TNA Deal Seems likely

[Guest MikeSC]

But what exactly is it that you add to this board?

Double the intellect of you, I'd imagine.

You honestly have no idea.

I do tend to overestimate those who disagree.

-=Mike

[Michrome 0]

You really come off as a prick, but I don't really like to make personal judgements based on internet forums. I see you troll the Total Nonstop forums too, so obviously you have fun bashing TNA. I rip TNA here more than anybody, but I think it would be nice if there was a #2. You, on the other hand, seem to not want a #2 promotion. Many of the very things you bash TNA for are prevalent in the WWE, which you defend to unreal levels over on that board. After some of your embarrasingly ignorant comments on puro and other things, why should we even take you seriously here?

[Guest MikeSC]

You really come off as a prick

Pot, kettle, black.

I see you troll the Total Nonstop forums too, so obviously you have fun bashing TNA.

Nope. I want to see it improve.

 

Disagreement = trolling in your eyes.

 

So, are you now trolling me?

I rip TNA here more than anybody, but I think it would be nice if there was a #2.

Yes, it would be. Hope does not make ANYTHING a legit #2, though.

 

WWE has NO competition. TNA WON'T be a challenger.

You, on the other hand, seem to not want a #2 promotion.

Hmm, a #2 where the booker is the World Champ and has had, what, a single clean job in 2 years?

 

Yeah, THAT is an alternative I'd like.

Many of the very things you bash TNA for are prevalent in the WWE, which you defend to unreal levels over on that board.

Actually, I seldom praise the WWE over there. I simply state that their turning profits makes changes of less importance to them. And I praise them for having better World Champs and having HHH job more often than JJ.

After some of your embarrasingly ignorant comments on puro and other things, why should we even take you seriously here?

Don't. God knows the number of people here I take seriously is quite small in number. Heck, I used to post with quite a few posters here (including some "names", I suppose) on other boards and God knows I didn't take them seriously back then --- and don't to this day to any great degree.

 

My life, amazingly, is not centered on the respect of an anonymous person on a wrestling message board.

 

I know, a life like that IS hard to imagine.

-=Mike

[Guest TDinDC1112]

You keep making these statements implying that everyone on here has no life and you do, and how you know not to take message boards seriously and that everyone here is a bunch of marks who sit on their computer and take everything so seriously while you on the other hand are so superior to all of this. You don't care what others think. This isn't your life, blah blah blah. Well then stop responding to every single post and quoting it line by line. If everything you said about yourself was actually true, you wouldn't feel the need to respond to every single thing everyone says.

 

Like you, "my life, amazingly, is not centered on the respect of an anonymous person on a wrestling message board." That's not hard to imagine. My life is centered around providing for my family. I like discussing wrestling because it's fun and I enjoy wrestling. I just don't get people in general who make posts and have comments in them (like yours) that imply how much superior you are to everyone on here when you don't know a damn thing about them. You have the same attitude as people who know nothing about wrestling that we as wrestling fans have had to defend ourselves against our whole lives. You display this attitude when you make statements like the following:

 

"My life, amazingly, is not centered on the respect of an anonymous person on a wrestling message board.

 

I know, a life like that IS hard to imagine."

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

The Score would get it for sure.

 

They treat pro wrestling like an actual sport and with decency. Also, their hosts actually do watch Smackdown on occassion and do know something about the product.

 

This says a lot for that channel. They pick up TNA, I will definitely be watching The Score.

 

No chance in hell does Vince allow someone to compete on his only SD outlet in Canada.

[tommytomlin 0]

5000 households?!

 

Australia, with a population less than a tenth of the US, compiles it's TV ratings from a sample of about 2000 households.

 

I know that Nielson pays people a whole bunch of money to come up with the right formula and stuff, but this really doesn't add up, especially when you consider how many more channels American cable TV has on us.

[Guest Burning Hammer]

If we are going to use the ECW TNN show as an example you really have to look at the end of its run. The show was brutally bad with Justin Credible as champion who neither put on good matches or had any charisma to speak of. The show from week to week was very similar with terrible production values. They still managed to draw between .5 and .7 on Friday nights when the core wrestling audience was not home. So in a Sunday night timeslot you are telling me that you think just about nobody is going to watch? Also ECW's fanbase before going national is greatly exagerated. There syndicated show had terrible penetration and god awfull timeslots. They did have that cult name recognition thing going for them but I don't think that helped them at all with tv ratings. In the beginning their ratings stayed very stable with them never being able to draw more than a 1.0 which most on line believed was the smark audience who would tune in no matter what.

