A closer look at Dixie Carter

Riddle101 · 19-05-2011 05:07PM #1

Don't know if this has been posted, and am not sure if this goes in the news thread but I thought this was interesting enough for it's own thread. Just came across this article when browsing another wrestling forum.

http://www.cagesideseats.com/2011/5/18/2177424/a-closer-look-at-tna-president-dixie-carter

Really makes me appreciate Vince McMahon more, when compared to Dixie tbh.

Lord TSC · 19-05-2011 05:13PM

I posted it in the TNA news thread but it probably does deserve its own thread. Just finishing it off now and will post thoughts later, but its worth pointing out the site has done other TNA ones pointing out other amazing and horrible aspects of the company as well...

The Volt · 19-05-2011 05:40PM

Damn it this thread title is deceiving. Allow me.

CMpunked · 19-05-2011 06:19PM

I was trying to read the article last night but it just felt like reading a thesis that kept going.
Do they make any final conclusions?

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 06:27PM

I haven't read it all because it's far too long (and I try to avoid useless sites like that), but I've skimmed through it. It seems to be mostly gossip, speculation and unreliable (or maybe even nonexistent) sources (the likes of Ricci and Shane Douglas just have axes to grind) or giving out about her making business decisions. And how dare that dastardly Dixie force her wrestlers to work for the amount they agreed to when they signed contracts. 90% of it is complete nonsense and rubbish. I might go through it properly when I've finished my exams.

Diabhal Beag · 19-05-2011 06:33PM

If anybody knew the history of one of the main guys in that site you wouldn't be suprised with the negative rambling.

As for Dixie she's a money mark. But a MILF money mark at that

drayme · 19-05-2011 06:42PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I haven't read it all

So why are you commenting on it?

Machismo Fan wrote: »

90% of it is complete nonsense and rubbish.

*facepalm*

Many of the knockouts have gone on record about their treatment and it is pretty disgraceful.

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 06:49PM

drayme wrote: »

*facepalm*

Many of the knockouts have gone on record about their treatment and it is pretty disgraceful.

What in particular have they said?

drayme · 19-05-2011 06:50PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

What in particular have they said?

Will it matter as they will be labelled by you as bitter based on your current form?

Diabhal Beag · 19-05-2011 06:52PM

I want to hear what they said too

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 06:53PM

drayme wrote: »

Will it matter as they will be labelled by you as bitter based on your current form?

Depends on the situation. Again what in particular did they say? If it's related to their pay or how they were used don't even bother though.

D2D · 19-05-2011 06:53PM

Christ, again lads?!

drayme · 19-05-2011 07:00PM

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

Christ, again lads?!

What's the point Machismo Fan seems like a brick wall on the TNA situation. He attacks something he hasn't even read just because it is critical of TNA. There is little to be gained discussing this with him. If I link to stories will he read them?

Just look at this:

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Depends on the situation. Again what in particular did they say? If it's related to their pay or how they were used don't even bother though.

Seriously why is he even commenting?

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

I want to hear what they said too

Numerous Knockouts have complained about the rates of pay from Shantelle Taylor to Nikki Roxx to their main ratings draw at the time Gail Kim couldnt get an extra $50 per appearance so she went to WWE as she couldnt make a subsistent wage.

CMpunked · 19-05-2011 07:06PM

Oh rovert, where are you when we need you most?

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 07:07PM

Can you answer questions without getting smarmy? I've read more than enough of it to realise it's mostly nonsense with an agenda and skimmed through the rest. The Knockouts agreed to the rates of pay in the first place, they can't moan about it afterwards. They signed the contracts, it was their own doing. And TNA are smart enough to realise it's not the individual Knockouts drawing the rating, so they can just cycle them in and out. It's business. And Roxxi clearly didn't have too much of a problem considering she came back twice.

drayme · 19-05-2011 07:15PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Can you answer questions without getting smarmy?

I am not being smarmy you are the one saying an article is 90% false without reading it.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

The Knockouts agreed to the rates of pay in the first place, they can't moan about it afterwards.

Goodness me. What about when they prove themselves as ratings draws? Why cant they "moan" about it then. How old are you? Have you ever worked a real job?

Machismo Fan wrote: »

And TNA are smart enough to realise it's not the individual Knockouts drawing the rating, so they can just cycle them in and out. It's business.

If that is true (which it isnt completely) they arent paid as if they were draws.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

And Roxxi clearly didn't have too much of a problem considering she came back twice.

Or perhaps she is hard up for cash. Is that the best you can do?

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 07:21PM

TNA don't need to pay the women more money so they don't. It's a simple as that. The only two proven ratings draw's are Love and Sky and they are still there. Ratings didn't drop when the likes of Kim and Kong left. As much as they are tremendous talents, TNA didn't need them so they refused to pay them more because TNA could just bring in some more women cheaply who would do the exact same numbers. It's business.

