Your proof that Bryan winning the main event of WM30 was planned all along (since Summerslam) is that Reigns wasn't told until the day of WM31 about the RESULT of WM31?

Reigns' (1 person's) statement, about a completely unrelated event, somehow carries MORE weight about the plans of WM30 than the statements of (2 people) Bryan and Batista who were actually involved in (WM30) said event?

I'm sure you'll ignore this too because you always fail to address it. You're comparing the communication of the outcome of matches with the communication for the plans to simply have matches. No one has said that Bryan was told of the initial plan for the OUTCOME of his WM30 match ahead of time but that he was told of the initial plan to HAVE the match with Sheamus.

The only person who has said they were told of both the initial plan AND the outcome of their WM30 match is Batista. If you can't see why Vince would tell someone like Batista (who they were basically begging to return) what the initial plans (including his ultimate WM30 match outcome) for him were, and would not tell someone like Reigns (who's not yet really a draw and has no real power backstage yet) what the initial planned OUTCOME (if they even had a plan prior to the day of) for his WM31 match was, then you're helpless and I don't know how you tie your shoes in the mornings.

If recent sheet reports are correct, WWE doesn't even know what the main event plans are going to be for Mania this year.

Big split between WWE title match and the Taker-Shane match going last and people backstage getting worried about Vince's health due to all the stress its causing.

I'm with HHH - it is truthfully the only match on the card that "feels" like a Mania match.

Historically, I have always believed/felt that the WWE Championship matches should go on last and be 1v1 with no fuckery involved where people could "leave it in the ring".

Not really pumped about the title picture right now.

Before the rumble Bryan was a Wyatt and had absolutely nothing to do with Triple H or the Authority. He had finished up his feud with Orton and was then replaced in the anti-authority angle by Big Show and CM Punk respectively. He suddenly returned to feuding with the authority by filling in exactly where CM Punk left off when he quit. Television storylines were in no way pointing to plans of Bryan main eventing Wrestlemania prior to the Royal Rumble, if anything he should have been looking to avenge his clean loss at the hands of Bray Wyatt.

If everyone who was actually involved in the angle and main event of Mania is actually lying, or "working" the audience as you put it, how does it benefit WWE, or any of the individuals involved (bear in mind that only CM Punk harbours ill feelings) to insinuate that the company they work / worked for is out of touch and totally fucking clueless?

Whenever I hear CyNick get owned in an argument, I always imagine Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up" playing.

I think they'll just go with Reigns winning clean and hope for some sort of tipping point where his refusal to go away suddenly becomes cool. Like it did for Cena. Remember?

Everything on TV shows that they don't have much faith in Roman on the mic. Apparently part of the reason they have kept the Shield gear on him is because as shredded as he was in his NXT days. Those Samoan boys do have a habit of being big guys.

I just wonder if Reigns is really the guy to bank on as the guy. But Vince can be pretty stubborn.

More and more I'm thinking there might be a plan for Triple H to win and Reigns to sort of use that as impetus for a heel turn.

and reading posts like yours makes me think you live in a world where you really believe 2+2=5. Then you clap like a seal when someone says I'm wrong for saying 2+2=4.

The whole angle was that the audience changed the script by staging a protest. Bryan, Batista, etc are all being good foot soldiers saying Bryan headlining was not the plan. Or they didnt know. Just like Reigns didnt know the finish for his Mania main event well in advance. .

You mean that whole angle that happened post Royal Rumble after Punk quit and HHH had nothing to do at Mania so they gave him Bryan, but then also decided to put Bryan into the main event because Orton / Batista absolutely bombed? Good foresight to know Punk was going to quit. It was a quick fix, they turned it into an angle because what they originally had planned was the shits. Nothing at all was telegraphed with Bryan being anywhere near the main event in the build up to the Royal Rumble. Not a single story beat.

Again, why would you want your guys to lie about it in a way that makes you look incompetent and out of touch? Everyone knows it's not real. If you want your guys to lie you would have them say "yeah this was the plan all along, we are so fucking amazing we fooled everyone into thinking we were clueless". There's absolutely no reason why Vince would keep that to himself and lie to everybody about what they're actually doing until it's one month before the show and everyone's looking at the card thinking "WTF is this, old man's lost it". You keep spinning these what if's and ignoring the facts though, sounding like a real Meltzer dirtsheep tbh.

Let me start by saying I have never once claimed I know these things as 100% fact, it's just my assumption based on what was presented on TV. And also having a solid understanding of how WWE operates.

If WWE had no plans for Bryan in the main event of Mania or shortly thereafter, he would have been beaten on several straight PPVs by Orton to establish his dominance prior tothe Rumble. They did the opposite. They made Bryan look like he should have beat Orton in each of their matches. The fans were always left feeling like Bryan was screwed and hence deserves retribution.

As far as the Rumble goes, it's pretty standard for WWE to keep the top heel and babyface separated around December and January and then great things up when the main event for Mania is clear. Rock fought Foley in early 99. HHH fought Foley in early 2000. Bryan v Wyatt was just there to keep Bryan away from the title picture. Putting Bray over was also typical WWE booking because they knew Bryan would be champ post Mania, so you have a ready made program with a top heel. Unfortunately Bryan's body broke down so they never got there.

