WWE Too many titles?

judas101

what do you guys think?

i reckon the value of the titles is cheapened as there's so many of them.


when there was less titles they meant more.

1 world title, intercontinental , tag team, cruiser weight and that's it.

for me wwe is a case of too many cowboys and not enough indians.

orton and cena really dont deserve their status imo and i'd much rather see regal or jericho be the main guy's in the company.

HHH's godlike status really pisses me off. granted he's a good performer but the wwe really revolves around him as he's banging the owners daughter.

sorry, i got a bit of topic there


basically, i'd love to see wwe trim the fat a bit and unify the titles.

any opinions on this?

ShawnRaven

judas101 wrote: »

what do you guys think?

i reckon the value of the titles is cheapened as there's so many of them.


when there was less titles they meant more.

I can't disagree there, We've also got too many sets of tag team titles and not enough proper tag teams out there. Just a bunch of thrown together teams. Of course, that's been the case since about 2001!

1 world title, intercontinental , tag team, cruiser weight and that's it.

The cruiserweight title never meant squat. Giving it to Matt Hardy in 2003 cheapened it to f*ck, giving it to Chavo Guerrero Senior put it in the Intensive Care Unit, and giving it to Hornswoggle put it in the coffin.

for me wwe is a case of too many cowboys and not enough indians.

Me too, and John Cena is the biggest bloody Cowboy WWE has seen!

orton and cena really dont deserve their status imo and i'd much rather see regal or jericho be the main guy's in the company.

This one is somewhat debatable. Orton tends to f*ck up every easter (must me something in those chocolate eggs!), and has done for the last three years. His major screwups all tend to happen in April. Cena, love him or hate him, and i hate him, you can't deny that he's been the biggest draw RAW has had since Steve Austin. From merch, to PPV's to DVDs. If he's over with the fans, he'll get the title. Hence why he got one of the longest runs with that damn belt over the course of the last couple of years. Even when he dropped it, it wasn't for long. Jericho's last title reign was a disaster (go on, blame HHH returning for it, i'm dying for you to throw your dig in there!), and Regal? A world title reign? Are you on crack? ESPECIALLY after last weekend!

HHH's godlike status really pisses me off. granted he's a good performer but the wwe really revolves around him as he's banging the owners daughter.

*sigh* another one. He's married to a McMahon, has been for years, let's move on and get over it.

basically, i'd love to see wwe trim the fat a bit and unify the titles.

any opinions on this?

Yes, they tried that in 2001, and it failed. They tried again in 2002 when they unified the World and IC title, it failed, probably because on the same PPV, they launched a new set of tag team titles.

They need to keep the titles over the three brands, but there needs to be more changes, and give the reigns to the right f*cking people.

VR

Rjd2

judas101 wrote: »

what do you guys think?



HHH's godlike status really pisses me off. granted he's a good performer but the wwe really revolves around him as he's banging the owners daughter.

Aye but he put over Batista so lets cut him some slack please:(

rovert

The Main titles are what matter.

The rest is just window dressing.

judas101

rovert wrote: »

The Main titles are what matter.

The rest is just window dressing.

that's the problem.

there should only be one main title. the rest should mean something too.

the intercontinental title used to be a big deal.

I think they have it OK. Their problem is that the tag division is too.. erm... nonexistant :P


If they were to eliminate one set of tag belts, and have the tag team champions be interpromotional (ability to be on every show) then that would fix that problem. This could be done fo rthe Women's title too.

Only other change i'd make is bring back the Cruiserweight title.

They have three shows, two of which have heavy weight titles that are valued as heavyweight titles. Both of those shows also have mid-card straps too, so it all makes perfect sense.

ECW's title isn't as highly valued and is deemed as a mid-card title, so it would make no sense to introduce any other belts to that show.

Interpromotionalising (real word?) the tag and womens belts would make it all work smoother i think. Unless of course they were to delete ECW, and go back to each show having its own titles (like when the draft first happened).

gimmick

There are too many "brands". ECW is a disaster top to bottom. Smackdown is an afterthought, and Raw just is not trying any more. Obviously with too many brands you will have too many titles. The IC belt isn't worth the velcro holding the back if it together. The US title is where the IC belt was. CW is dead, and we have not seen a decent tag division in a decade.

So, I cannot disagree with the sentiment of the thread.