And as I've said I've read more than enough of that article to know that's it's nonsense with an agenda (and I'm a little sick of repeating myself).

drayme · 19-05-2011 07:28PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

TNA don't need to pay the women more money so they don't. It's a simple as that. The only two proven ratings draw's are Love and Sky and they are still there. Ratings didn't drop when the likes of Kim and Kong left. As much as they are tremendous talents, TNA didn't need them so they refused to pay them more because TNA could just bring in some more women cheaply who would do the exact same numbers. It's business.

You haven't answered a number of questions that I asked previously. Sorry but in the real world it isn't just business it is sexist and discriminatory. TNA continues to open itself to lawsuits (Konnan, Daffney etc). It isnt simply business as you say it is stupid and negligent business.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

And as I've said I've read more than enough of that article to know that's it's nonsense with an agenda (and I'm a little sick of repeating myself).

What is nonsense, you've never elaborated? Given how the article is structured it is pointless to only read a bit of it.

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 07:32PM

drayme wrote: »

You haven't answered a number of questions that I asked previously. Sorry but in the real world it isn't just business it is sexist and discriminatory. TNA continues to open itself to lawsuits (Konnan, Daffney etc). It isnt simply business as you say it is stupid and negligent business.

No it isn't. Why would a company pay people more than they need to? As I said the Knockouts draw as a division not individually.

drayme · 19-05-2011 07:39PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

No it isn't.

Do you live or work in the real world? Do you understand what discrimination means?

Please show me that you have though about this instead of just stonewalling at every turn.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Why would a company pay people more than they need to?

Ask most of the male roster.

Sorry but this isnt joined up thinking.

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 07:53PM

I just don't understand how they can claim discrimination. They don't bring in any money, and they don't draw in viewers as individuals nor can the majority come anywhere near matching the performance levels of the men. Those that have proven that they are individual draws have been kept around and been payed more (Love and Sky) and the rest have been replaced. It is simple business. I doubt Robbie E, Crimson, Gunner, Murphy or GenMe are being payed too well, does that mean their being discriminated against?

drayme · 19-05-2011 08:03PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I just don't understand how they can claim discrimination. They don't bring in any money, and they don't draw in viewers as individuals nor can the majority come anywhere near matching the performance levels of the men. Those that have proven that they are individual draws have been kept around and been payed more (Love and Sky) and the rest have been replaced. It is simple business. I doubt Robbie E, Crimson, Gunner, Murphy or GenMe are being payed too well, does that mean their being discriminated against?

Oh god. Are you for real or are you winding me up?

One breath you say they arent draws and the next you are saying Love and Sky are.

You continue to avoid questions whether you work/have worked and whether you understand what discrimination is. It isnt business it is bad business as it has generated bad publicity (Dixie has been awfully quiet recently) and lawsuits. Seriously cop on here. I mean really.

In TNA's situation the argument that "they dont draw money" is mute as few do and most of them get better paid than the knockouts.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I doubt Robbie E, Crimson, Gunner, Murphy or GenMe are being payed too well, does that mean their being discriminated against?

Please dont make jokes as you dont seem to have an understanding of the subject.

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 08:17PM

drayme wrote: »

Oh god. Are you for real or are you winding me up?

One breath you say they arent draws and the next you are saying Love and Sky are.

You continue to avoid questions whether you work/have worked and whether you understand what discrimination is. It isnt business it is bad business as it has generated bad publicity (Dixie has been awfully quiet recently) and lawsuits. Seriously cop on here. I mean really.

In TNA's situation the argument that "they dont draw money" is mute as few do and most of them get better paid than the knockouts.

Please dont make jokes as you dont seem to have an understanding of the subject.

Love and Sky are the only two Knockouts to ever effect ratings in any meaningful way and they were rewarded, and even their drawing power has long since run thin. No other Knockout earns a pay rise (and people forget that Mickie, Tara and Hemme are all well paid). The KO's most likely earn in the same region as the likes Robbie E, GenMe, Crimson, Gunner and Murphy because that's all they deserve and they work their way up to a pay rise which they don't get if they don't earn it. If I'm so wrong explain to me why it's discrimination instead of just saying it is.

drayme · 19-05-2011 08:29PM

Again you are avoiding questions.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Love and Sky are the only two Knockouts to ever effect ratings in any meaningful way and they were rewarded, and even their drawing power has long since run thin.

That simply isn't true Kim was a legitimate ratings draw when she was with the company.

You keep saying Love and Sky were the only ratings draws can you provide proof. As Ive read or heard different things. Last I checked it all leveled out as they got over exposed for a period. Not saying you are right or wrong here.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

No other Knockout earns a pay rise (and people forget that Mickie, Tara and Hemme are all well paid).

As TNA pays a premium for WWE stars draws or not.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

The KO's most likely earn in the same region as the likes Robbie E, GenMe, Crimson, Gunner and Murphy because that's all they deserve and they work their way up to a pay rise which they don't get if they don't earn it. If I'm so wrong explain to me why it's discrimination instead of just saying it is.

