I totally agree with Roman

[d_henderson1810]

He said what I thought for years - that Brock Lesnar is an entitled POS who gets looked after, while everyone else has to bust their hump working.

I was brought up with a strong work ethic. I pride myself on showing up every day I am needed. I sometimes even go to work when I have a cold, and have been sent home.

So I don't get why Brock Lesnar is allowed to just show up occasionally. Say what you want about Roman, but he shows up every week (whether you like it or not). He is also right that most of you would be fired from your jobs if you no-showed.

Now, I know people will bring up Cena or the Undertaker showing up from time to time as well. But Cena has given service for years, was loyal to WWE, and does a lot of outside work for WWE, in ambassadorial roles and promoting WWE's link with "Make-A-Wish".

The Undertaker is much older than Brock, has stuffed knees and needs a hip replacement. Yet he gets himself in shape for a one-off match at Wrestlemania every year (and it sounds like he is doing it again). He could have retired, but keeps coming back.

Also, Taker stuck by Vince during the "Monday Night Wars" and didn't jump to WCW, and has given over 25 years service to Vince. He deserves to call his shots.

Brock, on the other hand, is younger, and after being given every opportunity in 2003-04, he left and first tried football (which he failed at) and then UFC. He left for himself, with little notice, and then, years later, comes back, demands more pay for less dates, and wins the belt twice, and then goes away for months, meaning that there is no Universal Title matches at PPVs.

When Brock can be bothered performing, he dominates matches, and gives little back to his opponents. He squashed Ambrose in an awful Streetfight in minutes, after Dean built the feud up for the weeks leading to WM32. Brock potatoed Orton, ending their match prematurely for a Summerslam main event which had been built for weeks. He works stiff, injures wrestlers, and doesn't apologize for it.

I disagree with one thing Roman said. He said that Brock is "Vince's boy". On the contrary, I think the truth is closer to "Vince is Brock's bitch" given how Vince bends over for Brock. You say that Vince gets wet over Roman, but Reigns got a months' suspension for Wellness. I bet Brock doesn't get that (and he got an actual drug ban by WADA from UFC).

Also, I used to think Paul Heyman was great on the mike. These days, he has to carry Brock's ass on stickwork, and has been poorer for it. All he now says is "MY CLIENT WILL DESTROY YOU!". Hey, Paul, all the money that Brock gets paid from WWE, which you get a slice of for being manager, does any of it go to paying RVD, Shane Douglas and everyone else in ECW who Heyman stiffed for payments for the last six months of ECW's existence?

I don't get why people cheer Brock, when he doesn't care about the WWE or any of the paying or viewing fans? I can't wait until he leaves after 'Mania and I hope he never comes back. I also hope what goes around comes around in Brock's case.

 

[Ceen]

I want Brock to lose in a way that Roman being the man who dethrone him, I just don’t care. So we can have Finn/Seth/Braun/AJ/Joe (maybe Matt or even Bray) in the main event finally

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I find the idea that to be a professional wrestler you have to submit to a certain lifestyle ridiculous. The idea that you have to work 200+ dates a years, leave your family, destroy your body is crap. Brock has used his leverage to work how he wants. I don't know if that makes him "Vince's Bitch" but I don't care. It doesn't make him a bad guy or bad performer. This is just another lazy storyline they gave Roman to try to win over the smarks. Roman isn't selling it that well and I'm not buying it.

Plus, I don't care that much about my job, if I could get paid more and only work one day a week I would do it in a second. My job to me is mostly just a means to make money to support the things and people i really do care about. I'm not going to hold Brock to a different standard as long as he does a good job when he is around.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

You agree with Roman? About what?

Brock Lesnar never said that he was going to be there every week and at every PPV. Brock Lesnar said "I want limited schedule, will you give it to me?" Vince, said YES.

Brock Lesnar has always been open about his contract and dates. He shows up when he's needed, kicks ass and heads home to sleep. Roman has ZERO leverage in this angle. ZERO credibility. And when Lesnar COMES back, he and Heyman will tear Roman apart and Roman will look like a bigger fool than he already looks like.

If Roman wants to blame ANYBODY, blame VINCE and only Vince. This literally brings no heat to Lesnar. Vince is the problem. But I don't see how Roman blaming Vince and getting heat to Vince actually helps Roman in this angle against Brock Lesnar.

If they wanted to do, Reigns vs Vince with Lesnar being the middle man, then fine, it would work. But right now, Lesnar is the end game. Not Vince.

 

[Revenant87]

Roman was in the right, but the problem is the bridges are burned between him and the fans now so it doesnt matter to them. At this point he could be wrestling Hitler and he'd still get booed.

 

[Vintage Punk]

People actually buy this bit from Roman Reigns? They have literally tried everything to get Reigns over. He has been booed for years but they want to keep pushing him as a face. Turn this guy heel already as that is what he is. They are working this angle of Brock not showing and not caring to try and get Roman over. The truth is Brock probably doesn't care much as he is getting paid but that's what he has in his deal, a limited schedule. I'm pretty sure if Roman was over, then went and won a UFC belt, and then came back and was offered a deal to work a limited schedule to make a lot of money and be home with his family more...he would definitely take it. Hell the reason Brock has kept the title this long is because when Roman wins at Mania it won't be as bad because after a year long reign by Brock, we are ready to see the title change hands.