As for keeping kayfabe, I think it's a combination of not knowing the full plan and keeping up a gimmick. My guess is its possible Batista was never told the whole plan. And with Bryan his entire YES movement gimmick was based on the crowd forcing the hand of the bookers. Hunter and Steph's promos were all essentially the IWC belief of what WWE (rightfully) looks for in a top guy. Which Bryan is none of. They often talked about how he could be one of the fans. The whole "occupy RAW" deal was meant to be real life playing out on TV. The crowds were chanting YES on every show (which Steph and Hunter would egg on), and so this was the payoff to the fans forcing creative to"change the script". If Bryan went on TV somewhere and said that was the plan all along, it would kill the gimmick. Hunter talks a lot about it being tough to push someone when the crowd knows "the office" is behind the person. This was the genius of how this was set up.

Imagine if WWE started to awknowledge every CM Punk chant, and started playing into it. You would assume Punk is coming back right? But he's not (yet), so it's ignored and not played up on TV. That's how WWE would have handled the YES chants if he wasn't in the plans. Instead they had the top heels react to it, made the babyface look as strong as possible, and pushed merchandise with the chants.

Like I said, i don't know with 100% certainty, but it seems obvious he was in their plans since Summerslam at least.

I know for 100 per cent fact that you are a fuckstick

CyNick, who's gonna win the main event @ WM34?

That's subjective. Some might say 85%.

So HHH had to beat the likes of Sting to stay strong for a Rollins match...

But Bryan did not have to beat Wyatt to stay strong for a potential main event Wrestlemania title match?

It's easy to make excuses and build arguments after the fact, but even then, there needs to be some consistency in what is being said. I don't mind people having a different opinion about the WWE product than me, but it is the wild stretches to defend decisions at any cost which are baffling.

WWE have made some great decisions over the years and deserve praise for how well they run their product, but TV right now is a mess and it is very obvious that Bryan was chosen by the fans and got over in spite of what was happening at the time.

If their booking of Bryan was so genius, why can't they get Reigns over now?

Everyone makes mistakes and the arguments would be much easier to stomach if that fact was conceded.

Vince hasn't confided in me yet.

My guess is Big E.

Why is it good booking to job your next top babyface star out clean to a midcard heel directly leading into a Wrestlemania headline push? That makes sense to you, yet HHH can't lose to Sting because he might have a match with Seth Rollins one year later?

The fans certainly did feel that, however that doesn't equate to WWE going in that direction. They were genuinely not into Bryan being their top guy, so they had him look good but ultimately lose and then moved on after they felt they had "given the fans what they want". They actually tried to give the "yes" chant to Big Show and Alberto Del Rio, so that they could go "well that's just a chant, nothing to do with Daniel Bryan". That's a thing that actually happened. They didn't ignore the chant, they tried to make it something else, hence the "Daniel Bryan" chant. Even then they had announcers try and claim the fans were chanting something else.

Crowd: "Daniel Bryan!"
King: "The fans really getting behind Sheamus here".

The Wyatt feud seemed like they were actually testing if they could turn Bryan heel to get that support to cool, the whole "lol not really been brainwashed" thing was abrupt and seemed like a kneejerk reaction to the "turn" not working. But that is just my opinion. Maybe they wanted to steam through that plot point all along because they are bad at writing.

Your point on face / heel separation is excellently illustrated by this years main event of HHH vs Roman Reigns, not only featuring the guy who won the rumble but a guy who he tossed out, they have also been feuding since November.

You appear to be living in some bizarre world where wrestling is both real and not real simultaneously. Bryan talking in out of character interviews, about his character's storyline, does not ruin the TV storyline. There is no "kayfabe" in 2016, unless you count guys like Kevin Owens or Jericho being dicks on Twitter. It was an audible change of plans, which was a good move on WWE's part, but I'd hardly calling fixing your mistakes in the most obvious manner anything close to genius.

Regarding HHH v Reigns. This isn't a normal build. The program had to be created and executed due to an injury. So it's not going to follow normal booking patterns.

As for the YES chant, Bryan had merch created for him with YES on it. I don't see any evidence of them trying to give the chant to someone else. It was just the popular chant at the time. No different than WHAT being chanted at guys outside Austin's angles. Didn't mean they were trying to give the chant to someone else.

You gotta stop believing everything you read in the dirtsheets. You really do.

I watched it on WWE programming as Big Show came down the ramp as the only one to confront the authority with his iron clad contract, and proceeded to YES. I saw Alberto Del Rio come down the ramp with Ricardo Rodriguez as the pair pointed their arms in the air and chanted "Si! Si! Si!".

The dirtsheets seem to have infiltrated WWE's television. Adorable bluff, but you have nothing.

You're just making stuff up though.

Hulk Hogan said WHATcha Gonna Do? Did that mean WWE was trying to manipulate the crowd to think Hogan was the WHAT chant guy?

Given the storylines, Big Show using the yes motion was meant to annoy The Authority and keep Daniel Bryan front of mind.

As for ADR, I seem to recall the fans just started chanting that because it's funny to say YES in Mexican.

Sounds like you just read that in a newsletter.

I wouldnt be caught dead reading them. Maybe I'll start one myself.

Oh, wait. So you're BFF's with Vince?

Speaking of just making stuff up...

So in your mind WWE wanted fans to pretend YES was started by Big Show?

He didn't say that. He said they tried to have Big Show do the Yes chants to get them away from being a Bryan thing. Nothing about Big Show starting them.

Shutup CyNick.

Thanks for clarifying that for those here who don't have the mental capacity to follow along.