First prove that they are.

Stepping away from pay related discrimination I dont think a male has ever been treated the way Nicki Roxx was.

This thread is about the article and again you havent read it.

Riddle101 · 19-05-2011 08:39PM

In relation to the talk about Knockout draws. I believe Gail Kim, Awesome Kong and Beautiful People were all said to be draws. ODB I think was a draw as well.

That being said, judging from the Knockouts divsision nowadays. It's nowhere as near as good as it was in 2007/2008 and 2009, when all those divas were with the company. The reason why is because Kim, Kong and ODB all helped to build the Knockout divsion and were huge influences to it, along with TBP. So surely that should also be grounds for higher wages.

drayme · 19-05-2011 08:44PM

Riddle101 wrote: »

In relation to the talk about Knockout draws. I believe Gail Kim, Awesome Kong and Beautiful People were all draws. ODB I think was a draw as well.

That being said, judging from the Knockouts divsision nowadays. It's nowhere as near as good as it was in 2007/2008 and 2009, when all those divas were with the company. The reason why is because Kim, Kong and ODB all helped to build the Knockout divsion and were huge influences to it, along with TBP. So surely that should also be grounds for higher wages.

That's an interesting perspective re: them building something that became a platform for others.

I always go back to Gail Kim wrestling one of the Beautiful People with Kute Kipp (Billy Gunn) in their corner. While Kim was the star of the match, division and some would say Impact itself Kipp was being paid far more than Kim was. How is that justifiable?

Riddle101 wrote: »

So surely that should also be grounds for higher wages.

That's what I keep thinking.

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 08:52PM

drayme wrote: »

I always go back to Gail Kim wrestling one of the Beautiful People with Kute Kipp (Billy Gunn) in their corner. While Kim was the star of the match, division and some would say Impact itself Kipp was being paid far more than Kim was. How is that justifiable?

And that's the very reason Kip no longer has a job. I've spent the last fifteen minutes searching for 2008 iMPACT! quarter hours and bar searching them out one by one (which I'm not willing to do) I can't track them down (most wrestling news sites have very terrible search functions). But the Beautiful People were consistently in the highest rated segments in 2008 (even their reuniting last August was the highest rated segment on the show), unless my memory is very badly letting me down.

I would've loved TNA to have paid Kong and Kim more and was very disappointed when they both left but I can still see why TNA weren't willing to and I don't think it had anything to do with gender.

drayme · 19-05-2011 09:04PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

And that's the very reason Kip no longer has a job. I've spent the last fifteen minutes searching for 2008 iMPACT! quarter hours and bar searching them out one by one (which I'm not willing to do) I can't track them down (most wrestling news sites have very terrible search functions). But the Beautiful People were consistently in the highest rated segments in 2008 (even their reuniting last August was the highest rated segment on the show), unless my memory is very badly letting me down.

I dont doubt that during that time period at all but there has been peaks and valleys in popularity from my limited following of it.

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I would've loved TNA to have paid Kong and Kim more and was very disappointed when they both left but I can still see why TNA weren't willing to and I don't think it had anything to do with gender.

There is a difference between paying prudently and being discriminatory, unethical and opening yourself up lawsuits. A distinction you don’t seem to understand or acknowledge despite me mentioning it a few times.

In TNA’s case pay inequality is even worse in the context as they over pay the men. Along with refusing pay rises for certain talent then only opening the purse strings for the next WWE cast off. If they didn’t do that then you would have a point about it being “business.”

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 09:30PM

drayme wrote: »

I dont doubt that during that time period at all but there has been peaks and valleys in popularity from my limited following of it.

There is a difference between paying prudently and being discriminatory, unethical and opening yourself up lawsuits. A distinction you don’t seem to understand or acknowledge despite me mentioning it a few times.

It was a long enough period to say they were consistent ratings draw, then TNA completely over exposed them and sapped most of their long term value.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying I just don't agree with it. I think the pay scales are mostly proportionate to what TNA get back in return (with the exception of the Hogan's and Flair's of this world but that's a completely different issue).

drayme · 19-05-2011 09:33PM

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I think the pay scales are mostly proportionate to what TNA get back in return (with the exception of the Hogan's and Flair's of this world but that's a completely different issue).

You think?

Do you think they got a return on the Jan 4th era talent: Jeff Hardy, Anderson etc? Ratings and house shows figures would indicate otherwise.

Machismo Fan · 19-05-2011 09:44PM

drayme wrote: »

You think?

Do you think they got a return on the Jan 4th era talent: Jeff Hardy, Anderson etc? Ratings and house shows figures would indicate otherwise.

Probably not, but for me that's an issue with the men being overpaid, not the women being underpaid.

A closer look at Dixie Carter

Comments