 

In my opinion TNA has put on some good shows for free television but not for PPV. People are much more critical of their product when paying for it. If it was on for free every week I'd watch just because I like most of the wrestlers they have.

 

Fox sports net is currently one of the better channels to get onto because of the packages you can get that add either three fox sports channels (for digital cable) or the dish package where you can get them all (somewhere around 10 or 11) plus they tend to replay things alot. So your exposure should be pretty solid.

 

I find it silly to state that they can't do a .5. Wrestling, historically, has always done well on cable tv. Sunday night is a good timeslot (as long as its in the 9pm, 10pm range), they have good production values, they have something that sets them apart from the WWE (X division) and they have a great announce team. The pieces are there for them to draw a decent sized rating. I think a .5 is easily attainable for their opening show.

[BoboBrazil 0]

The opening show should get a rating much bigger than the following ones, since it will be really hyped up. It is up to TNA to put on good shows if they want to keep that same number going forward. I'd guess the opening show would get anywhere from a .5-1.0, depending if FSN shows it at the same time on all of their affiliates.

[thecitythesky 0]

5000 households?!

 

Australia, with a population less than a tenth of the US, compiles it's TV ratings from a sample of about 2000 households.

 

I know that Nielson pays people a whole bunch of money to come up with the right formula and stuff, but this really doesn't add up, especially when you consider how many more channels American cable TV has on us.

the way it works is counterbalancing sample size w/ a marked increase in accuracy.

 

For Example: Gallup (the company who administers most telephone surveys for many major newspapers/media outlets generally uses a sample size (independent of the universe its operating in of about 1500) from there they can extrapolate data w/ a +/- 3% margin of error. Now, after that any increase in sample size is not going to give you a very noticable change in your margin of error, therefore to do so would be sort of a silly waste of resources and time. Neilsen operates in the same fashion. If they were to use 2 or 3 times the households, the end result wouldn't noticably change - and certainly not enough to expose any flaws in their previous methodology.

 

.................

 

so, while you guys only have 1/10 the people. if we were to use 10 times the sample group our results would be pretty much just as one the ball as if we used the 2.5 times that we do right now.

 

 

(as for it not being difficult for TNA to get the .2 that was discussed earlier. considering that an established brand (WWE) with established talent often featured on the show (Velocity) regularily draws a .8 in a weekend night spot (which, using the math from before would be 40 out of the 5000). i can see why it would be difficult for many people to see it... especially due to the questioning earlier of whether or not major markets that don't get FSN would have their FSN pseudo-affiliates carrying the TNA show at all...)

 

 

*

 

OH! and would be ultra hesitant to put the show on at 9pm/10pm on sunday nights (assuming that you are speaking in Eastern time) since once a month there's going to be a much larger company putting on a much larger show. (although, i think that putting it on at 11pm Eastern would be a fabulous idea. as it won't be completing w/ the pay-per-views and it would be possible to simply flip over once said PPV is done. (like what MLW did w/ their Sunshine timeslot)... and if sports bars would turn it on post PPV to placate the audience that's already there. everybody wins: the fans get a reason to stay at the bar, and maybe see something that catches their attention; and the bar makes money from having the folks stay longer... w/ no real increase in overhead (since they've got the sports channels anyway.)

[Guest MikeSC]

You keep making these statements implying that everyone on here has no life and you do

No, I actually don't --- but if you read it that way, it shows issues in your life. So be it.

and how you know not to take message boards seriously and that everyone here is a bunch of marks who sit on their computer and take everything so seriously while you on the other hand are so superior to all of this.

Again, not even close --- but you do seem to have issues.

You don't care what others think.

You're supposed to care what people on the internet think? Tragic.

This isn't your life, blah blah blah.

No, it isn't my life. It's something I do, but it's hardly my life.

Well then stop responding to every single post and quoting it line by line.

Giving you more respect than, judging by this post, you give yourself.

If everything you said about yourself was actually true, you wouldn't feel the need to respond to every single thing everyone says.

Just trying to give you meaning in your, again judging by your own words, rather pointless life.

Like you, "my life, amazingly, is not centered on the respect of an anonymous person on a wrestling message board."  That's not hard to imagine.  My life is centered around providing for my family.

Doth thou wanteth a cookie?

I like discussing wrestling because it's fun and I enjoy wrestling.

Wow, we do have something in common. Shocking.

I just don't get people in general who make posts and have comments in them (like yours) that imply how much superior you are to everyone on here when you don't know a damn thing about them.

