WrestleMania 31 (Will contain Fast Lane spoilers)

After the results tonight, I think we have a card thats looking almost there. I'd guess the finishes we had and the stories that were told will lead to a few rematches.

Orton v Rollins
Sting v HHH
Cena v Rusev
Intercontinental Title to be defending in a ladder match
Goldust v Stardust
Miz v Sandow*
Taker v Wyatt
Lesnar v Reigns

What of Bryan? The others below have questions, but DB is the big one.

I'm now unsure on Sheamus, Ryback, Ziggler. There is likely to be a battle royal.

Also add in a tag team titles match. WM29 had no divas match, WM30 did.

WrestleMania 29 had 9 matches if you include the one on the pre-show and WM30 had 8 including the pre show, but also had the battle royal and the stuff with legends.

I think we're onto a cracking card and amazing Mania

*for matches that may have changed circumstance since Raw

As I've not seen Fastlane this comment may be a bit redundant, but WM does largely have the feel of Fastlane 2.0.

Though I could see one of Gold / Starsust or Miz / Mizdow not making this for a tag / Battle Royal. Expect divas will get 3 mins.

And with the roster WWE currently has on paper this doesn't look a classic, but is maybe about the best they can do.

Bryan will face Ziggler or a heel Sheamus imo

NickisBHAFC wrote:Bryan will face Ziggler or a heel Sheamus imo

Does Daniel Bryan have to have a singles match at WM? It's hard to say that just 1 year after main eventing the show, I don't know if he needs to have a singles match.

Obviously the injury was bad timing and took his momentum away, but since then he's nowhere near as hot as he was this time last year. I think a match with Ziggler would be good, but it just feels that this is being added because we have 2 relatively over guys who can wrestle. And its not that something can't be built between them in the next month. But, it is really unclear to me where that would be going after WM.

I'm so lukewarm on Sheamus. He seems a really nice guy out of the ring, and he's an okay worker, but he's not someone I've missed. And I'm not at all sure that a heel turn is going to change my perspective of him. Having said all that, if they did the Battle Royal, I could see him in that and maybe even winning it.

Booking Bryan in a match that is seen as important and good enough in the fans view will be the key to Mania, whether that should be the case or not is an entirely different matter, but in terms of keeping the fans appeased so that other matches aren't a damp squib (in terms of crowd atmosphere) it is essential they get the Bryan match right...

From that perspective Ziggler would seem the way to go....and it is easy to build it...essentially you just have two guys who say that they have been put down and pulled down (attempted to be pulled down) by authority at every turn and at Mania they will put on a match that will steal the show and force the spotlight onto them. (something along those lines)

There is some major dilemmas in Mania just in terms of how many people they need to squeeze into the show. Some names are inevitably going to miss out...and many will just be forced into some crappy tie over (namely the battle royale...which did sod all for cesaro). If Bryan and Ziggler end up in that expect a slight revolt.

Would just like to add that I really want to see some gimmick matches at this years mania. Rather fed up of plain old single match ups....when it involves two insanely good wrestlers, no problem...but when it's two ok workers who have been at it numerous times something fresh is needed.!

Sting vs HHH (No holds barred)
Cena vs Rusev (I quit)

Those two definitely need a gimmick of sorts...I would love to see an Ironman match also...wont' get one this year but really miss them! Ziggler vs Bryan would be perfect for that; but it's not big enough match to warrant an hour.

Bryan and Ziggler have been teasing a feud on Twitter, but dont see how they can make me care about that match.

I think they should do another Andre The Giant battle royal, but make it for something, maybe a title shot down the line. It gives guys like Ziggler, Ryback and Harper (who have been working really hard over the past year) and guys like Sheamus and Bryan (returning from long term injury) and match with some meaning.

That was my main takeaway from Fast Lane - What do you do with Daniel Bryan? Suppose we'll get a hint on RAW tonight.

Samo wrote:Bryan and Ziggler have been teasing a feud on Twitter, but dont see how they can make me care about that match.