I'm not saying this guy isn't a worker as he is. However, he isn't a main event guy. His charisma is zero and he can cut a scripted promo at times like he did a couple of weeks back when no one is there to retort. However, when someone with decent mic skills is up against him, he will just try and be tough because he can't comeback with anything off the top of his head and he will be exposed

No matter what happens, he will still get booed the night after because no one wants forced garbage. And what a line he said, "Because you're Vince's boy!" The very exact thing that people think and say about him.

 

[enviousdominous]

I'm really weirded out by this whole storyline.

So Roman doesn't like people who don't suffer as much as he does for the business, and he wants to raise Hell with management because "that's not fair!" Well alrighty then.

It's odd timing for this kind of an angle where we have a documentary on Andre the Giant coming out soon. Andre was the type of competitor who had enough mystique to where it would be foolish to put him out there more than once a month. When he showed up, it was an anticipated treat for the fans and everyone made more money for it. I realize that his body was also not capable of going more than once a month, but that's beside the point.

Brock Lesnar shocks the crowd awake with his presence. I feel that Roman has been consistently let down by a backward thinking writing staff and the undying faith of Vince, but at the same time he seems like an air-head. Brock carved out his niche long ago and the fans aren't getting anything more compelling out of Roman, even with this new "what about me" angle.

Roman works hard, he works often, and he's a damn good wrestler. For my money, he should have had a heel turn or he should have been picked to win his first Royal Rumble and kept him going from there. The WWE didn't take advantage of him when he was hot, and they took advantage of him when he was cold. It's damn ironic that Roman is running around calling Brock "Vince's boy".

If Brock had run into the same creative roadblocks that Roman has been running into, he'd have been let go before his first King of the Ring tournament. They had Angle, Hogan, Rock, Austin, and a burgeoning young star named John Cena. Roman became stale in the minds of fans as soon as he won a Royal Rumble while putting in almost no effort to win it, and then the WWE pretended that instead of "boo" the fans were chanting "rooo(man)" or some shit. It's like the whole company forgot how to make a gimmick work.

Brock has more than paid his dues to be the guy who doesn't have to show up for Raw every Monday. I realize that the WWE has made this match official, so now they have to give me something in terms of hype that makes Roman seem somewhat credible going into it. I feel that they tried to get the same point across in preparation for Roman's first WrestleMania match against Brock, and I feel that it backfired on Roman catastrophically.

Brock is money wherever he goes, Roman is a WWE guy and will carry the stigma of being "Vince's boy" if he tries to sell his act anywhere else.

 

[Garak]

Brock, on the other hand, is younger, and after being given every opportunity in 2003-04, he left and first tried football (which he failed at) and then UFC. He left for himself, with little notice, and then, years later, comes back, demands more pay for less dates, and wins the belt twice, and then goes away for months, meaning that there is no Universal Title matches at PPVs.

Brock is an attraction, which didn't do his psyche any favours. It didn't help his work ethic, either. Unfortunately the few setbacks he's faced didn't provide any valuable lessons.

When Brock can be bothered performing, he dominates matches, and gives little back to his opponents.

Brock can work a great match, when he wants to and when it's booked that way. Let's be fair to Brock here. How much of his match style is dictated by management right now?

Also, I used to think Paul Heyman was great on the mike. These days, he has to carry Brock's ass on stickwork, and has been poorer for it. All he now says is "MY CLIENT WILL DESTROY YOU!". Hey, Paul, all the money that Brock gets paid from WWE, which you get a slice of for being manager, does any of it go to paying RVD, Shane Douglas and everyone else in ECW who Heyman stiffed for payments for the last six months of ECW's existence?

If everyone who ran a business was held personally accountable after the folding of said business, no one would run a business. I guarantee Heyman doesn't provide a penny to any former ECW talent, nor should he.

Others have made a valuable point. It's admirable to care about your job. It's also wonderful to love your job, love the business, whatever it is. That's not always realistic, though. Some people want to focus on family and their private lives. Others make their jobs their entire existence. That's up to Brock.

Now, given Brock's talent, and how management sees him, would you really want to see a Brock Lesnar that had the passion for the business of say HHH or Cena, and be willing to work 7+ shows per week and attend every fan signing and charity appearance they threw at him? All we'd have are complaints of another HHH, Cena, Roman, or Hogan stealing the spotlight and burying talent.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I find the idea that to be a professional wrestler you have to submit to a certain lifestyle ridiculous. The idea that you have to work 200+ dates a years, leave your family, destroy your body is crap. Brock has used his leverage to work how he wants. I don't know if that makes him "Vince's Bitch" but I don't care. It doesn't make him a bad guy or bad performer. This is just another lazy storyline they gave Roman to try to win over the smarks. Roman isn't selling it that well and I'm not buying it.

Plus, I don't care that much about my job, if I could get paid more and only work one day a week I would do it in a second. My job to me is mostly just a means to make money to support the things and people i really do care about. I'm not going to hold Brock to a different standard as long as he does a good job when he is around.

1) It might be a ridiculous lifestyle, and I am an advocate for a "off-season" in wrestling, to keep the product and performers fresh.

However, I am also an advocate of everyone being under the same rules in an organisation. Why does only Brock get this? What would happen if others said that they want to work only selected dates or certain shows a year?

Besides, Brock doesn't always do his job well. He legit almost injures other wrestlers in the ring. He potatoed Randy Orton hardway at "Summerslam". He is careless with some of his moves, and isn't sorry if he injures someone. Injuring talent, or burying matches that have been heavily promoted (like the Orton-Summerslam one) isn't doing a good job, IMO.

