Some Wrestling News & Rumours 2019 Thread ***NO CHAT***

Stereomaniac

I think that WWE fans like to blame Kevin Dunn for lots of stuff, but really how the hell can we blame him for anything? Maybe that's a naive question, but I don't imagine him having that much control over what Vince puts on the show or doesn't put on, for that matter. Maybe someone can spell it out for me, but I really don't see how everything that someone does in their job can be completely crap and they can last for so long. No one is indispensable in the WWE, we've seen that over the years. As rovert said on the last page, it wouldn't be surprising if he was thrown under the bus. No one man is responsible for everything people don't like on the current programming, it's a combination of people having bad ideas, I believe. On the flip side, it's a matter of all the elements lining up at the right time when things are great as well. NXT being so great the last few years is more to do with the fact that Steen, Devitt, Pac, El Generico and Kenta all came at the same time, and not just that Triple H had some sort of a vision. Also, I'm not sure I agree with them being a year or two out from making a formula which works on a 3 hour Monday Night Raw. They have a few episodes per year which can be perfect, and these often don't happen when we expect them to come the most. Someone can probably remind me when exactly the good episodes were this year, but I seem to remember the one after WrestleMania not being as good, where it usually is, and there was another one that exceeded expectations when people thought otherwise.

Ageyev

rovert wrote: »

I won't be surprised if Dunn is pushed under the bus quite soon the way things are going.

What makes you say that? H's performance with NXT?

rovert

Ageyev wrote: »

What makes you say that? H's performance with NXT?

More will come out the next few days and from people better placed than me but WWE had recently fired their Executive Vice President of Content, Lisa Fox Lee. She was apparently a Kevin Dunn cronie and was part of a power play by Dunn to have control of all WWE content - TV, Network, online. Lee was quickly exposed as not having a clue in meetings with Vince McMahon after spending years of being "hidden" in WWE's Corporate structure as a part of Dunn's team.

MLW/Court Bauer's breaking of the news was probably agenda lead. Court hates Kevin Dunn as do most people:

https://twitter.com/MLW/status/619343129162989569

Don't think this will lead to Dunn being let go as lol at the concept that Kevin Dunn will ever face consequences for his actions but it is story to keep an eye on. WWE TV ratings are bad and likely so are the WWE Network subscription numbers as why would they sack Fox is they were good? I guess Swerved and a Jerry Springer clip show weren't a draw.

Ageyev

I knew about the Lisa Lee firing, I thought she was close to Stephanie, though I don't know how much power Steph wields these days - I'm guessing very little directly.

If NBC make a stink out of the TV ratings we might see some kind of radical change, other than that I'm not sure what Vince and co. will do other than possibly a knee jerk reaction back to their old reliables. Wouldn't surprise me if Network numbers aren't good but sometimes with these things it helps for a corporate head to roll - which might be why Stephanie was moved away from that area?

Stereomaniac

Do you think that Stephanie would have moved away from creative in order to distance herself from an area which involves a lot of hiring and firing of people? I can't imagine that being the most relaxing setting to work in, especially when you're practically in the job 24/7 and you have a young family at home as well. Still though, maybe it would be less stressful if you just went in on the first Monday every month and fired someone randomly.

A Primal Nut

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Do you think that Stephanie would have moved away from creative in order to distance herself from an area which involves a lot of hiring and firing of people? I can't imagine that being the most relaxing setting to work in, especially when you're practically in the job 24/7 and you have a young family at home as well. Still though, maybe it would be less stressful if you just went in on the first Monday every month and fired someone randomly.

I think she just wanted a job with less work; as she does have three kids and her other role as an onscreen performer. Also, from the point view of them one day running the company; her current role probably helps her build experience in the corporate/marketing side of the business, which makes sense as HHH can take care of the creative/wrestling side.

Although Meltzer mentioned a couple of times about HHH & Steph being kept away from key negotiations like the TV rights deal last year; so that they can't be blamed if things go wrong. HHH is very limited on the corporate aspects of running such a big company; as he said himself in the Austin podcast when talking about the 3 hour Raw I think it was; "I try to stay away from those kind of desicions".

