Rumor: What PPVs will TNA Be Scrapping?

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Testify

Bully
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
15,948
Reaction score
3,135
Points
0
Location
Nashville, TN
Website
i.imgur.com
According to Wrestling Observer(!),

the planned PPVs to be scrapped are February's Against All Odds and September's No Surrender PPV. With Lockdown now taking place in March, eliminating these two PPVs would allow extra time to build to both Lockdown and Bound For Glory. Without No Surrender, the BFG Series finals would have to take place on an episode of IMPACT next year. There is no word on if there will be other PPVs scrapped along with these two.


Obviously, good news.:obama:

Less is more indeed.
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Sweden
Wish WWE would do the same thing. One PPV every month makes build so much harder to do.
 

Farooq

Chairwoman of The New Day
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
23,193
Reaction score
7,027
Points
0
Location
619
Pretty good then, less pay-per-views does lead to bigger build ups as they say, plus we don't need tons and tons of pay-per-views.
 

Testify

Bully
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
15,948
Reaction score
3,135
Points
0
Location
Nashville, TN
Website
i.imgur.com
You take, lets say, 10k (the buyers) x 35$ (average price), and you get 350k$ for one B-PPV. When you pay wrestlers, providers and everything, you get about 100-150k of pure profit.

Bottom line is this, PPVs bring some badass money to the company, whether it's 12 or 15 of them. From the booking side, it's a LOT better. From a business side, I hope this pays off.
 

Leo C

Backlund Mark
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
23,437
Reaction score
2,232
Points
0
Age
29
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Indeed, it may help business-wise, because theoretically, less PPVs means more time to build the ones that are left, and better builds should result in more buys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Testify

RadicalOneO

Jobber
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
94
Reaction score
22
Points
0
My understanding is fans of wrestling will buy Wrestlemania, even if Vickie Guerrero were closing the show with Pee Wee Herman

The more importance a show has the more views/buys.

WWE's 1st financial quarter (when it includes Mania) blows every other quarter out of the water.


Having a proper format/build has proven to make up for an otherwise terrible financial year. If the E can do it, TNA can try and emulate it
 
  • Like
Reactions: seabs

RadicalOneO

Jobber
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
94
Reaction score
22
Points
0
BFG in October = also great move

If this plan goes well, BFG's build could compete with one of the big 4 and gradually move its way up through.


These are long shots, but should be on the minds of TNA brass when shooting out long term goals
 
  • Like
Reactions: seabs

Testify

Bully
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
15,948
Reaction score
3,135
Points
0
Location
Nashville, TN
Website
i.imgur.com
Crayo said:
Why do you say that?

Because, believe it or not, some people who follow both TNA and WWE, will not buy Lockdown after Wrestlemania passes. Now, when the table is turned, some people (I'm guessing thousands of them) who still want to pay for both PPVs, can still pay for Lockdown and still save some extra money for WM, because Lockdown comes about 20ish days before WM next year. That's why it's a great move.
 

blackterminator

The Artiste
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
463
Reaction score
12
Points
0
Age
35
Eliminating 2 pay per views to further boost the purpose of the feud makes sense. TNA did a smart move on this one.