Feedback Needed: What TNA Wants to Be Vs. What the IWC Wants Them to Be
I got into a discussion with some other wrestling fans this week, and I’d like to hear your opinion on it the topic we discussed.
The statement that I made was this: When you really get down to the truth of the matter, past all the bull about bookers, and veterans, and WWE rejects, the IWC wants TNA to just be Ring of Honor with a bigger budget.
However, that isn’t what TNA wants to be. They want to be on par with WWE. They want to be what WCW was in 1997 and 1998. They want mainstream attention. They want worldwide recognition.
They want ratings close to what WWE gets. They want to sell out 15-20 thousand seat arenas every week. They want 150,000 buys for every PPV and even higher for Bound for Glory each year.
I said that TNA can’t achieve those goals by just being ROH with a bigger budget. One of the people I was talking to disagreed. He said that he thinks TNA would be as successful as the Smackdown brand if it were ROH with a bigger budget.
I’d like to get the opinions of the readers here on Bleacher Report.
In the comment section, please give your answers to the following questions:
1. Am I right in my assumption: Does the IWC just want TNA to be ROH with a bigger budget?
2. Is that what you personally want TNA to be?
3. Do you think TNA could achieve the success that they want by just being ROH with a bigger budget?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?