Its consider a soft merger because the only cost WWE would pick up would be 20% of PPV production
WWE then would get 30% of the PPV revenue which would entail WWE gaining 10%
TNA would still run their company business as usual under WWE digital policies
Minus the archival library this deal would be almost the same that VKM had with ECW
The smark comment is towards people who don't take certain posts serious for the reason to make the OP's idea much less informative than its actually is
I have biz experience and merger experience so for some to say I don't know what I am talking about is very futile
Like I mentioned before if people don't like the concept thats fine but I don't act like I know everything because if I did I think I would be working for WWE or any Fortune 500 company


Fair enough, but the ECW deal was mutually beneficial, and it wasn't a merger. Vince was paying Paul Heyman as a World Wrestling Federation employee which allowed Heyman to fund his promotion, which was essentially autonomous. In exchange, the WWF actually got a "rub" of sorts from ECW. WCW was on top of the wrestling world, and the WWF had to try as many new things as possible to keep up. The relatively small but extraordinarily vocal ECW fanbase that was spreading across the northeast, traditionally the WWF's homebase, was given reason to reinvest in the WWF, while fans across the nation started to change the channel from TNT to USA because they were hearing that the WWF was getting pretty cool. Sure talent like Vic Grimes got sent to ECW, but rosters were never merged and ECW was never a true farm system like NXT is or like you propose TNA would become. In short, both sides were desperate and both sides got something.

WWE isn't desperate; TNA isn't desperate (despite Chicken Little-esque doomsaying that crops up during periods like this week's roster cuts), and neither side gets anything they don't already have. TNA has money, and WWE has a minor league. I may have been overly harsh in calling your deal "nonsensical," as a more fair term would be "unnecessary." As much as I'm sure Vince McMahon and WWE's board would like to have a US television deal for NXT, I doubt they're clambering for one to the point that they're circling TNA like vultures. And as much as Dixie Carter may take a loss here or there, she and partners like Eric Bischoff have enough business experience to know that that happens when you're expanding your brand.

As a fan, the thing I look at that makes me reject any merger ideas (not just yours) is competition. Yeah, yeah, TNA isn't competition, whatever. On a fan's level it essentially is. It's another wrestling show on another channel with another modus operandi. That's good. TNA just aired a match of the year candidate with two guys who have never been in WWE. Personally, that's just what I want for the industry, not mergers. Just reading anecdotal reviews here and seeing highlights of the match on YouTube honestly make me regret not watching Impact last night. TNA should aspire to engendering that feeling in fans rather than look for WWE's assistance. Likewise, WWE is doing a great job of elevating young/new talent. They don't need TNA to help them do that nor do they need the relatively meager pay-per-view revenue that TNA brings in.

No disrespect, I'm sure you're a fine businessman, but the wrestling industry and its two biggest players are doing pretty good. In my view, if we smarks should be encouraging any kind of merger, it's one between the TNA loyalists and WWE loyalists.