Also, if Brock does this, then he shouldn't be given the Universal belt. If he only does the occassional show, give him feuds with the belt involved. You can't tie up a brand's major prize and not have it on your show for months.

2) I get the feeling that you wouldn't care what Roman said, because you plain don't like him. If he said something you agreed with, you would pretend you don't because HE said it.

3) You probably don't care about your job, because you take it for granted, and don't appreciate what you have.

I am out of work at the moment, and it ain't easy finding a job. You care about having a job more when you haven't had one for a while. If Brock was unemployed, and his massive paychecks stopped coming in, he might be a bit more grateful for the opportunities he did have.

Also, what about all the wrestlers who were out of work, and couldn't get another job in wrestling after ECW went under, due to Paul Heyman's mismanagement? So while Brock lives high on the hog, and makes Heyman rich, I wonder if Shane Douglas and others are doing as well, when all doors closed for them?

 

[d_henderson1810]

You agree with Roman? About what?

Brock Lesnar never said that he was going to be there every week and at every PPV. Brock Lesnar said "I want limited schedule, will you give it to me?" Vince, said YES.

Brock Lesnar has always been open about his contract and dates. He shows up when he's needed, kicks ass and heads home to sleep. Roman has ZERO leverage in this angle. ZERO credibility. And when Lesnar COMES back, he and Heyman will tear Roman apart and Roman will look like a bigger fool than he already looks like.

If Roman wants to blame ANYBODY, blame VINCE and only Vince. This literally brings no heat to Lesnar. Vince is the problem. But I don't see how Roman blaming Vince and getting heat to Vince actually helps Roman in this angle against Brock Lesnar.

If they wanted to do, Reigns vs Vince with Lesnar being the middle man, then fine, it would work. But right now, Lesnar is the end game. Not Vince.

I do blame Vince, but Lesnar was arrogant to ask for it to begin with.

Brock isn't injured, and restricted to how many matches he could do. If someone like Daniel Bryan does a match, I don't expect him to resume a full schedule, because he has had serious injuries. Brock is injury-free, so he is doing this because he has a massive ego and an overrated sense of his own importance.

If I were Vince, I would say that he works every week, or no deal. He can go back to UFC. I definitely wouldn't put the title on him.

But I wonder, if someone you liked had done this storyline with Brock, rather than Roman saying it, would you then agree? Because I think a lot of people don't agree because they can't give Roman any credit ever.

We get it. You people hate Roman Reigns. Put that aside for one moment, and listen to what is being said, not who is saying it.

I bet if Shinsuke, or Finn Balor, or A.J. Styles or your fave NXT wrestler said it, then you would agree. I bet if "Stone Cold" Steve Austin came back, Brock confronts him, and Austin says it to him, you would agree. If Roman said that the earth was round, you would say it is flat, just to disagree with him.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Brock is an attraction, which didn't do his psyche any favours. It didn't help his work ethic, either. Unfortunately the few setbacks he's faced didn't provide any valuable lessons.


Brock can work a great match, when he wants to and when it's booked that way. Let's be fair to Brock here. How much of his match style is dictated by management right now?


If everyone who ran a business was held personally accountable after the folding of said business, no one would run a business. I guarantee Heyman doesn't provide a penny to any former ECW talent, nor should he.

Others have made a valuable point. It's admirable to care about your job. It's also wonderful to love your job, love the business, whatever it is. That's not always realistic, though. Some people want to focus on family and their private lives. Others make their jobs their entire existence. That's up to Brock.

Now, given Brock's talent, and how management sees him, would you really want to see a Brock Lesnar that had the passion for the business of say HHH or Cena, and be willing to work 7+ shows per week and attend every fan signing and charity appearance they threw at him? All we'd have are complaints of another HHH, Cena, Roman, or Hogan stealing the spotlight and burying talent.

"Much of his match style is dictated by management now?"

I doubt Vince's plan, when promoting a Brock v Orton main event at "Summerslam" was for it to end as soon as it did, with Orton bleeding. If it were planned, the story would have continued, with Orton wanting revenge on Brock. Instead, nothing more was said or done, because Brock went into business for himself.

Why would Vince cost himself money by having a main event on a major card, which had been heavily promoted, to end so soon, with no payoff? Brock's stiff style isn't dictated by management.

As for Heyman, he does owe the talent money. Do you know that most talent didn't get paid for the last six months of their stint in ECW, because Heyman told them to sacrifice now, and when business turns around, they would be handsomely rewarded? Well, that day never came, and there has no word that Heyman ever paid back these guys who stood by him.

Did you know that Rob Van Dam actually left ECW, and was going to sign with WCW, because he wasn't paid for six months, and he had a family to feed? It only didn't happen because WCW folded, and RVD was picked up by WWE.

In a workplace, you are responsible for back pay. Some people can't, because they are broke. But now that Heyman manages Brock (in real life as well, since he managed him during UFC) then he should have heaps of money to pay back RVD, Shane Douglas, Tommy Dreamer etc.

I can't wait until Brock is gone, and Heyman goes back to being the brilliant orator he is, instead of saying "MY CLIENT" 5 million times a promo.

You know what. Some people can care about their family and life, AND their job too. It is called work-life balance. WWE doesn't have that, and maybe they should follow the TNA model on that (except that Vince is paranoid about news about the shows leaking out online). The brand extension should be giving talent more time off, since they are working RAW or SD Live, and shouldn't be working both. But it hasn't turned out that way.

