Jarrett meeting with Viacom

[Kizzo 0]

I think Vince would rather swallow his pride a little and go with whatever deal he can strike with USA than go to FX or FSN

 

He would have a deal with Spike TV right now.....if he didn't try to raise prices when the ratings do not show for it......The Viacom deal he had was the best deal a wrestling company could hoped for.......there is no way any network will ever give a deal to WWE as the one that they signed in 2000 with Viacom...getting paid 500K per week....not going to happen again....plus Viacom even invested stock with WWE...but later dumped it..

 

He had access to MTV, a possible show on CBS, and some series that Viacom would help produce through their studios....there was even a rumor of MAYBE having Wrestlemania on CBS....either they failed or Viacom felt it wasn't worth it to even execute any of these things....since the ratings were so low...

 

Vince should swallow his pride and accept the deal Viacom is offering and live with it...

[Guest MikeSC]

I think Vince would rather swallow his pride a little and go with whatever deal he can strike with USA than go to FX or FSN

 

He would have a deal with Spike TV right now.....if he didn't try to raise prices when the ratings do not show for it......The Viacom deal he had was the best deal a wrestling company could hoped for.......there is no way any network will ever give a deal to WWE as the one that they signed in 2000 with Viacom...getting paid 500K per week....not going to happen again....plus Viacom even invested stock with WWE...but later dumped it..

 

He had access to MTV, a possible show on CBS, and some series that Viacom would help produce through their studios....there was even a rumor of MAYBE having Wrestlemania on CBS....either they failed or Viacom felt it wasn't worth it to even execute any of these things....since the ratings were so low...

 

But the biggest flop had to be with MTV......WWE just poorly executed this opportunity...the MTV audience is the same audience that WWE is looking for.....if they were dealing correctly.....WWE RAW should have been on MTV on Monday nights.....and Sunday Night Heat on TNN(Spike TV)....but no they went the other route....some will say it would have never happend....but WWE had so much leverage going into this deal....they could have made this happen......

 

Vince should swallow his pride and accept the deal Viacom is offering and live with it...

Um, it's hard to blame the WWE for how much MTV made Heat suck. Those first few weeks were some of the worst TV shows in recorded history.

 

DJ Skribble can lick my scrotum.

-=Mike

[TheBigSwigg 0]

As for the advertising issue: It's not wrestling that doesn't draw the advertisers, it's WWE. You can thank the PTC for that, as Vince did by suing them. I'll admit, though, that the stigma has stuck to wrestling as a whole. Not to mention that the name "TNA" doesn't quite lend you the best chance to get advertisers.

 

As for Mike's claiming that TNN wasn't anything before WWE: With or without RAW, TNN/Spike would have underwent massive changes as they were purchased by Viacom. The change started with the name change from "The Nashville Network" to "The National Network." Spike wouldn't be where they are at without RAW, but they would have found something else to make their name.

 

And for the ratings argument: FSN gets bad ratings because NOONE WATCHES IT!. PERIOD. It doesn't matter what show. FSN isn't a network but an affiliation of Networks. It's not like ESPN, where everyone see the same thing on a schedule. You can never tell what you're going to see. Which is why noone watches it. I guarantee that WWE's ratings wouldn't be as high if they were on FSN.

 

And I'm interested that TNA could end up on Spike. If I didn't feel like it would end up screwing them in the long run.

[Guest MikeSC]

Swigg, I'll make it easy:

 

There is no chance, whatsoever, of TNA being on Spike.

 

If WWE was on FSN, well a) they wouldn't be PAYING for their time slot and b) they'd be drawing a minimum of a 3.0.

-=Mike

[Kizzo 0]

As for Mike's claiming that TNN wasn't anything before WWE:  With or without RAW, TNN/Spike would have underwent massive changes as they were purchased by Viacom.  The change started with the name change from "The Nashville Network" to "The National Network."  Spike wouldn't be where they are at without RAW, but they would have found something else to make their name.

Completly agree!

 

I guess they are forgetting that the network was purchased by Viacom and with the WWE or without it the channel will still be in the same posistion...the reason being.....WWE brought nothing to the netowrk....ad money was bad....other shows did not benefit from it.......the 500K a week Spike TV was paying to WWE was complete waste of cash....