Never said that (yet again), but you are obsessed with a point I never made. You might seek help for your "issues".

You have the same attitude as people who know nothing about wrestling that we as wrestling fans have had to defend ourselves against our whole lives.

Ah, so THAT is where your issues come from.

You display this attitude when you make statements like the following:

 

"My life, amazingly, is not centered on the respect of an anonymous person on a wrestling message board.

 

I know, a life like that IS hard to imagine."

No, the statement means: If somebody here doesn't like me, it has NO bearing on my life (seeing as how I DON'T know you, WON'T know you, etc).

 

It's called a healthy perspective.

 

Apparently, you find that troubling.

 

Alas.

5000 households?!

 

Australia, with a population less than a tenth of the US, compiles it's TV ratings from a sample of about 2000 households.

 

I know that Nielson pays people a whole bunch of money to come up with the right formula and stuff, but this really doesn't add up, especially when you consider how many more channels American cable TV has on us.

Not necessarily. Most political opinion polls here use roughly 1,000 voters. They know how to get a sample that is scientifically proportional to the general population.

If we are going to use the ECW TNN show as an example you really have to look at the end of its run. The show was brutally bad with Justin Credible as champion who neither put on good matches or had any charisma to speak of. The show from week to week was very similar with terrible production values. They still managed to draw between .5 and .7 on Friday nights when the core wrestling audience was not home.

Thing is, ECW HAD a core audience. TNA has to first BUILD one, then keep it. ECW had good attendance at their shows. TNA doesn't.

 

Even at their worst --- and ECW was actually pretty bad from 1997-on --- ECW had that devoted fan following that there is no indication, whatsoever, of TNA having.

So in a Sunday night timeslot you are telling me that you think just about nobody is going to watch?

Nobody is going to KNOW about it.

Also ECW's fanbase before going national is greatly exagerated. There syndicated show had terrible penetration and god awfull timeslots.

BUT, they had good attendance at their shows, which indicates that they HAD the following.

 

TNA hasn't ever sold-out the Asylum.

They did have that cult name recognition thing going for them but I don't think that helped them at all with tv ratings. In the beginning their ratings stayed very stable with them never being able to draw more than a 1.0 which most on line believed was the smark audience who would tune in no matter what.

 

In my opinion TNA has put on some good shows for free television but not for PPV. People are much more critical of their product when paying for it. If it was on for free every week I'd watch just because I like most of the wrestlers they have.

 

Fox sports net is currently one of the better channels to get onto because of the packages you can get that add either three fox sports channels (for digital cable) or the dish package where you can get them all (somewhere around 10 or 11) plus they tend to replay things alot. So your exposure should be pretty solid.

I don't doubt that they play things a lot --- but how often do YOU watch FSN for anything other than local sports? Do you even KNOW shows on FSN besides "Best Damn..."? I can say, flat out, that I don't.

 

FSN has a miniscule viewing audience when your local sports team isn't on.

I find it silly to state that they can't do a .5. Wrestling, historically, has always done well on cable tv. Sunday night is a good timeslot (as long as its in the 9pm, 10pm range), they have good production values, they have something that sets them apart from the WWE (X division) and they have a great announce team. The pieces are there for them to draw a decent sized rating. I think a .5 is easily attainable for their opening show.

Again, how will ANYBODY know about them? Name recognition for TNA right now is virtually non-existant. TNA seems to be hoping for the random channel surfer falling upon them and not hating the product (and when some guys are on, that's an iffy prospect). You don't succeed when you have to basically hope that people fall onto your broadcast.

-=Mike

[Guest TDinDC1112]

You keep making these statements implying that everyone on here has no life and you do

No, I actually don't --- but if you read it that way, it shows issues in your life. So be it.

and how you know not to take message boards seriously and that everyone here is a bunch of marks who sit on their computer and take everything so seriously while you on the other hand are so superior to all of this.

Again, not even close --- but you do seem to have issues.

You don't care what others think.

You're supposed to care what people on the internet think? Tragic.

This isn't your life, blah blah blah.

No, it isn't my life. It's something I do, but it's hardly my life.

Well then stop responding to every single post and quoting it line by line.

Giving you more respect than, judging by this post, you give yourself.

If everything you said about yourself was actually true, you wouldn't feel the need to respond to every single thing everyone says.

Just trying to give you meaning in your, again judging by your own words, rather pointless life.

Like you, "my life, amazingly, is not centered on the respect of an anonymous person on a wrestling message board."  That's not hard to imagine.  My life is centered around providing for my family.

