Get Rid of the General Manager roles (at least on-camera)

**Sensei Of Mattitude** · 03-26-2004, 01:09 PM

This "General Manager", "Owner", "President", "Commissioner" angles are completely PLAYED THE HELL OUT. IMO, it was played out when William Regal became the Commissioner around X-7.
I liked the old school days when wrestlers would just come down to the ring and wrestle. All the matches were set before the show started (yes I know they are in real life) what I am complaining about is the bullshit booking of Eric Bischoff telling... say RVD that he has to face all 3 members of Evolution and..... ITS NEXT! (cut to commercial)
I think they could keep the GMs but leave them off camera for 95% of the show if not the entire show. Show backstage segments of stuff that happened earlier in the day, like much earlier... around the time they were coming into the building and build matches from there.
This retarded GM "booking on the fly" has got to go!

Thoughts?

**Seabass** · 03-26-2004, 01:16 PM

I agree its pretty old

**ColdwaVer** · 03-26-2004, 01:37 PM

They just need to cut out the whole corrupt/favortist GM. Having a GM on-screen makes the whole thing seem more realistic; before they had on-screen authority any match not specifically made by Jack Tunney seemed to have been made at the discretion of the wrestlers, which was kinda meh. Bischoff as GM was at his best at the beginning of his run where he wasn't really so much a total heel as just trying to constantly oneup Stephanie, and Stephanie was at her best when she was a face without feuding with Vince.

So yeah, keep the GMs, but scale back their heel/face involvement.

**tucsonspeed6** · 03-26-2004, 01:42 PM

GM's are still good. Heel/Face involvement used to be pretty bad, but as you may have noticed, Bischoff hasn't gotten too involved in the main events like McMahon did in the Attitude era. The past few months he's played more of a scared wimp than an evil dictator in that particular area (think about the role he played in the triple threat match. He was trying to avoid getting beat up by any of the three guys most of the time) The WWE may be phasing it out slowly, rather than making a huge face turn.

**SeanMC** · 03-26-2004, 01:53 PM

GMs/commisioners n all that other shit should be kept to a minimum IMO they are always the same(except for when foley is one of em) they all favour heels and its obvious whats gonna happen therefore making it less entertaining and then they always end up leaving/coming back leaving/coming back blah blah blah blah its all very stale now if you ask me, IMO the only one who can pull it off is Paul Heyman but that's just my view...

**PureHatred** · 03-26-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

So yeah, keep the GMs, but scale back their heel/face involvement.

exactly.

**Boondock Saint** · 03-26-2004, 03:30 PM

I'm in the minority but I still enjoy these storylines. Although, I agree it gets old at times when the heel authority just makes crap matches.

But when there is no "person in charge", such as in the summer of 99 when Vince was "banished from TV" and Commish HBK was on once in a blue moon, and Shane was feuding with Test, it seemed like the wrestlers were all alone without any direction.

I know in reality they're not, but story-wise, that's what it looked like to me.

**The Mackem** · 03-26-2004, 03:37 PM

Face it, as long as there's three McMahons who "look" good on TV, there's always the threat of GM's, commisioners, chairmans, owners on the horizon.

**PureHatred** · 03-26-2004, 03:39 PM

You can still have these kinds of characters. Hell, in the olden days the WWF had Jack Tunney to handle controversies and make title matches. But the GM doesn't need 20 minutes every frickin' week...did Edge really need to attack Eric Bischoff to get him face pops? Do we really need to have EB spend the next few weeks "making his life hell" to get Edge over?

It's tired. Keep the GM. Just don't make them integral parts of the show.

**Boondock Saint** · 03-26-2004, 03:41 PM

Works for me

**faust34** · 03-26-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensei Of Mattitude

This "General Manager", "Owner", "President", "Commissioner" angles are completely PLAYED THE HELL OUT. IMO, it was played out when William Regal became the Commissioner around X-7.
I liked the old school days when wrestlers would just come down to the ring and wrestle. All the matches were set before the show started (yes I know they are in real life) what I am complaining about is the bullshit booking of Eric Bischoff telling... say RVD that he has to face all 3 members of Evolution and..... ITS NEXT! (cut to commercial)
I think they could keep the GMs but leave them off camera for 95% of the show if not the entire show. Show backstage segments of stuff that happened earlier in the day, like much earlier... around the time they were coming into the building and build matches from there.
This retarded GM "booking on the fly" has got to go!

