episode, on 07 December 2012 - 20:58, said:
Doesn't make sense. They must have gotten a good deal.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. There's a comment on the article which seems to explain things well...
Quote
The Alamodome, unlike the AT&T Center, is not regularly used. It's a bit older too and has gone through a number of renovations meant to attract national acts to use the facility; this includes making it viable for acts that don't draw 70,000 people (which is most of them). One of the more recent renovations actually segmented the facility to provide a smaller venue within the larger facility. It seems likely that TNA doesn't have to pay the cost for the entire facility if they are going to use a small portion of it. Also, it seems likely that booking the Alamodome is comparably less expensive given their struggles in attracting national acts.
TNA is obviously not booking it out of some delusion of grandeur. Management seems to think they can draw bigger crowds in Texas (not incredibly bigger, but slightly since their largest crowd ever was there.) They also want to avoid very small crowds. When I saw Lockdown in Nashville last year, there were barely 1,000 people there. So, it seems possible that this isn't a horrible decision. I'm sure TNA management planned on using a smaller configuration and evaluated their costs and risks accordingly.
Oh, and I just found the seating plan for the show over on TicketMaster:
Shows how little of the arena is gonna be used. They could hold their own version of
WCW World War 3 in there if they wanted to.
I also just looked up ticket prices; there's seven prices: $15, $20, $35, $50, $60, $125 & $150 (well, after fees and taxes, $19.98, $25.14, $42.09, $59.63, $69.90, $141.60 & $169.90). I'm assuming they're good value (up to $35); don't think many wrestling fans would complain at getting to watch a three-hour PPV live in person for $15. Unless it was CZW.
9 votes
4
What's the bloody point of going there, then?! 