Bubs101

For me, it's not really a case of having too many titles but just that they don't have the right titles.

The two heavyweight titles are grand and needed but I would get rid of the US title and unify it with the ECW title. The shows are cross branded so it would make little difference. I would replace that with the cruiserweight belt. After that, I would unify the tag belts and replace the SD one with a Hardcore title exclusive to ECW

rovert

judas101 wrote: »

that's the problem.

there should only be one main title. the rest should mean something too.

the intercontinental title used to be a big deal.

It is a tri-branded company the World Title on RAW is the main title and the focal point of the company.

All the other titles are just props for the midcard. Everyone done lose sleep over it. The main event sells the show the rest doesnt really matter the wider audience.

Vince135792003

His point is though that if you had less belts, you could make the ones you have left mean something.

Obviously there's only really gonna be 1 belt that matters, that's gonna draw etc.. but the intercontinental title used to be a really important title in terms of stepping stone for making main event guys which in theory leads to future revenue. It was kind of like a rite of passage and it doesn't have that feel to it very often now.

Personally, I'd like to see less belts just so it would be easier to keep track.

rovert

Vince135792003 wrote: »

His point is though that if you had less belts, you could make the ones you have left mean something.

Obviously there's only really gonna be 1 belt that matters, that's gonna draw etc.. but the intercontinental title used to be a really important title in terms of stepping stone for making main event guys which in theory leads to future revenue. It was kind of like a rite of passage and it doesn't have that feel to it very often now.

Personally, I'd like to see less belts just so it would be easier to keep track.

When they unified the titles on RAW in 2003 it didnt make much difference.

Vince135792003

If they want to make a secondary belt mean something, as a stepping stone to the top, they can I think. They have done it before. It just takes time and focus.

judas101

but which is the main belt, the one HH has or the vacated one?

and who are the main tag team champions, holly and that young lad or morrison and the miz?

rossie1977

judas101 wrote: »

orton and cena really dont deserve their status imo and i'd much rather see regal or jericho be the main guy's in the company.

is this a joke :eek: as much as i like regal he will never be a main eventer, the crowd couldn't even muster a half decent "Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye" for him on monday (some did try), just about telling you everything you need to know.

rossie1977

judas101 wrote: »

but which is the main belt, the one HH has or the vacated one?

and who are the main tag team champions, holly and that young lad or morrison and the miz?

the main belt is now the one on raw, the main tag champs are on tna

judas101

rossie1977 wrote: »

is this a joke :eek: as much as i like regal he will never be a main eventer, the crowd couldn't even muster a half decent "Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye" for him on monday (some did try), just about telling you everything you need to know.

Regal's one of the best in the biz, a great characted and brilliant on the mic.

he's payed his dues and deserves a run at the top.

just because the moronic american crowd like cena doesnt mean he's better.

it's a shame as it looked like regal was getting a push but got caught out.
hopefully he'll still get the same push.

rossie1977

the moronic irish crowd like cena better too next WWE show in the point just count the number of people wearing cena merch, i guarantee you will be tired by the time you reach the end of your own row

i have been to nearly every live Raw/Smackdown in England since they started coming over a few years ago, Regals reaction has slowly gotten less and less over there down the years; last time out in london was in complete contrast to the first live Raw WWE did from the MEN in manchester in 2004 when he got a huge pop

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

When they unified the titles on RAW in 2003 it didnt make much difference.

If you're talking about the World title and the IC title, that was 2002 at No Mercy where Kane's IC title was against HHH's world title. The IC title was then brought back halfway through 2003 in a battle royal.

If not, then i'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.
VR!

conormurphy

I think they should strip everyone of their titles and award them to Jonathan Coachman

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

If you're talking about the World title and the IC title, that was 2002 at No Mercy where Kane's IC title was against HHH's world title. The IC title was then brought back halfway through 2003 in a battle royal.

If not, then i'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.
VR!

That period of time was load of dull ****e so I really remember that time well but yeah you are right it was late 2002 not 2003.

As soon they did that the internet wanted all the titles back.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

That period of time was load of dull ****e so I really remember that time well but yeah you are right it was late 2002 not 2003.

It wasn't a total washout though. That period of Angle/Benoit, Edge/Mysterio, Los Guerreros all chasing for the new tag titles on SD was pretty exciting, i thought. In fact, it was those tag titles that pretty much saved No Mercy that year from being a total abortion!