But if Vince can give Brock time off, then he can do it for other talent as well. My point is, I don't like one person getting a priviledge that others don't get, unless it is someone like the Undertaker, who is injured, and has been loyal to Vince for almost three decades. Brock hasn't "earned" the favourable treatment he got, considering he left Vince high and dry after WMXX.

I would enjoy seeing Brock on TV every week, to promote an upcoming match. He could be used like Strowman is used now, destroying everything in sight. At least the Universal belt would be defended every PPV then, rather than once in a while (obviously, the 30-day title defense rule no longer exists).

 

[d_henderson1810]

People actually buy this bit from Roman Reigns? They have literally tried everything to get Reigns over. He has been booed for years but they want to keep pushing him as a face. Turn this guy heel already as that is what he is. They are working this angle of Brock not showing and not caring to try and get Roman over. The truth is Brock probably doesn't care much as he is getting paid but that's what he has in his deal, a limited schedule. I'm pretty sure if Roman was over, then went and won a UFC belt, and then came back and was offered a deal to work a limited schedule to make a lot of money and be home with his family more...he would definitely take it. Hell the reason Brock has kept the title this long is because when Roman wins at Mania it won't be as bad because after a year long reign by Brock, we are ready to see the title change hands.

I'm not saying this guy isn't a worker as he is. However, he isn't a main event guy. His charisma is zero and he can cut a scripted promo at times like he did a couple of weeks back when no one is there to retort. However, when someone with decent mic skills is up against him, he will just try and be tough because he can't comeback with anything off the top of his head and he will be exposed

No matter what happens, he will still get booed the night after because no one wants forced garbage. And what a line he said, "Because you're Vince's boy!" The very exact thing that people think and say about him.

Who cares if it was Roman or Joe Bloggs who said it, it doesn't change the point that Brock is a manipulative, self-serving knob who doesn't love the business, and doesn't respect or appreciate anything but his own massive ego. He is a bully who injures other workers, and doesn't care.

Roman shows up to work. Roman does all his dates. Roman drops the belt when told to. I don't see Brock doing that.

But then, you don't care, because you don't like anyone Vince puts up as "the guy". You probably booed Hulk Hogan too, back in the day. Or is only in later years you became a disrespectful smartarse? Yeah, because some guy in the crowd or in front of the TV who sits on his hands and acts like he is over it all, and knows better than someone who has been in the industry for years, knows who is better to push.

Who would you push to the top? Skinny Finn Balor? Someone vanilla guy like Roderick Strong? I bet if Finn said the same thing, you would lap it up, and agree with him. But because they had Roman said it, you instantly dismiss the point, because he said it.

I bet if he said that it was a sunny day during summer, you would say that it is cold and wet, because you can't bring yourself to ever give Roman credit, because Vince likes him.

If Roman was in NXT, when you all fawned over him, or when he was in the Shield, you would agree with him. But being the top guy is a no-no, unless it is "your" guy. Wrestling doesn't need people like you supporting it.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I do blame Vince, but Lesnar was arrogant to ask for it to begin with.

Brock isn't injured, and restricted to how many matches he could do. If someone like Daniel Bryan does a match, I don't expect him to resume a full schedule, because he has had serious injuries. Brock is injury-free, so he is doing this because he has a massive ego and an overrated sense of his own importance.

If I were Vince, I would say that he works every week, or no deal. He can go back to UFC. I definitely wouldn't put the title on him.

But I wonder, if someone you liked had done this storyline with Brock, rather than Roman saying it, would you then agree? Because I think a lot of people don't agree because they can't give Roman any credit ever.

We get it. You people hate Roman Reigns. Put that aside for one moment, and listen to what is being said, not who is saying it.

I bet if Shinsuke, or Finn Balor, or A.J. Styles or your fave NXT wrestler said it, then you would agree. I bet if "Stone Cold" Steve Austin came back, Brock confronts him, and Austin says it to him, you would agree. If Roman said that the earth was round, you would say it is flat, just to disagree with him.

There's nothing to agree with. And no, don't go "betting things". You know shit. Lesnar saw an opportunity and took it. Why does everybody need to "love this bussiness"??? It's a BUSSINESS.

Lesnar is a smart bussinessman and Vince is someone who needed Lesnar so he decided to give him the deal. Is Lesnar someone without honour and someone who works only for himself? Sure he is. But who isn't?

Do you really think that there's anybody in that locker room that cares about anybody else other than themselves and what's best for them? If yes, then you're delusional. Cena works part-time, Orton works part-time, HHH works part-time, Undertaker has been working part-time since 2002.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Maybe if Reigns had as much talent or was as over as Brock then he could negotiate that same kind of deal with the WWE, Fact is Brock adds legitimacy and name value and fans actually want to watch his matches so he is worth whatever deal WWE arranged with him and he has that leverage to negotiate.
Maybe in 15 years or so Reigns can have a part time deal but he's not over enough to be part time yet.

 

[Garak]

I doubt Vince's plan, when promoting a Brock v Orton main event at "Summerslam" was for it to end as soon as it did, with Orton bleeding. If it were planned, the story would have continued, with Orton wanting revenge on Brock. Instead, nothing more was said or done, because Brock went into business for himself.

We don't know that for sure, but that really wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking more about "Suplex City" and what is apparently a lazy match style. If Brock wants to put on a 30 minute technical match, he can do so. I just don't know how much of his match style is dictated by management wanting to see him do what he does, and that's why I said so. I don't know, and I don't think any of us here know. After all, Hogan was much more technically proficient than a fistfight, getting owned for two minutes, hulking up, and a leg drop. Andre vs Studd could go 30 minutes back in the day, but the TV matches were totally different.