Meltzer also said that there is an idea on Wall Street that only Vince McMahon can run a wrestling company; and big investment companies are extremely concerned about succession plans.

Stereomaniac

Well really, and I say this as not his biggest fan in the world, Triple H is probably best kept more with dealing with the wrestlers and running that end of things, as he can speak to them as one himself. But really as long as Vince has air in his lungs, I don't think either his daughter or son in law are going to have a huge amount of power that they can overrule anything that he says. But I'm sure in years to come, we'll probably think that Triple H is having outdated ideas. I mean, he can miss the mark just as much as he nails it.

Rjd2

BMMachine wrote: »

Raw needs to not be 3 hours

That is pretty much it.

A really bad 2 hour Raw was never easy, but while you may now and then soldiered on through it, 3 hours is just a massive no-no for so many.

I know from a financial viewpoint it has worked out, but creatively, it really hasn't and from a pure ring work point, not that much either as they are so few fresh match ups in the product.

Moneymaker

3 hour RAWs are essentially cutting their noses to spite their faces.

Yes they might make more money in the short term, but the product is so over saturated and stale from a creative point of view it's hurting their viewership and their ability to create long term stars.

rovert

Moneymaker wrote: »

3 hour RAWs are essentially cutting their noses to spite their faces.

Yes they might make more money in the short term, but the product is so over saturated and stale from a creative point of view it's hurting their viewership and their ability to create long term stars.

One thing I feel but I don't see people talk about is that WWE week is so front loaded. After gouging on Raw most people are probably done for the week.

A Primal Nut

Alberto Del Rio missed a show and his friends haven't being able to contact him for a couple of days.

The guys on wrestling observer live seem kinda worried. Hopefully he's OK.

DM_7

rovert wrote: »

One thing I feel but I don't see people talk about is that WWE week is so front loaded. After gouging on Raw most people are probably done for the week.

This is a brilliant point, the three hour raw killed Smackdown. It also stopped main event or superstars becoming worthwhile.

Worst if all it killed the brand split. The brand split stopped them running through feuds as you would only need to expand a feud once rather than twice a week, helped them have more stars that looked important, allowed them to freshen things up with the draft etc.

That third hour might add money for raw but must cost them overall.

rovert

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Alberto Del Rio missed a show and his friends haven't being able to contact him for a couple of days.

The guys on wrestling observer live seem kinda worried. Hopefully he's OK.

Still no update. Hope those having an earlier night wake up to positive news.

diusmr8a504cvk

I'm jumping to conclusions in my own head.

martyos121

Emilee Petite Underclass wrote: »

I'm jumping to conclusions in my own head.

El Chapo escaped from prison today. That's how far my mind has gone with it, that I've thought up an elaborate scenario where he's been kidnapped and held for ransom by the cartel.

In all seriousness, I hope at least one person in the world knows where he is and knows he's ok. It's always a worry when a prominent figure goes off the radar, for any length of time.

rovert

https://twitter.com/ToqueFiltrado/status/620726042756386816
https://twitter.com/KrisZellner/status/620727076052705281

diusmr8a504cvk

I'm sorry for saying this but am I the only one who thought we had Benoit all over again?

briany

DM_7 wrote: »

This is a brilliant point, the three hour raw killed Smackdown. It also stopped main event or superstars becoming worthwhile.

Worst if all it killed the brand split. The brand split stopped them running through feuds as you would only need to expand a feud once rather than twice a week, helped them have more stars that looked important, allowed them to freshen things up with the draft etc.

That third hour might add money for raw but must cost them overall.

Nonsense. I hear a lot of talk about how 3 hours of Raw has hurt creativity but Raw is still a two hour show, or closer to 2 hours when you subtract ad time, during which time nothing much happens at the arena anyway. All I know is during the AE, you had two guys who were able to pack in more story into one show a week than WWE are able to do now across several shows, but with a big team of writers, a whole creative committee in fact. That doesn't add up. Smackdown appears to have become inconsequential by design, now acting as a buffer to restate plot points established on Raw, making sure stories don't move too fast. Time was that if you gave wrestlers a bit of faith, they could make even a B (or C) show mean something as Stevie Night demonstrated.