I think they should do another Andre The Giant battle royal, but make it for something, maybe a title shot down the line.  It gives guys like Ziggler, Ryback and Harper (who have been working really hard over the past year) and guys like Sheamus and Bryan (returning from long term injury) and match with some meaning.

That was my main takeaway from Fast Lane - What do you do with Daniel Bryan?  Suppose we'll get a hint on RAW tonight.

maybe the winner can carry around a sack with the title shot in it? Call it something like Money in A Sack?

Adam D wrote:
maybe the winner can carry around a sack with the title shot in it? Call it something like Money in A Sack?

Book it.

Well, could we have a place for one of those we werent sure of?

Raw Spoiler:

I'm not overly sold on Mania at the moment. The three headline matches contain workers who have question marks over their ability to work marquee matches in 2015 (Sting, Taker and to a lesser extent Reigns). 

My favourite feuds at the minute are Miz/Mizdow and The Rhodes brothers.

Spoiler:

 Hopefully the Rhodes brothers will have a proper blow off match at Mania.

Very mediocre looking card. Vince really must think Wrestlemania is the draw and not his 'superstars'. He might be right, we'll see.

I think its funny that its considered mediocre. Seems to me like a WrestleMania with younger talent and less focus on the star names being a pull, but on the actual talent being the guys on the card.

All of it has a freshness to it, I think aside from Bryan not being in the main event I cannot see how these are not the matches people asked for.

Orton/Rollins could be gold. Reigns n Lesnar is fresh as hell and could be brilliant. Ziggler is gonna be feuding with Ambrose...I cannot see how this doesn't work. The Miz n Mizdow will be great in the build up, the Rhodes brothers' story is fascinating and they have a lot more in them in terms of match quality too. Cena/Rusev was an entertaining match and can clearly have a lot more. Taker and Wyatt is fascinating. Sting/HHH has me drawn in and i'm intrigued by every part of it anyway, the positives and negatives.

The only change i'd make right now is have Bryan take Rusev instead and Cena take on a heel Sheamus.

It would be properly funny if Sheamus was the one to beat Rusev.

An Irishman beating the Bulgarian on behlf of the USA

I think both liverbnz and Dolphin Ziggler are right.

On paper, this isn't a card for the ages. But, WWE doesn't have SCSA, the Rock, a Youngertaker. So, I don't see a significantly better card ready to be booked. With what is available, I think this is better than okay.

As far as WWE is concerned (generating WWE Network numbers) I really don't think a change such as Undertaker / Sting or Daniel Bryan / Lesnar would do more business.

I'm pleased that WWE has gone with Reigns. That's not to say that I don't feel his has limitations, but WWE now has a month to focus on this match and build it up. And also the rest of the card.

So, on paper this doesn't have the great name recognition of other cards. But there is opportunity for more than one good match. I don't know who's going to win the main event or the Battle Royal. And there is scope for a few cool moments. It'll get my 9.99 and then I'll judge it after the event.

Prometheus wrote:I think both liverbnz and Dolphin Ziggler are right.  

On paper, this isn't a card for the ages.  But, WWE doesn't have SCSA, the Rock, a Youngertaker.  So, I don't see a significantly better card ready to be booked.  With what is available, I think this is better than okay.  

As far as WWE is concerned (generating WWE Network numbers) I really don't think a change such as Undertaker / Sting or Daniel Bryan / Lesnar would do more business.  

I'm pleased that WWE has gone with Reigns.  That's not to say that I don't feel his has limitations, but WWE now has a month to focus on this match and build it up.  And also the rest of the card.

So, on paper this doesn't have the great name recognition of other cards.  But there is opportunity for more than one good match.  I don't know who's going to win the main event or the Battle Royal.  And there is scope for a few cool moments.  It'll get my 9.99 and then I'll judge it after the event.

Nice work 

Prometheus wrote:I think both liverbnz and Dolphin Ziggler are right.  