As for Heyman, he does owe the talent money. Do you know that most talent didn't get paid for the last six months of their stint in ECW, because Heyman told them to sacrifice now, and when business turns around, they would be handsomely rewarded? Well, that day never came, and there has no word that Heyman ever paid back these guys who stood by him.

ECW no longer exists. ECW owes the money. If Heyman was still responsible, he would have been held to account. ECW was not a sole proprietorship and personal responsibility doesn't exist that way in business. There's a reason that companies are "limited." ECW was a company. It wasn't Paul Heyman personally running shows and personally paying guys, like if I pay a guy to cut my lawn.

As far as unfair treatment, I understand the point. However, the world isn't fair. This is WWE, where wrestlers have contracts that are different than those of other wrestlers. Some get paid large dollars for a few appearances. Some get a part time schedule. Some work their behinds off for little fame and fortune. Some wind up doing ridiculous amounts of off screen work with little credit from us (i.e. Cena is basically part time and Titus jobs left and right, and they both work like madmen outside of "ring hours").

As for Brock being on TV every week, I understand your point. I grew up, however, when Hogan wasn't seen on TV for extended periods, either, other than perhaps a visit with Mean Gene.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Maybe if Reigns had as much talent or was as over as Brock then he could negotiate that same kind of deal with the WWE, Fact is Brock adds legitimacy and name value and fans actually want to watch his matches so he is worth whatever deal WWE arranged with him and he has that leverage to negotiate.
Maybe in 15 years or so Reigns can have a part time deal but he's not over enough to be part time yet.

Maybe if you weren't such a whiny little bitch who hates whomever Vince pushes to the moon, because it isn't the no-name loser you want pushed instead, then you could make a sensible contribution to the discussion.

Maybe if the fans got their heads out of their own asses and stopped hating on Roman for being chosen by Vince, and no other reason (because, if it was anything else, then you people would have said it when he was in NXT or part of the Shield. But no, you all thought he was cool then, hypocrites), then Roman would have a chance of getting over. But he never will, no matter what he does, because you people CHOOSE to never let him get over. I mean, it is the same way everyone treated John Cena when he was Vince's body, and it will be the same for the next six-foot tall muscle-bound guy who doesn't flippity-flip that Vince pushes as well. You idiots are so predictable.

I hope you run a business one day, and your employees don't show up to work. Let's see if you sing a different tune then (but then, you aren't smart enough to run a successful business).

 

[d_henderson1810]

We don't know that for sure, but that really wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking more about "Suplex City" and what is apparently a lazy match style. If Brock wants to put on a 30 minute technical match, he can do so. I just don't know how much of his match style is dictated by management wanting to see him do what he does, and that's why I said so. I don't know, and I don't think any of us here know. After all, Hogan was much more technically proficient than a fistfight, getting owned for two minutes, hulking up, and a leg drop. Andre vs Studd could go 30 minutes back in the day, but the TV matches were totally different.


ECW no longer exists. ECW owes the money. If Heyman was still responsible, he would have been held to account. ECW was not a sole proprietorship and personal responsibility doesn't exist that way in business. There's a reason that companies are "limited." ECW was a company. It wasn't Paul Heyman personally running shows and personally paying guys, like if I pay a guy to cut my lawn.

As far as unfair treatment, I understand the point. However, the world isn't fair. This is WWE, where wrestlers have contracts that are different than those of other wrestlers. Some get paid large dollars for a few appearances. Some get a part time schedule. Some work their behinds off for little fame and fortune. Some wind up doing ridiculous amounts of off screen work with little credit from us (i.e. Cena is basically part time and Titus jobs left and right, and they both work like madmen outside of "ring hours").

As for Brock being on TV every week, I understand your point. I grew up, however, when Hogan wasn't seen on TV for extended periods, either, other than perhaps a visit with Mean Gene.

ECW is Heyman's company. He founded it, and go it started up. He was the one who told the talent to waive their paychecks because more success was coming, and then they would all clean up.

He is the one who is credited with ECW's success, so he is also the one who has to carry the can when it fails. Granted, when ECW went under, he was probably bankrupt and couldn't pay them. But he is an agent of an overpaid prima donna, whose actions he has defended (he is making a buck, and screwing Vince, the guy who put his little company out of business), and so he now needs to do the right thing and pay the ECW talent who stuck by him, when they could have got better offers from WWE and WCW at the time.

You site the example of Hogan. But Hogan still defended his title at the PPVs. There weren't any where they needed a No.1 Contender's Match or some other match to headline, because Hogan disappeared for months at a time. Hogan also did all the SNME shows as well. Sometimes, there is no Universal Title match for months, because Brock doesn't do "B" PPVs.

At least if they had gone with the combined brand PPVs earlier, they could have hidden this fact by putting on the WWE Title match as last match, when the Universal Title isn't defended at that PPV. At least we get a major title defense on each PPV. A.J. Styles defends his title every month he is on PPV, and does all the SD Live shows as well.

 

[ShinChan]

The problem isn't that Reigns doesn't have talent and therefore what he said is not true. The problem is that someone who's going to main event 4th consecutive Wrestlemania is complaining about partiality. To my knowledge, no one has gotten 4 consecutive Wrestlemania main events. The complaint is legitimate if someone's eligible to complain about it. Roman Reigns isn't.