VR!

Vince135792003

Just on No Mercy, I really liked the 'Taker/Lesnar Hell in a Cell match too. There was a real edge to it I thought. At that point, I would say the the Smackdown world title meant more than the Raw one just given how they handled the Raw title up to that point.

citytillidie

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Just on No Mercy, I really liked the 'Taker/Lesnar Hell in a Cell match too. There was a real edge to it I thought. At that point, I would say the the Smackdown world title meant more than the Raw one just given how they handled the Raw title up to that point.

Thats because the title then on Smackdown was the old WWF one and the tiltle on Raw was th old wCw one. Now the belt have changed brands you can see that the WWE values its on belf over the old wCw belt.

Vince135792003

I don't think that's the major reason although maybe it's apart of it. I think it had more to do with how they just gave Triple H the belt in the storyline and how well Lesnar was initially booked as champion that made his title seem more important up to this point.

ShawnRaven

That HITC match bored me to tears. I also think it was very rushed (Brock v Taker had headlined the PPV prior to No Mercy, Unforgiven that year) Two main events with the same guys on 2 PPV's in a row to me, is a bit of a rip off. I could live with it in the golden age of 4 PPV's a year, but not when there's one every month, it just gets boring for me. Storylines were bloody horrible around that period of time too.

VR!

Vince135792003

validreasoning! wrote: »

That HITC match bored me to tears.

I loved it. Loved the drama and I loved the fact that up until that point HIAC was more or less defined by crazy spots. On that night, they re-defined it. It's the kind of match to me you won't watch again and again but as it happened live, it was really gripping.

There was just so many little things I liked about it:

- there was a real physicality about the match I thought that put it over the edge,

- the spot were they have 'taker's arm rapped in a belt and Heyman says "You're gonna die now".

- Undertaker looking vulnerable which because it's so rare (maybe too rare for many people) it gave the match a different feel to it.

- it put Lesnar over as a killer (until they messed it up in my opinion).

ShawnRaven

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I loved it. Loved the drama and I loved the fact that up until that point HIAC was more or less defined by crazy spots. On that night, they re-defined it. It's the kind of match to me you won't watch again and again but as it happened live, it was really gripping.

Yeah, i'll agree there. I didn't see it live, but i was handed the tape of it the following day and i'd be lying if i said i wasn't at the edge of my seat during the match when i first saw it. But it aged horribly compared to the likes of Taker v HBK, HHH v Foley etc.

- Undertaker looking vulnerable which because it's so rare (maybe too rare for many people) it gave the match a different feel to it.

Well if i recall correctly, it was the first 1v1 HITC he lost without major interference. That put Brock over huge as a result.

- it put Lesnar over as a killer (until they messed it up in my opinion).

Horrible face, god awful, but he was so over at the time that the crowd were cheering for him anyway. Which was fine, but "smilin'" Brock Lesnar? That just didn't work in my opinion. I think Vince knew it as well, as he was turned face about 7-8 months later.

VR!

Vince135792003

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I loved it. Loved the drama and I loved the fact that up until that point HIAC was more or less defined by crazy spots. On that night, they re-defined it. It's the kind of match to me you won't watch again and again but as it happened live, it was really gripping.

There was just so many little things I liked about it:

- there was a real physicality about the match I thought that put it over the edge,

- the spot were they have 'taker's arm rapped in a belt and Heyman says "You're gonna die now".

- Undertaker looking vulnerable which because it's so rare (maybe too rare for many people) it gave the match a different feel to it.

- it put Lesnar over as a killer (until they messed it up in my opinion).

I also enjoyed the spot were Taker (inside the cell) grabbed Heyman (outside the cell) by he tie and kept pulling it, smashing his face into the cell... ah.. good times :pac:


I enjoyed most of the Lesnar/Taker stuff though. Lesnar was awesome. Pity he left when he did

ShawnRaven

WWE's loss is UFC's eventual gain. If Lesnar can learn to defend properly, he'll do well there.

VR!

Minto

Ok, if I were Vince this is what I'd do:

First, I'd unify the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships to have the WWE Heavyweight Championship. This would obviously be the main championship.

Next, I'd probably have the United States and ECW championships unified into the WWE United States Heavyweight Championship. This would be a third level championship.