I think all the stories that have come out about killing pushes or ending storylines without any reason, having little interest in anything besides the main event story show that there's
something far more wrong with WWE than time to tell stories, but they can do with they like since they have not a single challenger promotion of consequence in the world.

rovert

Emilee Petite Underclass wrote: »

I'm sorry for saying this but am I the only one who thought we had Benoit all over again?

No for a lot of reasons.

Mexico has a weird relationship/obsession with the incident Benoit. Not a cultural expert but it seems to come from this macho "bitch probably had it coming" attitude to domestic incidents. A wrestler called Rush who has this stabby, stabby aesthetic comes out to Benoit's WWE theme song. Apparently there was a lot of wilful discussion about Alberto doing the same on Mexican social media.

Ageyev

briany wrote: »

Nonsense. I hear a lot of talk about how 3 hours of Raw has hurt creativity but Raw is still a two hour show, or closer to 2 hours when you subtract ad time, during which time nothing much happens at the arena anyway. All I know is during the AE, you had two guys who were able to pack in more story into one show a week than WWE are able to do now across several shows, but with a big team of writers, a whole creative committee in fact. That doesn't add up. Smackdown appears to have become inconsequential by design, now acting as a buffer to restate plot points established on Raw, making sure stories don't move too fast. Time was that if you gave wrestlers a bit of faith, they could make even a B (or C) show mean something as Stevie Night demonstrated.

I think all the stories that have come out about killing pushes or ending storylines without any reason, having little interest in anything besides the main event story show that there's
something far more wrong with WWE than time to tell stories, but they can do with they like since they have not a single challenger promotion of consequence in the world.

A two hour show is about 80-90mins plus ads, a three hour show is about 140mins plus ads. That is a significant difference especially when TV shows are so heavily scripted and they're desperate to maximise ratings. It is quite different than the old PPV model of a three hour/140-160 show based around matches rather than skits, in-ring and backstage promos and other distractions.

Rovert's point about WWE over exposing themselves with three hours at the start of the week is correct. I also wonder if a"three hour" Network special -in addition to their traditional monthly "PPV" shows - of a Sunday might impact on Raw ratings since nearly six of mediocre WWE programming over two days is surely way too much for Joe Public/casual viewer.

The recent Cena/Cesaro matches, and indeed most of what Cena has been doing with Kevin Owens, are a breath of fresh air since they've been quite compelling viewing.

USA Network are very protective of Raw in that they don't want replays, Network airings <30days, online viewing etc. (to ensure maximum ratings) but WWE put the main storyline developments up on their Youtube page. With few exceptions Raw is increasingly non-essential viewing unless you have a hard-on for up to the minute news. With the slide in ratings I wonder when/if something breaks and things get switched up.

rovert

https://twitter.com/KevinEck_WWE/status/620662779960233988

DM_7

briany wrote: »

Nonsense. I hear a lot of talk about how 3 hours of Raw has hurt creativity but Raw is still a two hour show, or closer to 2 hours when you subtract ad time, during which time nothing much happens at the arena anyway. All I know is during the AE, you had two guys who were able to pack in more story into one show a week than WWE are able to do now across several shows, but with a big team of writers, a whole creative committee in fact. That doesn't add up. Smackdown appears to have become inconsequential by design, now acting as a buffer to restate plot points established on Raw, making sure stories don't move too fast. Time was that if you gave wrestlers a bit of faith, they could make even a B (or C) show mean something as Stevie Night demonstrated.

I think all the stories that have come out about killing pushes or ending storylines without any reason, having little interest in anything besides the main event story show that there's
something far more wrong with WWE than time to tell stories, but they can do with they like since they have not a single challenger promotion of consequence in the world.

Your comments on Smackdown support by own by confirming its a recap (or in often what happens there happens again in raw) so that is confusing when your response to me started with nonsense.

