an ECW sized budget and succeeded unless you're able to back that up with figures.

TNA itself is completely fortunate to have had Panda buy a majority share because around 2005, TNA was 20 million dollars in the red. If it hadn't been for Dixie's parents sticking by their investment, TNA would have never made it to the point where they had anything to do with Heyman.

It's unrealistic, however, to believe that Janice Carter would have allowed Paul or Dixie or anyone to spend so much money that they would be back in that position. Although Panda is not the billions of dollars company many think it is, it has been an established and profitable company for decades and much longer than Heyman has been in business. Heyman wasn't a good business man and had no one to keep him in check at ECW. That would not have happened with Panda.

If Janice and Bob Carter aren't letting their own daughter spend them into oblivion they wouldn't have let Heyman. But you can have complete creative control over something without having an unlimited budget. I could have complete creative control over a Halloween show and make it about skeletons. That doesn't mean I can demand money for real skeletons if they are only willing to pay for cardboard. My creative theme is still in my control but I have to work within financial limits,

And I've been a wrestling fan for a long time and I have never heard of a company other than WCW with Eric Biscoff giving an open and unchecked budget along with complete creative control. And honestly as much as WWE wants fans to believe otherwise, that wasn't even true. Even Bischoff had to get his spending approved. If Heyman had gotten creative control, there undoubtedly would have been financial checks in place.

 

[C.M. Shaddix]

It's still not looking any good for TNA... they staged a GFW hostile takeover angle, in my mind, the right thing to do is at Lockdown have GFW win and legitimatly give all of TNA's left over assests to Jarret. TNA has money probs, talent probs and tv probs, maybe its time to call it quits and move on with the remnants in GFW's hands.

 

[Snowman1]

It's not like GFW would do any better

 

[C.M. Shaddix]

It's not like GFW would do any better

Well its more a last resort..

 

[Jacob Fox]

I honestly believe GFW stands a chance of doing better. I do, however, think it was unwise of Jarrett to get involved with that invasion angle. It is an old and overdone angle that is going to link GFW to TNA and honestly I would think Jarrett would want to avoid that. TNA just has a LOT of baggage and I would assume Jarrett should have just let GFW grow on its own.

I honestly believe that Jeff Jarrett was one of the major differences between TNA when it was good and TNA when it sucked. It was a bit shaky in the beginning but the promotion got VERY good up until the time Dixie Carter cast Jarrett aside for Hogan and Bischoff. Of course when Hogan and Bischoff were gone, TNA looked like WCW towards the end of its run. With a bit more experience under his belt, I think Jarrett could make GFW eventually what TNA used to be.

The problem, and I can understand it, is that as the guy who founded TNA, the company still has to mean something to him that others cannot really relate to. So, I can understand that Jarrett would likely want it back and to keep it from dying. But the best thing this man did for himself was leave that place and he really needs to keep his distance and work on GFW solely. It's not always easy starting out new, but it's sometimes necessary to cut ties with something that will drag you down.

 

[Leo C]

I honestly believe GFW stands a chance of doing better. I do, however, think it was unwise of Jarrett to get involved with that invasion angle. It is an old and overdone angle that is going to link GFW to TNA and honestly I would think Jarrett would want to avoid that. TNA just has a LOT of baggage and I would assume Jarrett should have just let GFW grow on its own.

I honestly believe that Jeff Jarrett was one of the major differences between TNA when it was good and TNA when it sucked. It was a bit shaky in the beginning but the promotion got VERY good up until the time Dixie Carter cast Jarrett aside for Hogan and Bischoff. Of course when Hogan and Bischoff were gone, TNA looked like WCW towards the end of its run. With a bit more experience under his belt, I think Jarrett could make GFW eventually what TNA used to be.

The problem, and I can understand it, is that as the guy who founded TNA, the company still has to mean something to him that others cannot really relate to. So, I can understand that Jarrett would likely want it back and to keep it from dying. But the best thing this man did for himself was leave that place and he really needs to keep his distance and work on GFW solely. It's not always easy starting out new, but it's sometimes necessary to cut ties with something that will drag you down.

Also it'd be a good idea if he didn't hire Russo again.