The Intercontinental Championship would remain the same on the face of things, but it would revert back to being the 'workhorse' title as Hunter put it on his DVD. It would be the second level championship.

I would unify the WWE and World Tag Team Championships. I'd love to see these mean something again.

I'd also keep the Women's Championship as it is.

Now, to the interesting part. I'd strip every champion and have matches to determine the new champs. The WWE title would be contested in a tournament, the IC would be contested in a qualified battle royale, the US would be decided by a gauntlet match, the womens would be a battle royale and the tag team titles would be decided via tag team turmoil.

Finally, every championship would have a new belt designed for it.

rovert

Minto wrote: »

Ok, if I were Vince this is what I'd do:

First, I'd unify the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships to have the WWE Heavyweight Championship. This would obviously be the main championship.

Next, I'd probably have the United States and ECW championships unified into the WWE United States Heavyweight Championship. This would be a third level championship.

The Intercontinental Championship would remain the same on the face of things, but it would revert back to being the 'workhorse' title as Hunter put it on his DVD. It would be the second level championship.

I would unify the WWE and World Tag Team Championships. I'd love to see these mean something again.

I'd also keep the Women's Championship as it is.

Now, to the interesting part. I'd strip every champion and have matches to determine the new champs. The WWE title would be contested in a tournament, the IC would be contested in a qualified battle royale, the US would be decided by a gauntlet match, the womens would be a battle royale and the tag team titles would be decided via tag team turmoil.

Finally, every championship would have a new belt designed for it.

Then what?

chopperbyrne

Unify the tag titles and unify the US and ECW title as the TV Title.

This could be a belt given to someone to test the waters to see if they are ready for a big push.

They get plenty of TV time and their belt is defended on TV regularly.

Bring back the Cruiserweight title and actually have it mean something.

Change the design of the WWE Title back to either the winged eagle belt or the Undisputed belt.

I'd consider unifying the two heavyweight titles, but that old belt has so much history behind it, it would be a shame to see it gone.

rovert

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Bring back the Cruiserweight title and actually have it mean something.

How?

chopperbyrne

rovert wrote: »

How?

By having proper feuds between talented cruiserweights that aren't just an afterthought.

By giving the cruiserweights decent length matches and promo time.

By having proper one on one matches between the cruiserweights and not just three or four way matches that only last ten minutes.

Minto

rovert wrote: »

Then what?

rovert wrote: »

How?

WOW, I have to say, they are some amazingly constructive posts.

Anyway, to answer your constructively asked question, I'd prob remove the brand extension, fire have the roster and have WWE return to their glory days.

rovert

Minto wrote: »

WOW, I have to say, they are some amazingly constructive posts.

Maybe the posts I’m responding to don’t warrant anything beyond the word, no. As they aren’t grounded in the real world so I asking for more detail and consideration than what has been given.

Minto wrote: »

Anyway, to answer your constructively asked question, I'd prob remove the brand extension, fire have the roster and have WWE return to their glory days.

Shareholders would love that. There are many, many reasons why the brand spilt exists better than your current rational.

chopperbyrne wrote: »

By having proper feuds between talented cruiserweights that aren't just an afterthought.

By giving the cruiserweights decent length matches and promo time.

By having proper one on one matches between the cruiserweights and not just three or four way matches that only last ten minutes.

And take time away from wrestlers are who proven draws. What is the point of devoting all that time and effort to wrestlers with a shorter shelf life than heavyweights?

Minto

rovert wrote: »

Shareholders would love that.

Are you a shareholder? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no. So unless you are, how would you know what they would want or not?
With the current state of the brand extension, getting rid of it would mean nothing to share price or share dividends.
In fact, it may help it, because if Cena is on all 3 shows, kids are going to watch all 3 shows, this will increase ratings, leading to greater revenue, which would make more profit for the shareholders.

rovert

Minto wrote: »

Are you a shareholder? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no. So unless you are, how would you know what they would want or not?.

I maybe going out on limb here but I think quite possibly profit and growth potential? I might be wrong, I’m open to correction here.

Minto wrote: »

With the current state of the brand extension, getting rid of it would mean nothing to share price or share dividends..

Except to licensing fees, live events receipts (including the international expansion for the coming year), merchandising, TV rights fees, number of main eventers etc.

Minto wrote: »

In fact, it may help it, because if Cena is on all 3 shows, kids are going to watch all 3 shows, this will increase ratings, leading to greater revenue, which would make more profit for the shareholders.

