WrestleMania - Who has the right?

**Maluco** · 11-30-2011, 11:10 AM

Was thinking about posting this topic for a few weeks now after reading interviews from various people talking about The Rock's involvement in WrestleMania. There have been so many different opinions and it is obvious reading through comments from people like Punk and Orton that the reaction was negative at the beginning towards The Rock's involvement (and even his attitude backstage).

I personally think that the discontents in the locker room have no leg to stand on arguing against Rock's involvement. Orton has justified it in his own mind, but you get the impression that many people lower down on the card will see themselves getting excluded from the big event on the basis of Rock's involvement.

The way I see it is, if you are a draw, and your work this year has deserved a Mania match, then you will be on the card, and not only that, your purse will be that bit bigger because of the buyrate and the sponsers that The Rock will bring in.

If you are knocked off the card, do you really have anyone to blame but yourself? Has your contribution been enough to deserve a match? Are you entertaining enough to deserve a story going into Mania?

The Rock is one question I wanted to hear some opinions about, but not the only one. I read an interview from Mick Foley this morning which indicated that although he thinks others should get Mania spots that he would like to be on the card. He mentions the Miz as an opponent and this is interesting to me.

I personally would love to see The Miz getting a win over Foley (Orton or Edge style) to set him up for a post Mania title feud, but would the buyrate really increase because of Foley? Probably not at this stage of his career. Should WWE focus on making a credible story for two current superstars instead?

Then we have John Morrison leaving the company, and you have to believe that this all started as a result of the Melina/Trish nonsense from last year, but was he justified? Did Trish add buyrates and interest? Was it worth taking off current superstars for her involvement?

Think this makes for a good debate and would be interested to hear where people think the line should be drawn with Legend's and past superstars' involvement at the biggest stage of them all.

11-30-2011, 11:10 AM	#1
Maluco Reigning Tipsters Champ! Posts: 2,088	WrestleMania - Who has the right? Was thinking about posting this topic for a few weeks now after reading interviews from various people talking about The Rock's involvement in WrestleMania. There have been so many different opinions and it is obvious reading through comments from people like Punk and Orton that the reaction was negative at the beginning towards The Rock's involvement (and even his attitude backstage). I personally think that the discontents in the locker room have no leg to stand on arguing against Rock's involvement. Orton has justified it in his own mind, but you get the impression that many people lower down on the card will see themselves getting excluded from the big event on the basis of Rock's involvement. The way I see it is, if you are a draw, and your work this year has deserved a Mania match, then you will be on the card, and not only that, your purse will be that bit bigger because of the buyrate and the sponsers that The Rock will bring in. If you are knocked off the card, do you really have anyone to blame but yourself? Has your contribution been enough to deserve a match? Are you entertaining enough to deserve a story going into Mania? The Rock is one question I wanted to hear some opinions about, but not the only one. I read an interview from Mick Foley this morning which indicated that although he thinks others should get Mania spots that he would like to be on the card. He mentions the Miz as an opponent and this is interesting to me. I personally would love to see The Miz getting a win over Foley (Orton or Edge style) to set him up for a post Mania title feud, but would the buyrate really increase because of Foley? Probably not at this stage of his career. Should WWE focus on making a credible story for two current superstars instead? Then we have John Morrison leaving the company, and you have to believe that this all started as a result of the Melina/Trish nonsense from last year, but was he justified? Did Trish add buyrates and interest? Was it worth taking off current superstars for her involvement? Think this makes for a good debate and would be interested to hear where people think the line should be drawn with Legend's and past superstars' involvement at the biggest stage of them all.