 

And far as the rebranding of the network and needing some big to make a name for themeselves.....Viacom would take a chance and created a CSI show for CBS...and a new CSI show for the Spike TV network...

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Swigg, I'll make it easy:

 

There is no chance, whatsoever, of TNA being on Spike.

 

If WWE was on FSN, well a) they wouldn't be PAYING for their time slot and b) they'd be drawing a minimum of a 3.0.

-=Mike

Keep in mind that RAW is a proven show that's lasted over 10 years, while Impact is a brand new show. That's a huge difference, and it's not a fair comparison. That has nothing to do with quality of programming, and everything to do with brand recognition.

[Guest MikeSC]

Swigg, I'll make it easy:

 

There is no chance, whatsoever, of TNA being on Spike.

 

If WWE was on FSN, well a) they wouldn't be PAYING for their time slot and b) they'd be drawing a minimum of a 3.0.

              -=Mike

Keep in mind that RAW is a proven show that's lasted over 10 years, while Impact is a brand new show. That's a huge difference, and it's not a fair comparison. That has nothing to do with quality of programming, and everything to do with brand recognition.

And no network is going to take a chance on a wrestling promotion that has never once demonstrated the most basic ability to draw.

Completly agree!

 

I guess they are forgetting that the network was purchased by Viacom and with the WWE or without it the channel will still be in the same posistion...the reason being.....WWE brought nothing to the netowrk....ad money was bad....other shows did not benefit from it.......the 500K a week Spike TV was paying to WWE was complete waste of cash....

The WWE was the ONLY thing on that network drawing anything. They rebuilt their entire network around RAW as the network flagship.

And far as the rebranding of the network and needing some big to make a name for themeselves.....Viacom would take a chance and created a CSI show for CBS...and a new CSI show for the Spike TV network...

The ratings drawn wouldn't justify the expense of doing so.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

And no network is going to take a chance on a wrestling promotion that has never once demonstrated the most basic ability to draw.

 

That would be my guess too. If we were still in the boom period where wrestling was getting astronomical ratings a network may be more willing to take a chance.

[Some Guy 0]

I guess they are forgetting that the network was purchased by Viacom and with the WWE or without it the channel will still be in the same posistion...the reason being.....WWE brought nothing to the netowrk....ad money was bad....other shows did not benefit from it.......the 500K a week Spike TV was paying to WWE was complete waste of cash....

Nothing but four-five million viewers every Monday and putting the network on the map. I agree that Viacom overpaid for what they got but they did get a fair amount out of it. As far as other shows not benifiting from Raw: Joe Schmo and Ultimate Fighter (the latter especially) say hello. If it weren't for Raw UFC would be getting TNA like numbers, with Raw leading into it they are doing consistant 1.7s and last week they hit 2.0.

 

If Spike didn't think that Raw brought anything to their other shows they wouldn't debut them after it. Monday is the only night that people actually watch that network and in any meaningful numbers.

 

Were they to pick up TNA, they could probably get 1.0s out of it, which is what they get (or better) for the rest of their non-Raw shows.

 

Mike, I think you can most certainly blame WWE for ruining Heat. Once SD! came on fulltime, Heat became an afterthought recap program and was briefly a quasi-shoot interview show from WWF New York. I somehow doubt that MTV encouraged WWE to go that route with the show.

 

When Heat was live and ran first run matches with the tip talent they drew mid 3s on USA, which was better than half the rating that Raw was getting at the time. Heat draws considerably less than half of the Raw rating now and that's because they put out a shitty show that they don't advertise. If WWE used the show as a vehicle to move major angles along and told people about then people would watch. WWE doesn't care, so the fans don't care.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Don't know how seriously you guys take him [i usually read him more for analysis then news], but here's an update from Rick Scacia's column over at OnlineOnslaught.com:

 

That TNA possibility? Perhaps not as far-fetched as you think...

 

As has been widely reported in the last few days, TNA is actually in negotiations with Viacom (parent company to SpikeTV, which has recently cut-off talks with WWE to renew RAW's contract), and it appears as though the two parties have agreed to a contingency- and incentive-laden deal that will put TNA on SpikeTV this September, and in RAW's vacated timeslot.