Thoughts?

Thats how I feel. The gimmick was already played out during WCW's game of Musical GM's before it went under. It's sure as hell a tired angle now.

**6to1** · 03-26-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tucsonspeed6

GM's are still good. Heel/Face involvement used to be pretty bad, but as you may have noticed, Bischoff hasn't gotten too involved in the main events like McMahon did in the Attitude era. The past few months he's played more of a scared wimp than an evil dictator in that particular area (think about the role he played in the triple threat match. He was trying to avoid getting beat up by any of the three guys most of the time) The WWE may be phasing it out slowly, rather than making a huge face turn.

yea i like the way bischoff does it, but then bischoff is a known factor running wcw. now angle as gm is a mistake former wrestlers suck as gm's.

**Corkscrewed** · 03-26-2004, 04:42 PM

You'll always need GM's, but you should usually keep them out of direct storylines. They announce matches, etc... but they don't usually feud with wrestlers. Jack Tunney did a wonderful job as President. When he showed up, you KNEW it was important.

Although I am intrigued by Angle serving as GM. That could be really cool.

**Shaggy** · 03-26-2004, 05:47 PM

I honestly like how there is the whole GM thing going around even thought its a little out of date. Its been done forever but at least they arent doing the higher power angle like they did in WCW.

**faust34** · 03-26-2004, 09:40 PM

The problem with the GM angle is there is too much switching. Smackdown is on its Third GM and WWE has had so many commissioners, owners, GM's and now sheriffs, that you just don't take them seriously anymore. I mean Paul Heyman quits, you know he'll be back, Austin is fired, you know he'll be back. The McMahon�s lose their ownership rights, they will get it back. To me this is boring because you know that it is only temporary.

Story wise the GM/owner angle is pretty dull. Yes the wrestler who wins against all odds to best a heel champ and the owner in power has been done. Angles where GM/ownership is on the line are stale (it topped out at the shane/vince-austin ladder match).
Given some things have been entertaining, such as Raw Roulette. But the wrestlers can have some direction without a GM making things happen. It takes a lot of work and good booking, not to mention requires a return of the Elevation system that has been missing since WM X-7.

**Mike the Metal Ed** · 03-26-2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corkscrewed

You'll always need GM's, but you should usually keep them out of direct storylines. They announce matches, etc... but they don't usually feud with wrestlers. Jack Tunney did a wonderful job as President. When he showed up, you KNEW it was important.

When I started to watch the WWF in 99, Michaels made rare appearances, even though he was the second biggest authority after the McMahons, but when Michaels did appear, something cool was going to happen.

Maybe if they gave an authority position to someone respected, but can't make regular appearances (like HBK back then) it might help things.

**MVP** · 03-26-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardKore UK

When I started to watch the WWF in 99, Michaels made rare appearances, even though he was the second biggest authority after the McMahons, but when Michaels did appear, something cool was going to happen.

Maybe if they gave an authority position to someone respected, but can't make regular appearances (like HBK back then) it might help things.

Austin.

**PureHatred** · 03-27-2004, 12:22 AM

Austin is on TV every week. Doesn't really fit his example.

**6to1** · 03-27-2004, 12:28 AM

rock might fit that but vince is playing that role now he comes in and says all the importent changes.

**MVP** · 03-27-2004, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PureHatred

Austin is on TV every week. Doesn't really fit his example.

I was suggesting Austin to be someone who doesn't make weekly appearances like he does now.

**Kane Knight** · 03-27-2004, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVP

I was suggesting Austin to be someone who doesn't make weekly appearances like he does now.

**Corkscrewed** · 03-27-2004, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVP

I was suggesting Austin to be someone who doesn't make weekly appearances like he does now.

That'd be simple: just line a bunch of Southern women up at his home. He'll be too busy hitting them to show up for RAW.

