What? Cena's got another decade, decade and a half in him. And it's 2015, not 1985, Reigns isn't money.
Television Tho Prop Grops Throps
- Thread starter Big-Red
- Start date
He was on the main event or semi main of every single show between Summerslam and his injury. How the feck is that not being pushed?
How is a match against a heel Sheamus not a high spot on the card? That's a ludicrous assumption.
How is losing to what was at the time the other hottest act on the card a joke as you make it out to be, especially when the thing centred on Bryan being injured? Crazy implication.
Only one person can win the Rumble. Only one person will challenge (and beat) Brock. It makes zero sense for that person to be Bryan.
Stupid post, to be quite frank.
Cena has nowhere near another decade left in him
It's really not a high spot on the card. It would've been what, the 5th or 6th biggest match? Nah feck that, best wrestlers should be at the top.
New York is a big lads promotion, brother.
And size don't matter no more, brother.
Tell that to Titan's one million subscribers Jack.
I didn't get either of those references. I'm gonna go hide now.
Oh, Saturns moon. Well done.
phelens shorts is off his rocker. the only way to explain his wrongness.
this isn't all about Bryan. another 3/4 guys could of won the rumble and not got that reaction - Wyatt, Ambrose, Rollins, Brock(losing the triple threat) as legitimate people to go into ME. Cesaro, Ziggler also wouldn't have been booed at all. A returning Orton probably would of got a pop too. Hell they could of brought the Rock or Jericho to win it and they wouldn't have been shat on.
Yes Bryan was the clear candidate to win it(return from injury only ADDS to why he should on top of everything else), but they made their decision to make Reigns the man ages ago, and went with it regardless of talent or deserving.
this isn't all about Bryan. another 3/4 guys could of won the rumble and not got that reaction - Wyatt, Ambrose, Rollins, Brock(losing the triple threat) as legitimate people to go into ME. Cesaro, Ziggler also wouldn't have been booed at all. A returning Orton probably would of got a pop too. Hell they could of brought the Rock or Jericho to win it and they wouldn't have been shat on.
Yes Bryan was the clear candidate to win it(return from injury only ADDS to why he should on top of everything else), but they made their decision to make Reigns the man ages ago, and went with it regardless of talent or deserving.
Reigns is gonna make it rain. BELEE!!!!
He's already got them over the golden million subscribers number.
It was absolutely the right choice to go with Roman Reigns, that is all. I'm far from saying he's the perfect wrestler or anything, but there was no other candidate that was a better option to win. BELEE!
I wish Roman would stop jacking off his arm though.
WWE network passes 1m subs. There goes the myth of struggling. Fastest growing digital subscription service. Just needed to come to the UK as expected.
Single handedly? Impressive.
Must take a lot of cognitive dissonance to think someone people don't want to see win the rumble, is the only option to win the rumble. And bear in mind, he's supposed to be the big hero.
just give in lads. Roman will Reign. Once you accept that life is much better. BELEE DAT!
Every time you make a pun based on his name my skin crawls.
They said on RAW last night that the WWE hierarchy had planned for Cena to meet Rusev at Wrestlemania but decided to bring it forward.
Reigns interview last night on RAW was actually pretty good. He was extremely honest and kept saying he is just doing what he is told/asked and it's not his fault. Which I agree with. He's just turning up and doing what he is told.
To change the subject slightly, I would be extremely pissed off if I had paid £19.95 to watch the rumble live on Sky sports or paid whatever extortionate fee they charge for it in the US, only to find it was then on FREE the next night on RAW. However, at the same time, I actually thought that was a nice touch by the WWE last night.
I agree, he should Reign it in a bit.
Okay that one was alright.
But I can't help but feel sorry for people who actually watch RAW, they're gonna have to put with it for feck knows how many years.
Brock conquers, but Roman Reigns.
Pushing it now.
Am I ready though?
That's the spear-it.
Paul Heyman is amazing
To be fair, on this point the below sums it up quite well.
So despite insane backlash to the Rumble, a worldwide #CancelWWENetwork trend and mainstream media picking up on how much their fans hate them, the WWE Network surpassed 1,000,000 subscribers, stocks skyrocketed, and Raw was up nearly 8%. If that’s not an indictment on the value of the internet and/or the vocal minority of fans, I don’t know what is.
Far too often people say things like people don't want something because they got boo'd at a stadium or because some threads on the internet were full of people that agreed on the OP. The fact is, it must be working for the majority otherwise it wouldn't be going from strength to strength.
The Monday, January 26th, post-Royal Rumble edition of WWE RAW scored a 3.28 cable rating, up a considerable amount in comparison to last week's "go-home" show for the pay-per-view, which drew a 3.03 rating.
Monday's RAW, which was a very unique episode of the show due to the storm resulting in the cancellation of the actual live arena event, averaged 4.42 million viewers, also up from the previous week's show, which averaged 4.1 million viewers.
The hourly viewership breakdown for Monday's RAW is as follows:
Hour One: 4.468 million viewers
Hour Two: 4.657 million viewers
Hour Three: 4.135 million viewers
Monday's RAW, which was a very unique episode of the show due to the storm resulting in the cancellation of the actual live arena event, averaged 4.42 million viewers, also up from the previous week's show, which averaged 4.1 million viewers.
The hourly viewership breakdown for Monday's RAW is as follows:
Hour One: 4.468 million viewers
Hour Two: 4.657 million viewers
Hour Three: 4.135 million viewers
1m Subscribers is huge numbers. Skimmed it but I assume that means 1m current subscription holders world wide (rather than just 1m have signed up (and not taking into account those who have dropped off in the 11 month period))
Right?
Right?
Did anybody else watch the WWE 24 series on WM30? It was only 30 minutes but really fun. Looks like its the first in a series of them which is great.
Interesting.. only yesterday you were telling me how terrible everything was going and how worse it was going to get.
#dramaqueen
#bestforbusiness
More people watch the news when something awful happens. Or coronation street when there's a plane crash. And so on.
And are you and Phelans really trying to suggest network numbers are down to Reigns? Because that's really absurd. You realize that, right?
Last edited:
That's not really a fair comparison. Two different kinds of awful. I'm not saying it's down to Reigns I'm saying that the product and PPVs evidently aren't that terrible because the business is going from strength to strength. People obviously like the way that it's going.
People going to shows don't react like they do.
You're confusing one show which all of them. You do realise that, right?
The Roman empire has arisen. Embrace it.
I'm happy enough to put money on it, say, if Roman gets cheered more than booed from now till mania I give £50 to Cancer Research, if he gets booed more than cheered you give £50?