Doth thou wanteth a cookie?

I like discussing wrestling because it's fun and I enjoy wrestling.

Wow, we do have something in common. Shocking.

I just don't get people in general who make posts and have comments in them (like yours) that imply how much superior you are to everyone on here when you don't know a damn thing about them.

Never said that (yet again), but you are obsessed with a point I never made. You might seek help for your "issues".

You have the same attitude as people who know nothing about wrestling that we as wrestling fans have had to defend ourselves against our whole lives.

Ah, so THAT is where your issues come from.

You display this attitude when you make statements like the following:

 

"My life, amazingly, is not centered on the respect of an anonymous person on a wrestling message board.

 

I know, a life like that IS hard to imagine."

No, the statement means: If somebody here doesn't like me, it has NO bearing on my life (seeing as how I DON'T know you, WON'T know you, etc).

 

It's called a healthy perspective.

 

Apparently, you find that troubling.

 

Alas.

5000 households?!

 

Australia, with a population less than a tenth of the US, compiles it's TV ratings from a sample of about 2000 households.

 

I know that Nielson pays people a whole bunch of money to come up with the right formula and stuff, but this really doesn't add up, especially when you consider how many more channels American cable TV has on us.

Not necessarily. Most political opinion polls here use roughly 1,000 voters. They know how to get a sample that is scientifically proportional to the general population.

If we are going to use the ECW TNN show as an example you really have to look at the end of its run. The show was brutally bad with Justin Credible as champion who neither put on good matches or had any charisma to speak of. The show from week to week was very similar with terrible production values. They still managed to draw between .5 and .7 on Friday nights when the core wrestling audience was not home.

Thing is, ECW HAD a core audience. TNA has to first BUILD one, then keep it. ECW had good attendance at their shows. TNA doesn't.

 

Even at their worst --- and ECW was actually pretty bad from 1997-on --- ECW had that devoted fan following that there is no indication, whatsoever, of TNA having.

So in a Sunday night timeslot you are telling me that you think just about nobody is going to watch?

Nobody is going to KNOW about it.

Also ECW's fanbase before going national is greatly exagerated. There syndicated show had terrible penetration and god awfull timeslots.

BUT, they had good attendance at their shows, which indicates that they HAD the following.

 

TNA hasn't ever sold-out the Asylum.

They did have that cult name recognition thing going for them but I don't think that helped them at all with tv ratings. In the beginning their ratings stayed very stable with them never being able to draw more than a 1.0 which most on line believed was the smark audience who would tune in no matter what.

 

In my opinion TNA has put on some good shows for free television but not for PPV. People are much more critical of their product when paying for it. If it was on for free every week I'd watch just because I like most of the wrestlers they have.

 

Fox sports net is currently one of the better channels to get onto because of the packages you can get that add either three fox sports channels (for digital cable) or the dish package where you can get them all (somewhere around 10 or 11) plus they tend to replay things alot. So your exposure should be pretty solid.

I don't doubt that they play things a lot --- but how often do YOU watch FSN for anything other than local sports? Do you even KNOW shows on FSN besides "Best Damn..."? I can say, flat out, that I don't.

 

FSN has a miniscule viewing audience when your local sports team isn't on.

I find it silly to state that they can't do a .5. Wrestling, historically, has always done well on cable tv. Sunday night is a good timeslot (as long as its in the 9pm, 10pm range), they have good production values, they have something that sets them apart from the WWE (X division) and they have a great announce team. The pieces are there for them to draw a decent sized rating. I think a .5 is easily attainable for their opening show.

Again, how will ANYBODY know about them? Name recognition for TNA right now is virtually non-existant. TNA seems to be hoping for the random channel surfer falling upon them and not hating the product (and when some guys are on, that's an iffy prospect). You don't succeed when you have to basically hope that people fall onto your broadcast.

-=Mike

You are very arrogant.

[Guest MikeSC]

You are very arrogant.

*yawns*

-=Mike

[Guest TDinDC1112]

You are very arrogant.

*yawns*

-=Mike

Exactly

[Guest MikeSC]

You are very arrogant.

*yawns*

-=Mike

Exactly

You bore me.

 

Why on God's Earth do you CARE if you bore me?

 

Jesus, insecure, are ye?

-=Mike

[Guest TDinDC1112]

Jesus, insecure, are ye?

no

[Guest MikeSC]

Jesus, insecure, are ye?

no

Good. I'd hate to think my thinking you're boring impacted you in any way.