**MVP** · 03-27-2004, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corkscrewed

That'd be simple: just line a bunch of Southern women up at his home. He'll be too busy hitting them to show up for RAW.

lol

**Corkscrewed** · 03-27-2004, 03:05 PM

**EazyMack** · 03-28-2004, 02:29 AM

I like the GM's and I like their involvement. I like to see Bischoff get the TV time, Heyman was great too. Angle should be interesting, but I don't think he'll stay in that role long. Regal was one of the best of them all, as was Mick Foley (of course).

They just sorta give rhyme & reason to everything that's going on, I guess.

03-28-2004, 12:15 PM

They have done:

Comissioners
Chiefs
General Managers
Co-General Manager
Owners
Co-Owners
CEOs
Official Consultant

Sheriff

What else?

**SeanMC** · 03-28-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -CB-

They have done:

Comissioners
Chiefs
General Managers
Co-General Manager
Owners
Co-Owners
CEOs
Official Consultant

Sheriff

What else?

^LOL! exactly what i was thinking! when they came up with the new position to re-introduce foley into the wwe(official consultant) i laughed so hard it became unfunny, its just a joke really, we all know heyman will be back thats why when he said 'i quit' i wasnt so dissapointed as i normally am when ppl get fired in wwe cos im used to it and i know they'll be back, it's retarded.They should stick with one GM and thats it.Now theyve made angle GM i doubt thatll happen until he goes though it could prove entertaining.Oh and remember when Vince wanted steph out as GM?Why the feck didn't he just fire her?And if it was real, wouldn't steph of sued her father for beating her down that much?Somethings in the wwe just seem retarded to me these days...

**Boondock Saint** · 03-28-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -CB-

They have done:

Comissioners
Chiefs
General Managers
Co-General Manager
Owners
Co-Owners
CEOs
Official Consultant

Sheriff

What else?

When HBK stepped down as Commish, he said Linda appointed him the "official spokesperson"

**CBright7831** · 03-28-2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

When HBK stepped down as Commish, he said Linda appointed him the "official spokesperson"

LOL, yeah.

03-26-2004, 01:09 PM	#1
Sensei Of Mattitude I'd Do It For the Story Posts: 491	Get Rid of the General Manager roles (at least on-camera) This "General Manager", "Owner", "President", "Commissioner" angles are completely PLAYED THE HELL OUT. IMO, it was played out when William Regal became the Commissioner around X-7. I liked the old school days when wrestlers would just come down to the ring and wrestle. All the matches were set before the show started (yes I know they are in real life) what I am complaining about is the bullshit booking of Eric Bischoff telling... say RVD that he has to face all 3 members of Evolution and..... ITS NEXT! (cut to commercial) I think they could keep the GMs but leave them off camera for 95% of the show if not the entire show. Show backstage segments of stuff that happened earlier in the day, like much earlier... around the time they were coming into the building and build matches from there. This retarded GM "booking on the fly" has got to go! Thoughts? ARE YOU READY? I said, ARE YOU READY!?!?!? Then, for the thousands in attendance and the millions watching around on cable television.... LET'S GET READY TO SSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK IIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!! and if you're not down with that, we got two words for ya.........SUCK IT!

03-26-2004, 01:16 PM	#2
Seabass Posts: 64	I agree its pretty old

03-26-2004, 01:37 PM	#3
ColdwaVer Darth Teedious Posts: 4,634	They just need to cut out the whole corrupt/favortist GM. Having a GM on-screen makes the whole thing seem more realistic; before they had on-screen authority any match not specifically made by Jack Tunney seemed to have been made at the discretion of the wrestlers, which was kinda meh. Bischoff as GM was at his best at the beginning of his run where he wasn't really so much a total heel as just trying to constantly oneup Stephanie, and Stephanie was at her best when she was a face without feuding with Vince. So yeah, keep the GMs, but scale back their heel/face involvement.

03-26-2004, 01:42 PM	#4
tucsonspeed6 Banned WWE on 1/1/07 Posts: 2,141	GM's are still good. Heel/Face involvement used to be pretty bad, but as you may have noticed, Bischoff hasn't gotten too involved in the main events like McMahon did in the Attitude era. The past few months he's played more of a scared wimp than an evil dictator in that particular area (think about the role he played in the triple threat match. He was trying to avoid getting beat up by any of the three guys most of the time) The WWE may be phasing it out slowly, rather than making a huge face turn.