 

I can report that the deal *is* agreed to in principle, but that one major hurdle will have to be overcome: WWE intends to wage a legal battle to keep TNA off *all* Viacom networks, citing a clause in their SmackDown! contract that is essentially a "no compete." The clause forbids Viacom from airing any program that would be classified as a company competing with WWE... it's unclear whether this legal ploy will work, but I know that Viacom's inner circle believes that a judge will rule that the "no compete" clause only applies to programming on UPN, and NOT to any other Viacom networks: basically, once RAW is off SpikeTV, Spike is free to show whatever wrestling company's program that they want. Or so Viacom believes. We'll keep an eye on this as it develops, but I honestly don't think it's gonna be a huge problem...

 

HERE are where the problems could develop...

 

First and foremost, Viacom has only offered TNA the "Nitro Deal." For those who don't remember, when Nitro was launched in 1995, everybody (from wrestling gurus to Turner network execs) though it would fail, and fail spectacularly. And because Turner execs wanted to bring the hammer down on Eric Bischoff for all his egregious over-spending (with no real results) over the preceding 2 years, they actually approved his vision for Nitro expecting it to fail so they'd have an excuse to fire him. Nitro was given a 90-day deal by Turner, with everybody expecting it to fail and for Bischoff to be gone by Christmas.

 

It didn't exactly turn out that way, as Nitro turned into a run-away success story. But the tentative way that Turner launched the show is being mimicked by SpikeTV here a full decade later. Spike will grant TNA a Monday night head-to-head timeslot with RAW (which is still expected to land on USA Network), but will only promise it for 90 days. At that point, Spike will have the options to: (a) renew the Monday slot for another 90 days, (b) renew TNA's deal for 90 days, butmove them to another timeslot, or © ditch out entirely on TNA.

 

So, as you can see, this not only represents an amazing opportunity for TNA... it also represents the possible nail in the coffin of the company if they don't perform to Spike's expectations. It's unclear exactly what those expectations are, but given how RAW's current lead-in performs, Spike will probably expect primetime on Monday to draw no worse than the low-to-mid 2's, or roughly 60% of RAW's current ratings. While this might seem reasonable, getting 60% of RAW's audience would mean that TNA would have to more than triple its current weekly audience. And some of you folks wonder how it is that I can be so dismissive of TNA? Well, there you go: an audience that is laughably tiny, and one that includes guys like me who actually do watch the show weekly, but more out of obligation than because it's particularly good. Seriously: most weeks, the only things they got that I care about are (1) Chris Daniels, and (2) Tracy sporting an IQ-loweringly spectacular pair of jeans.

 

Then again, even as I sit here and subtly make the point that TNA's probably just being handed the rope with which it'll hang itself, I can't shake the notion that this is EXACTLY what people thought 10 years ago when Nitro launched, and TNA is getting EXACTLY the same kind of deal to try to go head-to-head with Vince McMahon. I don't know if that's irony, poetic justice, coincidence, or what, but it's kind interesting, and I guess maybe we shouldn't write TNA off just yet...

 

Another problem: Spike is insisting on TNA leaving Universal Studios and presenting shows that look more like the WWE product in terms of being held in respectable arenas, instead of tiny TV studios. Spike will be HELPING with the associated production costs, but there's also gonna have to be a substantial outlay from TNA. They hope to be a money making entity, though, as the increased exposure will hopefully increase PPV buyrates and also make weekly house shows a viable option for TNA. And once TNA actually starts doing all the things that a WRESTLING company does (instead of just being a "TV company" that holds tapings every 2 weeks, and does nothing else), they they could also start thinking about having a legitimate home video business, doing publications, or licensing videogames/toys...

 

But there are baby steps to be taken between going from a twice-a-month TV company to being a serious wrestling company, and out of the gate with Spike, TNA is going to be trying to stick to what they're doing now, mostly as a cost-saving tactic... TNA will run four shows per month: 2 at Universal Studios (where TNA hopes to continue with "Impact" as a b-show on FSN, and where they'll also tape content for what they hope to be an enhanced syndication network), and 2 at larger arenas (where they'll do their Monday show live, and then tape an episode for the following week; this is basically the ploy used by the WWF right when they started 2-hour RAWs).  Of course, there would also be a monthly PPV added in there. But basically, the plan now is to run a bi-weekly Monday/Tuesday schedule (SpikeTV on Monday/Universal on Tuesdays), which allows all their talent to maximize weekend indie bookings, as well.