Actually I have no interest in discussing it further, as it was a more dismissive reply than a discussion one. And the general point I was making was been explained well above in a way I wouldn't have.

Gerry Rio

This pic of Taker was tweeted

https://twitter.com/DeFrancosGym/status/620758344891023360

Then the speculation on Reddit started. Including:

Taker only dyes his hair before matches these days, like it is now.

Taker to show up at the Battleground main event to spoil a Brock win. Brock Vs Taker is then set up for either Summerslam or Survivor Series.

Survivor Series marks the 25th anniversary of Taker in WWE.

An "insider" on there claims "the main event of Battleground is more important than you think"


Could be nothing. But Taker seems to be starting the gym and hair regime he does for Mania now rather than January.

sky88

Isn't defranco hhhs trainer and does some stuff in the performance center?

Could be something in the rumours

billion dollar baby

Wasn't there rumours of him doing the Stone Cold Podcast for the network? If he's going to be seen on screen for that he will probably want to appear in shape???

Gerry Rio

billion dollar baby wrote: »

Wasn't there rumours of him doing the Stone Cold Podcast for the network? If he's going to be seen on screen for that he will probably want to appear in shape???

Possibly, but I like the rumours better

Machismo Fan

Brandon Howard over at Voices of Wrestling wrote a pretty great piece about the Language of WWE:

http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2015/07/15/the-language-of-wwe/

rovert

Wreddit insider FalconArrow says that Undertaker will interrupt the Rollins-Lesnar match at Battleground.

That would make sense as Survivor Series is the 25th Anniversary of Undertakers debut. What better time to avenge The Streak?

Lord TSC

rovert wrote: »

Wreddit insider FalconArrow says that Undertaker will interrupt the Rollins-Lesnar match at Battleground.

That would make sense as Survivor Series is the 25th Anniversary of Undertakers debut. What better time to avenge The Streak?

So do they go face vs face, building to a show of respect?

rovert

Lord TSC wrote: »

So do they go face vs face, building to a show of respect?

You tell me. But this seems to be a common mental hurdle online but to me neither are fan hand slapping babyfaces so I don't get the concern.

The Phenom can move in mysterious ways and all that.

martyos121

Brock vs. Taker again is a terrible idea. If Taker loses, he looks weak heading into his (likely) retirement match at WM32 in his home state. If Brock loses, you tear down everything you built him up to be and make ending the streak a pointless event. Only way they can keep Taker around Brock is if they team up at Survivor Series to take on Rollins and Triple H, to take down the authority together. This would be a good chance to bring the American Badass back.

It's all very messy though, I think it's best to keep him off television until after the Rumble and give him his big feud with Cena, he's the only realistic option left tbh.

A Primal Nut

Undertaker can lose. Nothing can make him look weak or reduce his value at this stage of his career.

ricero

I dunno would love to see taker avenge the streak and I'm sure many more would. Rather he do it at survivor series and then retire.

Or perhaps have sting interfere and cost taker his vengeance and thus set up their retirement match at mania 32.

Gerry Rio

It does make you wonder why Vince would:

1) Use up an A list PPV match like Lesner Vs Rollins on a B level PPV, and

2) Use up one of Lesner's limited number of dates on a B level PPV.

Unless something really is going down.


Things are getting funny on Reddit regarding this

Poster one

Wait...what if Masked Kane returns, then takes off his mask and it's actually the Undertaker?

They go full Attitude Era on Battleground.


Poster two

And then what if he's actually Fake Undertaker and he takes off his real Undertaker mask?

Going full New Generation.

brianregan09

No one entertaining Rollins Vs Undertaker then ?

rovert

Lennox Lewis finally confirmed Meltzer's story from years ago which everyone denied at the time:
https://twitter.com/thebiglead/status/621317375690846208

Tugboats

Would love to see Taker appear on Sunday. In a way it makes sense with him being referenced so much of late and with Kane being part of the story. Also WWE is in a seriously poor state heading into Summerslam season .

My prediction is on Sunday we see Sheamus cash in allowing Rollins to keep the title:D

Kerplunk124

£5!!!