03-26-2004, 01:53 PM	#5
SeanMC Posts: 175	GMs/commisioners n all that other shit should be kept to a minimum IMO they are always the same(except for when foley is one of em) they all favour heels and its obvious whats gonna happen therefore making it less entertaining and then they always end up leaving/coming back leaving/coming back blah blah blah blah its all very stale now if you ask me, IMO the only one who can pull it off is Paul Heyman but that's just my view...

03-26-2004, 03:30 PM	#7
Boondock Saint Posts: 8,795	I'm in the minority but I still enjoy these storylines. Although, I agree it gets old at times when the heel authority just makes crap matches. But when there is no "person in charge", such as in the summer of 99 when Vince was "banished from TV" and Commish HBK was on once in a blue moon, and Shane was feuding with Test, it seemed like the wrestlers were all alone without any direction. I know in reality they're not, but story-wise, that's what it looked like to me.

03-26-2004, 03:37 PM	#8
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	Face it, as long as there's three McMahons who "look" good on TV, there's always the threat of GM's, commisioners, chairmans, owners on the horizon.

03-26-2004, 03:39 PM	#9
PureHatred Instant Credibility Posts: 2,979	You can still have these kinds of characters. Hell, in the olden days the WWF had Jack Tunney to handle controversies and make title matches. But the GM doesn't need 20 minutes every frickin' week...did Edge really need to attack Eric Bischoff to get him face pops? Do we really need to have EB spend the next few weeks "making his life hell" to get Edge over? It's tired. Keep the GM. Just don't make them integral parts of the show.

03-26-2004, 03:41 PM	#10
Boondock Saint Posts: 8,795	Works for me

03-26-2004, 04:42 PM	#13
Corkscrewed Posts: 18,357	You'll always need GM's, but you should usually keep them out of direct storylines. They announce matches, etc... but they don't usually feud with wrestlers. Jack Tunney did a wonderful job as President. When he showed up, you KNEW it was important. Although I am intrigued by Angle serving as GM. That could be really cool.

03-26-2004, 05:47 PM	#14
Shaggy Yipee Kai Yay!!! Posts: 5,705	I honestly like how there is the whole GM thing going around even thought its a little out of date. Its been done forever but at least they arent doing the higher power angle like they did in WCW.

03-26-2004, 09:40 PM	#15
faust34 The Dark Messenger Posts: 251	The problem with the GM angle is there is too much switching. Smackdown is on its Third GM and WWE has had so many commissioners, owners, GM's and now sheriffs, that you just don't take them seriously anymore. I mean Paul Heyman quits, you know he'll be back, Austin is fired, you know he'll be back. The McMahon�s lose their ownership rights, they will get it back. To me this is boring because you know that it is only temporary. Story wise the GM/owner angle is pretty dull. Yes the wrestler who wins against all odds to best a heel champ and the owner in power has been done. Angles where GM/ownership is on the line are stale (it topped out at the shane/vince-austin ladder match). Given some things have been entertaining, such as Raw Roulette. But the wrestlers can have some direction without a GM making things happen. It takes a lot of work and good booking, not to mention requires a return of the Elevation system that has been missing since WM X-7.

03-27-2004, 12:22 AM	#18
PureHatred Instant Credibility Posts: 2,979	Austin is on TV every week. Doesn't really fit his example.

03-27-2004, 12:28 AM	#19
6to1 Posts: 1,279	rock might fit that but vince is playing that role now he comes in and says all the importent changes.

03-28-2004, 02:29 AM	#25
EazyMack Rebel With A Cause Posts: 268	I like the GM's and I like their involvement. I like to see Bischoff get the TV time, Heyman was great too. Angle should be interesting, but I don't think he'll stay in that role long. Regal was one of the best of them all, as was Mick Foley (of course). They just sorta give rhyme & reason to everything that's going on, I guess.

03-28-2004, 12:15 PM	#26
-CB- Guest Posts: n/a	They have done: Comissioners Chiefs General Managers Co-General Manager Owners Co-Owners CEOs Official Consultant Sheriff What else?