And no, I don't hate Roman Reigns. Hate is too strong word. Uninteresting would be better now.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

This argument is insane. Of course this is the angle they are running. They did it with The Rock when he was part-time. They even teased it a bit with Cena when he started scaling back. Of course the guy that is there all the time is calling out the guy who is not.

Is there anyone here who honestly thinks that Brock just doesn't show up to events and they let that slide? He shows up when he's scheduled to. If they say "Brock didn't feel like showing up" well then, he probably wasn't supposed to. It's a script. And if he legit doesn't show up? I bet he gets a pass once, with the mind being "well, it must have been something." But to think he's legitimately not honoring his contract and still getting paid is insane.

And enough with the "this guy owes the fans! he owes Vince!" Nope. These people are under contract to perform. They perform. They get paid. If they negotiate more money or less dates due to some outside influence, like oh, being the UFC champion, or wrestling and then returning to UFC and winning, that's their contract. If anyone can come in a negotiate a better deal for themselves, why wouldn't they do that? Especially if they are a person known to not really care for the business and only the money. Sure, symbolically they owe their success to the fans. But the reality is they complete the arrangments made. They do not owe anyone anything in reality.

But then you have the nonsense of this angle overall. I'm pretty sure Roman said something about "feeding his family." I think it's common knowledge that most WWE starts aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Logically this angle is just Roman being angry that someone else has a better deal than him and bitching about it. The angle should be "Brock is lazy" or "Brock doesn't care about the fans" or "Brock is only in it for the money." The "Brock chooses to disregard what he is contractually obligated to do and faces no repercussions" angle isn't the right one.

As for Heyman and ECW, yeah he did short people money. Because he didn't have it. He probably has it now. He's not going to personally go back and pay these people. In theory, when ECW went bankrupt (if they actually did), he would no longer be liable for payment. And if he was, when WWE purchased ECW, it's likely they agreed to acquire any outstanding debt. But I think we can agree that guys like the Dudley's and RVD did pretty well. Other, perhaps not. Again, there can be the feeling of "Paul owes me this" but legally, no, he does not. In theory, Mark Zuckerberg owns most of Facebook. If it goes out of business, he's not obligated to pay the salaries of every employee they have.

 

[d_henderson1810]

The problem isn't that Reigns doesn't have talent and therefore what he said is not true. The problem is that someone who's going to main event 4th consecutive Wrestlemania is complaining about partiality. To my knowledge, no one has gotten 4 consecutive Wrestlemania main events. The complaint is legitimate if someone's eligible to complain about it. Roman Reigns isn't.

And no, I don't hate Roman Reigns. Hate is too strong word. Uninteresting would be better now.

"To my knowledge, no one has got four consecutive Wrestlemania main events".

Wrong. Hulk Hogan got 5 CONSECUTIVE MAIN EVENTS AT WRESTLEMANIA!

WM 5 v Randy "Macho Man" Savage
WM6 v The Ultimate Warrior
WM 7 v Sgt Slaughter
WM 8 v Sid Vicious
WM 9 v Yokozuna (in an impromptu match after Bret v Yokozuna)

So, even if you exclude the WM9 one, Hogan still made four main events (as in, last match of the night) at Wrestlemanias.

Triple H has had a WWE or World Title match (which counts as one of the main events) from WMX8 to WM22.

But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.

Also, if someone else more fitting to say it did, would you then concede that Brock is a lazy self-entitled piece of crap who is a stain on wrestling?

 

[FromGlasgow]

Maybe if you weren't such a whiny little bitch who hates whomever Vince pushes to the moon, because it isn't the no-name loser you want pushed instead, then you could make a sensible contribution to the discussion.

Maybe if the fans got their heads out of their own asses and stopped hating on Roman for being chosen by Vince, and no other reason (because, if it was anything else, then you people would have said it when he was in NXT or part of the Shield. But no, you all thought he was cool then, hypocrites), then Roman would have a chance of getting over. But he never will, no matter what he does, because you people CHOOSE to never let him get over. I mean, it is the same way everyone treated John Cena when he was Vince's body, and it will be the same for the next six-foot tall muscle-bound guy who doesn't flippity-flip that Vince pushes as well. You idiots are so predictable.

I hope you run a business one day, and your employees don't show up to work. Let's see if you sing a different tune then (but then, you aren't smart enough to run a successful business).

Wow you must really love Roman Reigns and you seem very sensitive for any critisism of him, Your the kind of fan that makes me embaressed to admit I'm a wrestling fan to everyone I meet, You remind me of the its still real to me crying guy on youtube, I'm not trying to be harsh but pro wrestling is meant to be fun, lighten up a bit.
In truth between the two you mentioned I would prefer to watch a Brock Lesnar match but I don't actually mind Roman Reigns, Just has to pay his dues for several years before he can start negotiating part time deals.
Way too early in his career yet for that.

Fact is if you took all the part timers like Brock, Cena, Taker, Angle, Triple H and Stephanie out of Wrestlemania you would be left with a very weak Wrestlemania card, Nobody is forcing you to watch them,
As for if I ran a business and an employee such as Brock Lesnar has made me millions per year profit for several years no shows one day then yes I would offer that employee a little leniency but if someone the equivalent of like Heath Slater who has made me no or little money done it he would be fired so your point makes no sense to me. If your so bothered about Vince not firing Brock Lesnar for no showing write a complaint to your local government official because I could honestly care less. Also Vince's decision not mine.