Ageyev

Feel like I'm being trolled with Reddit insider scoops about Undertaker showing up on Battleground.

WWE leaked Thing's Survivor Series appearance to PWInsider.com so it wouldn't be unusual for them to unofficially leak a guest appearance to drum up Network subs.

Tugboats

Ageyev wrote: »

Feel like I'm being trolled with Reddit insider scoops about Undertaker showing up on Battleground.

WWE leaked Thing's Survivor Series appearance to PWInsider.com so it wouldn't be unusual for them to unofficially leak a guest appearance to drum up Network subs.

The network is free in July!

rovert

Ageyev wrote: »

Feel like I'm being trolled with Reddit insider scoops about Undertaker showing up on Battleground.

WWE leaked Thing's Survivor Series appearance to PWInsider.com so it wouldn't be unusual for them to unofficially leak a guest appearance to drum up Network subs.

The next WWE subscriber number count will be released July 29th.

Ageyev

I can't imagine you just go take Twitter pictures of Undertaker working out without his appoval.

I guess a bit of a bump in free subscribers even based off of planted internet rumours could help them trick investors. Triple H does have a bit of relationship with r/squaredcircle what with them providing him with fruit baskets.

rovert

Meltzer:

I don't know that Undertaker will be on the show Sunday but it wouldn't surprise me.

I do know he is in a SummerSlam television commercial.

A Primal Nut

Regarding Lesnar vs Rollins on a B PPV, with the network there is no so such thing as B PPVs anymore as they all cost the same. Other than that the month is free for new subscribers which is a small percentage overall. It's more important than ever that they distribute big matches and their biggest superstars thoughout the year instead of just WrestleMania and Summer slam.

gerrybbadd

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the WWE don't do the Netflix thing, and just have the first month free. Full stop. Instead of having free months here and there, just have 1 free month. Any time. It'd make a lot more sense.

grames_bond

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the WWE don't do the Netflix thing, and just have the first month free. Full stop. Instead of having free months here and there, just have 1 free month. Any time. It'd make a lot more sense.

Haven't they just started doing exactly that?

ERG89

grames_bond wrote: »

Haven't they just started doing exactly that?

No the month you join is free instead of the next 30 days...
Anyway here is Steph at the ESPY's with Ronda Rousey looking fairly intense :pac:

Chain Smoker

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the WWE don't do the Netflix thing, and just have the first month free. Full stop. Instead of having free months here and there, just have 1 free month. Any time. It'd make a lot more sense.

Wait till you see the dropoff in subscribers immediately after wrestlemania and you'll see why that won't work.

Cheese Wagstaff

Tugboats wrote: »

My prediction is on Sunday we see Sheamus cash in allowing Rollins to keep the title:D

It would make my life if this happened. Long live the Architect.

Gerry Rio

The rumours are now hitting some big sites.

Credit, 411Mania

UPDATE: According to Pwinsider.com, The Undertaker is slated to return next week to build a match for the Summerslam PPV. He is scheduled for Monday’s Raw, and they also note that he could appear at the Battleground PPV. They also mention that WWE has dropped Undertaker’s name a lot of WWE TV as of late.



ORIGINAL: Okay, so first things first: at this point, it’s simply a rumor, so get your grains of salt ready. But the word going around is that The Undertaker may return this Sunday at WWE Battleground during the main event match. While the rumor started on Reddit, The Wrestling Observer Live noted that it is actually a possibility.


The report suggests that the return could set up an angle at SummerSlam, and could be done in order to push for an upswing in WWE Network subscriber numbers before the Q2 earnings call at the end of the month.
As reported, a recent picture was posted online of the Undertaker working out. And while Reddit rumors are spurious at best, this one came from the guy who correctly predicted Samoa Joe’s signing and appearance at NXT Takeover: Unstoppable, Kevin Owens’ Raw debut, Mark Henry replacing Rusev in Elimination Chamber and Ryback winning the Intercontinental Title at the same show. He has yet to give a spoiler that didn’t turn out accurate. So while it’s unconfirmed, it’s at least a rumor coming from someone with credibility.