Over exposing a star will decrease the novelty of their appearances which lead to a decrease ratings which will in turn hurt fan interest and Pay Per View buys due to burning out feuds three times faster. Not to mention increasing the likelihood of injuries.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Over exposing a star will decrease the novelty of their appearances which lead to a decrease ratings which will in turn hurt fan interest and Pay Per View buys due to burning out feuds three times faster. Not to mention increasing the likelihood of injuries.

I hate to say this... god I hate to say this!
I see where you're coming from, but that's not always the case, Cena's fan increase didn't decrease, ratings didn't decrease when he was champion and opening and closing the show every mundan... sorry i mean monday. And he drew pretty well on PPV as well.

Of course, he did suffer an injury as a result.
VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

I hate to say this... god I hate to say this!
I see where you're coming from, but that's not always the case, Cena's fan increase didn't decrease, ratings didn't decrease when he was champion and opening and closing the show every mundan... sorry i mean monday. And he drew pretty well on PPV as well.

Of course, he did suffer an injury as a result.
VR!

Im not honestly trying to start anything here but reread what you wrote as I genuinely cant make out fully what you are saying here .

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Im not honestly trying to start anything here but reread what you wrote as I genuinely cant make out fully what you are saying here .

Why would i re-read what i wrote? I know what i said!

Long and the short of it was Cena, over the course of the last two years was the exception to your theory, with the exception of being injured at the end of it all.

VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

Why would i re-read what i wrote? I know what i said!

Long and the short of it was Cena, over the course of the last two years was the exception to your theory, with the exception of being injured at the end of it all.

VR!

Cena was over for so long partially because as you said he appeared only "on opening and closing the show every mundan... sorry i mean monday." His longevity would not have lasted as long if he appeared every Monday, Tuesday and Friday. The Cena backlash would have been much, much bigger if he did. Hence he is not the exception to my theory and pretty much the rule.

WWE shouldn't unify belts (I know i said in my first post that i'd do it with the tag belts).


But inification usually just leads to more people getting upset and annoyed over nothing.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Cena was over for so long partially because as you said he appeared only "on opening and closing the show every mundan... sorry i mean monday." His longevity would not have lasted as long if he appeared every Monday, Tuesday and Friday. The Cena backlash would have been much, much bigger if he did. Hence he is not the exception to my theory and pretty much the rule.

It wasn't just on RAW though, he started showing up on Smackdown as well.
VR!

Shaneomac

Does anyone not think its not the problem having these titles but actually having them defended once in a while. I know Jericho only got the i.c due to emergency but id like to see it defended. How many times in the past year did MVP defend the U.S title? How many times in their year as champions did London/Spanky defend their tag title. Then their was Gregory Helms who was promoted as a dominant Cruiserweight holding the belt for a year(again never defending the damn thing and losing clean to people like Daiviri). If these belts where defended once and a while it would build the superstars holding them up more and isnt that the whole point of belts?

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

It wasn't just on RAW though, he started showing up on Smackdown as well.
VR!

A handful of times NOT every week

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

A handful of times NOT every week

And if you can quote me where i said he was showing up every week, i'll give you ten grand. I think i'm safe there.

One brand, one champion, simple as, and what is understood doesn't need to be discussed.

VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

And if you can quote me where i said he was showing up every week, i'll give you ten grand. I think i'm safe there.
VR!

I never said that you said that. He did appear on Smackdown a handful of times.

rovert wrote: »

Cena was over for so long partially because as you said he appeared only "on opening and closing the show every mundan... sorry i mean monday." His longevity would not have lasted as long if he appeared every Monday, Tuesday and Friday. The Cena backlash would have been much, much bigger if he did. Hence he is not the exception to my theory and pretty much the rule.

Your quote above was in relation to this statement. What you pointed out where the rare exceptions to the rule.

validreasoning! wrote: »

One brand, one champion, simple as, and what is understood doesn't need to be discussed.

Profit???

Over Exposure???

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

I never said that you said that. He did appear on Smackdown a handful of times.

Which is too many for a tri branded company with a championship on each one, no?

Profit???