 

Of course, if it DIDN'T, then it made your bitching at me QUITE hypocritical --- but it's healthier that way.

-=Mike

[Guest TDinDC1112]

Jesus, insecure, are ye?

no

Good. I'd hate to think my thinking you're boring impacted you in any way.

 

Of course, if it DIDN'T, then it made your bitching at me QUITE hypocritical --- but it's healthier that way.

-=Mike

You're very smart and witty.

[Guest MikeSC]

Jesus, insecure, are ye?

no

Good. I'd hate to think my thinking you're boring impacted you in any way.

 

Of course, if it DIDN'T, then it made your bitching at me QUITE hypocritical --- but it's healthier that way.

-=Mike

You're very smart and witty.

Thanks. I already knew that, though. The kind words are sweet, though.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Jesus, insecure, are ye?

no

Good. I'd hate to think my thinking you're boring impacted you in any way.

 

Of course, if it DIDN'T, then it made your bitching at me QUITE hypocritical --- but it's healthier that way.

-=Mike

You're very smart and witty.

By now, TD, I think you understand Mike's "debating" style.

[Guest TDinDC1112]

Jesus, insecure, are ye?

no

Good. I'd hate to think my thinking you're boring impacted you in any way.

 

Of course, if it DIDN'T, then it made your bitching at me QUITE hypocritical --- but it's healthier that way.

-=Mike

You're very smart and witty.

Thanks. I already knew that, though. The kind words are sweet, though.

-=Mike

See above post on arrogance.

[Guest MikeSC]

See above post on arrogance.

You don't think YOU are witty and intelligent? Need to go out and get some self-confidence, man. Shouldn't matter what anonymous people on a message board think --- it's all about what YOU think.

By now, TD, I think you understand Mike's "debating" style.

Where's the dispute? Do YOU honestly give a damn if I don't "like" you (keep in mind, of course, that I don't KNOW you --- nor will I anytime in the foreseeable future)?

 

I simply make points and expect people who disagree to give reasons. If ya can't, then kindly shut up and make way for somebody who can.

-=Mike

[Guest TDinDC1112]

See above post on arrogance.

You don't think YOU are witty and intelligent? Need to go out and get some self-confidence, man. Shouldn't matter what anonymous people on a message board think --- it's all about what YOU think.

You know what? I think this is the end of it as I can tell now we're not even understanding each other here. Anyone who reads through this thread should know that I'm witty and intelligent. That's the point. I do have self confidence. So do you. It doesn't matter if either one of us deserves to have that confidence. I know what I am and from the get go said I don't care what other people think. Somewhere you falsely got the impression I did, which is fine, just a misunderstanding. All I ever said is I feel it's fine to comment and criticize and discuss and all that other stuff that goes on here. What I don't like are condescending comments and blatant negativism that surves no purpose. If that behavior happens, does it personally affect me? No. I could care less. I just don't understand when people feel the need to feel superior to others because I don't feel that way as I am confident enough in myself already. That's the entire point!

[Guest MikeSC]

See above post on arrogance.

You don't think YOU are witty and intelligent? Need to go out and get some self-confidence, man. Shouldn't matter what anonymous people on a message board think --- it's all about what YOU think.

You know what? I think this is the end of it as I can tell now we're not even understanding each other here. Anyone who reads through this thread should know that I'm witty and intelligent. That's the point. I do have self confidence. So do you. It doesn't matter if either one of us deserves to have that confidence. I know what I am and from the get go said I don't care what other people think. Somewhere you falsely got the impression I did, which is fine, just a misunderstanding. All I ever said is I feel it's fine to comment and criticize and discuss and all that other stuff that goes on here. What I don't like are condescending comments and blatant negativism that surves no purpose. If that behavior happens, does it personally affect me? No. I could care less. I just don't understand when people feel the need to feel superior to others because I don't feel that way as I am confident enough in myself already. That's the entire point!

Who's condescending?

 

I don't care enough about your opinion to talk down to you.

 

If that sounds arrogant, so be it.

-=Mike

[thecitythesky 0]

christ people... and here i thought i was in the smartmarks TNA folder. but somehow i've ended up in 5th period study hall.

 

.

 

so fuck it... who are you guys taking to prom*?

 

 

 

 

*(or... we could talk about wrestling and not argue about how we talk about wrestling. just keep me abreast of the situation.)

[muzz 0]

5000 households?!

 

Australia, with a population less than a tenth of the US, compiles it's TV ratings from a sample of about 2000 households.