In my view WWE and Vince knows what their doing, Your just an overly sensitive little boy who has no clue what your doing, I'm not being drawn anymore into your little back and forth insult match so this is my last comment to you, No need for your insults when we were just having an adult debate.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Wow you must really love Roman Reigns and you seem very sensitive for any critisism of him, Your the kind of fan that makes me embaressed to admit I'm a wrestling fan to everyone I meet, You remind me of the its still real to me crying guy on youtube, I'm not trying to be harsh but pro wrestling is meant to be fun, lighten up a bit.
In truth between the two you mentioned I would prefer to watch a Brock Lesnar match but I don't actually mind Roman Reigns, Just has to pay his dues for several years before he can start negotiating part time deals.
Way too early in his career yet for that.

Fact is if you took all the part timers like Brock, Cena, Taker, Angle, Triple H and Stephanie out of Wrestlemania you would be left with a very weak Wrestlemania card, Nobody is forcing you to watch them,
As for if I ran a business and an employee such as Brock Lesnar has made me millions per year profit for several years no shows one day then yes I would offer that employee a little leniency but if someone the equivalent of like Heath Slater who has made me no or little money done it he would be fired so your point makes no sense to me. If your so bothered about Vince not firing Brock Lesnar for no showing write a complaint to your local government official because I could honestly care less. Also Vince's decision not mine.

In my view WWE and Vince knows what their doing, Your just an overly sensitive little boy who has no clue what your doing, I'm not being drawn anymore into your little back and forth insult match so this is my last comment to you, No need for your insults when we were just having an adult debate.

-A few things.

-No, I am not a fanboy of Roman. I don't hate the guy though, because, like you said with Lesnar, Roman is doing what he is CONTRACTED to do, and that is that Vince has chosen him to headline his fourth Mania in a row.

Why bag Roman for that? Is Roman supposed to say "No, Vince, I am not worthy of headlining Wrestlemania?" You would do the same thing in an instant if it were offered to you.

Really, all the Roman hate is just Cena hate, five years later. Whoever Vince pushes as the guy you people hate on. It will be someone else next time around. It's getting boring.

The difference is, Brock had been away from WWE, and didn't make Vince millions when he first returned. He had made Dana White millions. Vince was a fool for agreeing to Brock's terms, and should have refused to bring him back in. WWE had survived for years without him, so he wasn't as important to them as he thinks he is.

Taker, on the other hand, has performed for Vince at least once every year for the last 27 years. He is putting the company before his health by wrestling at Wrestlemania each year, and was loyal to Vince during the "Monday Night Wars" and didn't jump ship.

Brock was given everything first time around, left, then comes back, works less dates, gets to end the Streak (when someone like Bray Wyatt would be a superstar if he had done it instead) and then injures other talent (like bloodying Randy Orton for real at "Summerslam").

Obviously, you don't care about working hard, and would not show up to work if you could get away with it.

Roman could pay his dues for a 100 years, you would still not accept him, because he is Vince's boy.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

"I totally agree with Roman."

And this, kids, is what you call getting worked.

But yes, clearly this is an effective way to build to the WrestleMania main event, especially considering the fact that they want Roman Reigns positioned as the big babyface. By allowing Reigns to criticize Lesnar this way, it gives him more an edge. A much needed edge. And some credibility. It positions Reigns as the guy standing up for pro wrestling in the face of a guy that is solely in the business for the money. A message that appeals, theoretically, to die-hard wrestling fans that love the business. The fans Reigns has had problems (understatement) winning over.

That being said It is still pretty easy to see the cracks in the walls, so to speak. This is hardly a perfect mirage. It's a worked shoot, a fake "no show" with Reigns then supposedly going "off-script" and being punished by Vince for it. Like with CM Punk in 2011, it's an attempt to blur the lines beteen wrestling and reality. Here's the problem though. The fans that get what they're going for also get that Roman Reigns, in reality, is a WWE company man fitting the prototypical Vince McMahon mold. He's not CM Punk. He's a Vince McMahon guy. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's weird and phony anytime you try and have him presented as some kind of rebel or outlaw.

The one change I'd make to the story is the whole Vince punishing Reigns aspect. We don't need more babyface vs. authority figure, in any sense. It's beyond a dead horse. Keep it focused on Reigns talking shit about Lesnar, and Lesnar not giving a fuck and doing what he wants. We don't need the McMahons. If anything, WWE management should realistically "support" their top star and locker room leader for standing up to a guy that fucked the company by no showing. But keep management out of it, just have us focused on the guys having the fucking fight.

 

[d_henderson1810]

There's nothing to agree with. And no, don't go "betting things". You know shit. Lesnar saw an opportunity and took it. Why does everybody need to "love this bussiness"??? It's a BUSSINESS.

Lesnar is a smart bussinessman and Vince is someone who needed Lesnar so he decided to give him the deal. Is Lesnar someone without honour and someone who works only for himself? Sure he is. But who isn't?

Do you really think that there's anybody in that locker room that cares about anybody else other than themselves and what's best for them? If yes, then you're delusional. Cena works part-time, Orton works part-time, HHH works part-time, Undertaker has been working part-time since 2002.

Then why have any of them show up then?

If it doesn't matter to you, then maybe all the other talent should just not show up until Wrestlemania then.

How dare someone be in love with wrestling, with the wrestling business. How dare someone love their job. But then, I suspect that you don't really care about your job, or about wrestling, so you don't get it.