Like WWE need any more? It's turning over money hand over fist. I know it's a business, and people go into business to make money but over the last couple of years, it's coming across like Vince is flogging as many dead horses as he can for the quick buck, and in the long run it will most likely hurt more than it helps. ECW for example, was nowhere near the success Vince had hoped it would be, December to Dismember is a classic example. Life goes on, what worked ten years ago won't always work today, Hogan is another example. Hogan draws on his appearances, not his ring work or his storylines involved. Every time Vince brings Hogan back, he ends up pissing off loads of people who works with him by refusing to put them over, and for what, a quick buck? Profit? Maybe, i'd call it more greed myself.

Over Exposure???

My point exactly! Too much of anything is no longer a good thing. Cena getting booed out of buildings left right and centre last year proves my point. That said, his merchandise did sell and he did draw, but how far do you go before you piss off your fans completely?
VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

Which is too many for a tri branded company with a championship on each one, no?

No its not one of the reasons for the brand spilt is so that interactions between Superstars who have been away from each other creates greater interest due the novely not having them on the same show. Which has in the past could it all be better executed yes, but we dont live in an ideal world.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Like WWE need any more? It's turning over money hand over fist. I know it's a business, and people go into business to make money but over the last couple of years, it's coming across like Vince is flogging as many dead horses as he can for the quick buck, and in the long run it will most likely hurt more than it helps. ECW for example, was nowhere near the success Vince had hoped it would be, December to Dismember is a classic example. Life goes on, what worked ten years ago won't always work today, Hogan is another example. Hogan draws on his appearances, not his ring work or his storylines involved. Every time Vince brings Hogan back, he ends up pissing off loads of people who works with him by refusing to put them over, and for what, a quick buck? Profit? Maybe, i'd call it more greed myself.

You are right VR WWE should turn their backs on thier shareholders to play to fanboys on the internet. :rolleyes: WWE has just celebrated one of their best years ever. ECW provided a futher stream of revenue for Vince McMahon, it is a sucess for him. ECW was always planned to be a developmental Television programme from it's incepetion. VR start living in real world.

validreasoning! wrote: »

My point exactly! Too much of anything is no longer a good thing.

Yet you are in favour of ending the brand spilt and effectively having everyone on every show, WHAT?

validreasoning! wrote: »

Cena getting booed out of buildings left right and centre last year proves my point. That said, his merchandise did sell and he did draw, but how far do you go before you piss off your fans completely?
VR!

No one bar mentally unbalanced wrestling fans are turning off because of Cena. Are these really your best arguments to end the brand split?

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

No its not one of the reasons for the brand spilt is so that interactions between Superstars who have been away from each other creates greater interest due the novely not having them on the same show. Which has in the past could it all be better executed yes, but we dont live in an ideal world.

That was only one of the reasons, there were a few others if i recall correctly. Another one was to take pressure off the guys working so many dates. Which worked for a short while, until they upped the number of house shows.

You are right VR WWE should turn their backs on thier shareholders to play to fanboys on the internet. :rolleyes: WWE has just celebrated one of their best years ever. ECW provided a futher stream of revenue for Vince McMahon, it is a success for him. ECW was always planned to a developmental Television programme from it's incepetion. VR start living in real world.

You telling me to live in the real world? That's rich given some of the stuff you've posted on here in the past week. You didn't read my post did you? I said that he's slowly crucifying his product for the sake of "the munn-aay". It's not just playing to "fanboys on the internet" (and you can include yourself at that, pal!), I'm all on for increasing the revenue, as i said in my previous post (that you obviously either bypassed or you just can't read), that he's in the business to make money, like anyone that goes into business. However when the quality starts declining, the money, although it still rolls in, it does dwindle due to lesser buyrates etc.

Yet you are in favour of ending the brand spilt and effectively having everyone on every show, WHAT?

I was never in favour of the brand split in the first place(not that i ever mentioned that in this thread), however if it continues, it should stay divided and not having 3 different champions show up on one show, which brings us back to the original topic, having too many titles on one show. Stop putting words into my mouth.

No one bar mentally unbalanced wrestling fans are turning off because of Cena. Are these really your best arguments to end the brand split?

And you know this for a fact? Or is that what Bryan Alvarez tells you every day as you wait on the edge of your chair waiting for his next anti TNA, pro WWE mumbling to be available for download? Secondly i never said that fans were turning off because of Cena, i said he was getting booed because he was overexposed and shoved down everyone's throats. Now, for the second time, quit putting words into my mouth.

F*cks sake!
VR!