 

I know that Nielson pays people a whole bunch of money to come up with the right formula and stuff, but this really doesn't add up, especially when you consider how many more channels American cable TV has on us.

TNA, if shown down here, would do surprisingly well in my mind.

 

Sure, we get Smackdown and RAW, PPV's of course, but that's it. And RAW's shown about 4 days after it's originally aired in the states. With the number of channels available on Foxtel etc. Many people who have wanted more wrestling down here would definitely watch.

 

Unfortunantly, I doubt our Fox Sports is apart of FSN, but it's nice to dream.

[Lightning Flik 0]

The Score would get it for sure.

 

They treat pro wrestling like an actual sport and with decency. Also, their hosts actually do watch Smackdown on occassion and do know something about the product.

 

This says a lot for that channel. They pick up TNA, I will definitely be watching The Score.

 

No chance in hell does Vince allow someone to compete on his only SD outlet in Canada.

Trust me, if The Score sees something that looks like a definite product to sell, they do it. They respond to their "fans" well.

 

Otherwise, they wouldn't be showing damn nearly every sport there is. I mean, NLL gets broadcasted on it (which I'm slowly getting into).

 

Besides, there is also TSN. And since TSN hosts RAW and The Score hosts Smackdown... Well, I'll leave you with that to think about.

 

So if TNA impresses them, they'll show it. Quite simple.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

I dont get Fox Sports Net.

 

I do get Fox Sports Atlantic, Central and Pacific.

That's what FSN is.

 

It's like saying "I don't get NWA shows, but I watch Wildside and TNA."

Not exactly.

 

Sorry if this was already covered (I didn't feel like weeding through that extended pissing contest), but Fox Sports Atlantic, Central and Pacific are not the same as the other FSN stations; they're basically comp deals for the digital cable services (DirecTV might have them, too; I don't know) that don't show any of the regional pro sports because of the deals that the respective leagues have with their broadcast partners (NBA League Pass and such), and very few regional college games, either. 90% of their programming consists of the regional Sports Reports...

 

Having those three channels with none of the other Fox Sports affilliates would be a little like if the only WWE programming you had the capability of watching was Afterburn. I'm not a hundred percent sure that he'd have a chance to watch TNA at all given those circumstances.

[Guest MikeSC]

I dont get Fox Sports Net.

 

I do get Fox Sports Atlantic, Central and Pacific.

That's what FSN is.

 

It's like saying "I don't get NWA shows, but I watch Wildside and TNA."

Not exactly.

 

Sorry if this was already covered (I didn't feel like weeding through that extended pissing contest), but Fox Sports Atlantic, Central and Pacific are not the same as the other FSN stations; they're basically comp deals for the digital cable services (DirecTV might have them, too; I don't know) that don't show any of the regional pro sports because of the deals that the respective leagues have with their broadcast partners (NBA League Pass and such), and very few regional college games, either. 90% of their programming consists of the regional Sports Reports...

 

Having those three channels with none of the other Fox Sports affilliates would be a little like if the only WWE programming you had the capability of watching was Afterburn. I'm not a hundred percent sure that he'd have a chance to watch TNA at all given those circumstances.

One other problem: If TNA becomes viewed as a thorn in the side by Vince, what are the odds of him not just raiding their talent for the heck of it?

-=Mike

[Lightning Flik 0]

Most of the TNA talent are signed into two year contracts, Mike.

 

Although they can take Indy bookings, they can't sign any type of contract with the WWE. Besides, I doubt most of the talent will head to the WWE anyways (since quite a few were originally from there).

[Guest TDinDC1112]

From pwinsider.com

 

"NWA:TNA is said to be very close to getting a deal done with Fox Sports Net to air a weekly TV show that would support their PPVs. It’s not known at this time whether they would bail on the weekly PPV concept and go to a monthly show or not. Our sources don’t know if that decision has even been made yet.

 

Things are going so well with the deal that TNA has already had discussions with Universal Studios in Orlando, FL about taping the shows for the Fox Sports broadcast there and meetings between Universal and TNA are scheduled to happen next week.

 

TNA also has interest in using Terri Runnels and Sean O’Haire. It’s not expected that Runnels will come in since if she wanted to work, she could do so for WWE and make more money. In O’Haire’s case, it appears he will get severance pay from WWE and not be available to work for 90 days."

 

I don't think there is one thing we didn't already know or figure out ourselves. One thing though. We've discussed O'Haire elsewhere and I think more of us than not think they should bring him in. But why in the world would they want to bring in Terri?