 

Speaking of talent: with 3 hours per week to fill up, TNA will finally be able to showcase the talent they do have in top-shelf in-ring action. But they're also banking on big names to draw viewers to the show... as noted above, a verbal deal is in place with Hulk Hogan, and my understanding is that Hogan's contract will be like the SpikeTV contract: incentive-laden and with 90-day rollovers. In this case, Hogan will only commit to TNA for 90 days starting in September, but if the Spike contract rolls over and certain ratings are met, Hogan will be automatically renewed at an increased rate of per-appearance pay. This will repeat for two other 90-day periods, and if TNA is still on SpikeTV in September 2006, the parties will have the option of signing Hogan to a full year at the rate of compensation in the final 90-day period. Hogan's deal calls for a maximum of four appearances per month, with only two of those being in-ring wrestling appearances, which should be more than adequate to cover 2 Monday tapings and a PPV per month; this would only become problematic if/when TNA is fiscally able to go to live Monday shows every week.

 

When rumors started circulating this week about the TNA/Spike deal, a mysterious "Major Star" was attached to the project, and many thought it would be The Rock, but that's not the case: simply put, the Rock has little or no spare time in his schedule to be putting a wrestling company on his shoulders. For him, the stigma of returning to wrestling is bad enough: returning to MINOR LEAGUE wrestling would be a serious drag on his Hollywood career. And plus: WWE owns "The Rock's" name, and lets him use it only as a courtesy, a courtesy that would be instantly revoked the instant Dwayne Johnson set foot in a TNA ring. 

 

As outlined above, Hogan owns his own name (much to the consternation of WWE), and also has the kind of schedule that would make regular TNA appearance feasible. Plus: because of his other projects (reality TV show on VH-1, launching his daughter's singing career), he'd view an outlet on SpikeTV with TNA as being as useful to him as he'd be useful to TNA. It's actually a pretty symbiotic relationship.

 

Much speculation also centered on Sting, but I think he'd continue to only be a sporadic/special attraction for TNA, as his heart is not in the wrestling business at this point. So cool your jets, people: not the Rock, not Sting. Hogan's your Mystery Man.

 

Since this story broke on Thursday night, the NEWEST speculation going around is that TNA has designs on Chris Jericho, who would not only be a major star, but would be a major star still in his prime (unlike Hogan, Nash, Page, et al) and a major star who can have the kind of **** high-energy matches that could help finally turn AJ Styles or other X Division guys into legit main eventers in the eyes of fans. Jericho, at age 35 and with a good decade left in him, is the kind of guy you could conceivably build the company around, instead of just using him for cheap ratings in the near term. Jericho's WWE contract expires in July, and if he decided to test the waters, he might find TNA willing to pay a pretty penny for his services. Of course, the question is: would they still be around after 90 days to KEEP paying, and does Jericho want to risk the stability of signing another 3-year WWE deal for the chance of being a small pond's biggest fish for 90 days?

 

Some interesting stuff, here. Assuming WWE's legal challenge flops (and I think that's a safe bet), you can pencil in TNA for a make-or-break 90 days on SpikeTV later this year. As I have all along, I'll be cheering for them... but until I hear more about their logistical plans (to improve production values), their roster moves (getting their hands on a guy like Jericho is at least as important as getting Hogan, I think), and their creative direction (which continues to be pretty bush league, and will also need an upgrade), I'll hold out on being optimistic for them.

 

Thoughts?

[TNABaddboi 0]

I just finished reading the column and realized that was an April Fool's joke. So nevermind. , but it was an interesting scenario.

[slimm44 0]

No chance of this happening

[TNABaddboi 0]

I know some have said they hope TNA gets the post RAW slot (11 pm), which I could see happening. UFC would probably be the lead-in since I believe they are drawing decent numbers in this slot. But in an ideal world, I'd rather see TNA getting the 8 pm slot, so that if they expand to 2 hours, they can do the 8-10 slot Nitro did for awhile, where they can get people eager for wrestling and try to hook them to stick around. That's the best Monday Night War II scenario I can think of, though I doubt any of it will happen any time soon. Can't fault Jarrett for trying though. Smart business in my book. Now if he'd just continue that trend (doing smart business) and eat a Pounce, we'd all be better off.