I think there are many wrestlers who care about the others. They have to, since a wrestling match involves one wrestler trusting the other to execute their move properly, and protect them in the ring. It requires them caring about their opponent in real life, so that they don't injure them.

However, Brock injures other wrestlers, and I have yet to hear any indication that he apologized backstage afterwards.

Triple H works FULL-TIME for WWE. When he isn't wrestling, he is being C.O.O. of the company, learning the ropes to take over, and also plays a major hand in running NXT and the Performance Centre. That is like saying that Vince or Shane don't work full-time because they wrestle only occassionally. They are still there, and still contributing.

Orton has worked full-time, as far as I can remember, and he only misses because of injury (which he has had a few the last couple of years). I have never heard him recently no-showing events or only doing certain dates.

Undertaker doesn't work full time because he is semi-retired. He gets a Wrestlemania payday, and paid from a Legends contract. Taker did show up all the time when he was full-time, unless they are keeping him off screen for storyline reasons (like when Kane buried the American Bad Ass and Taker was kept off screen to return at Wrestlemania XX as the Deadman). Taker has knee, back and hip issues which restricts his movement, so it is a bonus to even get him doing any matches anymore. When Brock has stuffed knees, back and hips, and serves WWE faithfully for thirty consecutive years, then I will say that he deserves an Undertaker-type contract.

As for Cena, well, yes,he is doing movies, so isn't there all the time. But I thought you would be glad to not have him shoved down your throat any more. He also does outside stuff for WWE, and is an ambassador to some of their charities, like his involvement in "Make-A-Wish".

The most important thing is, none of them took time off when they were champion, and kept the title belt off screen. The only recent time one of them did this was Triple H winning at Royal Rumble and not showing up again until Wrestlemania 32, but there was only one PPV in between, so it didn't impact it as much.

I have a bigger problem with Brock doing it because he is Universal champion. He should show up full-time, at least while champion, or if he wants to do certain dates, he doesn't get to be Universal Champion. His choice. Having the belt off-air for months at a time is ridiculous, and cheapens the belt. If they had at least done the dual-brand PPVs every month during his reign, like they plan on bringing back after Wrestlemania, then at least you could cover it by having the WWE Title match be last the months Brock isn't there (I mean, we can rely on A.J. or Shinsuke to show up).

When Brock is running the company and putting in as many man hours as Triple H, wrestling whenever he isn't injured like Orton, still wrestling when his body is past it because he loves it so much like the Undertaker, or does as much for WWE in and outside for WWE like John Cena, then Brock can have whatever contract he wants, but he does none of these things, and has been given more than 90% of the roster has been allowed to achieve, and not shown gratitude, so he deserves nothing but disrespect.

 

[d_henderson1810]

"I totally agree with Roman."

And this, kids, is what you call getting worked.

But yes, clearly this is an effective way to build to the WrestleMania main event, especially considering the fact that they want Roman Reigns positioned as the big babyface. By allowing Reigns to criticize Lesnar this way, it gives him more an edge. A much needed edge. And some credibility. It positions Reigns as the guy standing up for pro wrestling in the face of a guy that is solely in the business for the money. A message that appeals, theoretically, to die-hard wrestling fans that love the business. The fans Reigns has had problems (understatement) winning over.

That being said It is still pretty easy to see the cracks in the walls, so to speak. This is hardly a perfect mirage. It's a worked shoot, a fake "no show" with Reigns then supposedly going "off-script" and being punished by Vince for it. Like with CM Punk in 2011, it's an attempt to blur the lines beteen wrestling and reality. Here's the problem though. The fans that get what they're going for also get that Roman Reigns, in reality, is a WWE company man fitting the prototypical Vince McMahon mold. He's not CM Punk. He's a Vince McMahon guy. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's weird and phony anytime you try and have him presented as some kind of rebel or outlaw.

The one change I'd make to the story is the whole Vince punishing Reigns aspect. We don't need more babyface vs. authority figure, in any sense. It's beyond a dead horse. Keep it focused on Reigns talking shit about Lesnar, and Lesnar not giving a fuck and doing what he wants. We don't need the McMahons. If anything, WWE management should realistically "support" their top star and locker room leader for standing up to a guy that fucked the company by no showing. But keep management out of it, just have us focused on the guys having the fucking fight.

Okay, then, let me ask you this.

let's play hypothetical. Let's say it was someone like, say, A.J. Styles who cut the same promo on Brock Lesnar. A.J., who has done the hard yards, has the respect of the fans, is a hard worker, shows up all the time and pays his dues.

If it was him saying it, or Dolph, or Shinsuke, or one of the others you admire and respect saying it, instead of Roman, would you think that they are making a valid point?

The discussion is, does Brock deserve preferential treatment. It's not about Roman Reigns. Hell, I only mentioned Roman because he is the one in this storyline who cut the promo. I don't care who said it, I would agree with them, because I have thought that Brock has been selfish and entitled for years. All Roman said is what I have been thinking, and even if a wrestler I didn't like said it, provided he shows up every week himself, then I would still agree.

Roman is not the issue. It wouldn't matter what Roman said, you people would still hate him, because you choose to. That doesn't change the fact, the FACT, that Brock only shows up when he choses to, while others have to work every date or get fired, he gets paid more for doing less, and he injures others in the ring. That is the issue. Stop turning everything into a "Roman hate" discussion. Brock is the issue, not Roman.

(Mods, can you reprimand anyone who goes off-topic for the rest of this post, and talks about Roman, rather than the subject, and that is Brock Lesnar and whether he is entitled or not).