Less PPVs

Y 2 Jake · 06-20-2009, 02:01 PM

It'll never happen. They're not going to eliminate a source of income for the company. But considering TNA ignore half of the PPVs and hype the one after, would it be better off for then to just get rid of half of them?

-3:16- · 06-20-2009, 02:22 PM

Well I remember reading TNA gets more revenue from its TV shows from Spike TV than it does for its PPV, so it could be a viable solution. It would certainly add credibility, but that's a term TNA doesn't know the meaning of.

Tommy Platinum · 06-20-2009, 02:32 PM

I doubt TNA could make a PPV feel big even if it was only once a year.

Y 2 Jake · 06-21-2009, 07:26 AM

They do their best with Bound For Glory, it's just a shame there's no viable reason for that to be their biggest show.

Even so, if you have Lockdown, Slammiversary & Bound For Glory as the top shows, and maybe add another three throughout the year, each show should have something worth watching. They'd probably cut down on all the multi-man matches and book proper one-on-one feuds.

RaiZ-R · 06-21-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy Platinum

I doubt TNA could make a PPV feel big even if it was only once a year.

I reckon that's a tad harsh... But I have to admit, I very rarely feel excited about a TNA PPV. I ocassionally feel interested in them, but can't ever remember feeling excited about them.

Less PPVs

This is a discussion on Less PPVs within the TNA Discussion forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; It'll never happen. They're not going to eliminate a source of income for the company. But considering TNA ignore half ...