On paper, this isn't a card for the ages.  But, WWE doesn't have SCSA, the Rock, a Youngertaker.  So, I don't see a significantly better card ready to be booked.  With what is available, I think this is better than okay.  

As far as WWE is concerned (generating WWE Network numbers) I really don't think a change such as Undertaker / Sting or Daniel Bryan / Lesnar would do more business.  

I'm pleased that WWE has gone with Reigns.  That's not to say that I don't feel his has limitations, but WWE now has a month to focus on this match and build it up.  And also the rest of the card.

So, on paper this doesn't have the great name recognition of other cards.  But there is opportunity for more than one good match.  I don't know who's going to win the main event or the Battle Royal.  And there is scope for a few cool moments.  It'll get my 9.99 and then I'll judge it after the event.

See, I think it would. Bryan and Lesnar are the 2 most over guys they have at present. It has the David vs Goliath aspect as well as Bryan recreating his WM 30 moment to get 'the run he deserves'. Reigns and Lesnar just doesn't draw for me, but I've expressed my feelings on Reigns so won't repeat them. The one thing I will say is that this treading the kayfabe line that Reigns is doing is not appealing. It isn't when anyone does it so I have no idea why they are persisting with it. But because I'm somehow stuck to viewing WWE content whether it's rubbish or not, I do have some interest in Lesnar vs Reigns. But if I was a casual viewer, it wouldn't make me pay $50 or subscribe for $9.99 a month.

And regardless of how much they try and push the 'Sting vs HHH' being a match for the ages - it isn't. HHH, as much as he likes to shove his legacy down people's throats isn't and never was the face of WWE. He is not a name that people instantly recognise. People wanted Sting vs 'taker and regardless that the match will likely stink the house out, that's not the point. People want to see it, people are likely to pay to see it, so give it to them. Most of WWE's fans are not wrestling 'purists' (Yuk, hate that word!)

liverbnz wrote:

Prometheus wrote:
As far as WWE is concerned (generating WWE Network numbers) I really don't think a change such as Undertaker / Sting or Daniel Bryan / Lesnar would do more business.  

See, I think it would. Bryan and Lesnar are the 2 most over guys they have at present. It has the David vs Goliath aspect as well as Bryan recreating his WM 30 moment to get 'the run he deserves'. Reigns and Lesnar just doesn't draw for me, but I've expressed my feelings on Reigns so won't repeat them. The one thing I will say is that this treading the kayfabe line that Reigns is doing is not appealing. It isn't when anyone does it so I have no idea why they are persisting with it. But because I'm somehow stuck to viewing WWE content whether it's rubbish or not, I do have some interest in Lesnar vs Reigns. But if I was a casual viewer, it wouldn't make me pay $50 or subscribe for $9.99 a month.

Okay, I've thought about this and our gut feelings differ. So, I'll conjecture what I think Vince thinks.

My thinking is that last year the Network launched. Wrestlemania was available for 9.99 on a 6 month subscription (so I think in the US 6 months for roughly the PPV price of WM). The Network subscription numbers do not break the million mark that Vince was minimum looking for.

We can talk about a hundred reasons why that number wasn't hit on WM last year. But I think the person taking the fall is Bryan because he was in the big story. That might be right, it might be wrong, but if WWE is all about growing the Network, then I think Bryan becomes the scapegoat for the rocket not being under those subscription numbers last year.

And, I know you can turn this argument around. You can talk about how subscription numbers soared when Bryan came back (which was also the free month), but that's my thinking.

No, that's a fair point. I'm not even sure if Bryan is a draw in that it's yet to be determined but I think the WWE way over-estimated on their subscription target. Plus there was the whole network is new element so it's hard to work out how successful mania was last year. Do we count subscribers and PPV buys? If so, how many are we double counting, etc?

When it comes down to it though, this is what happens when year after year WWE have sold maina around the Undertaker, The Rock and John Cena and more or less negating the rest. There comes a time when they are no longer around and you are left with an underbooked roster.

I think you are quite right about the Network being new last year and such. And I think also the 6 month commitment might have been putting people off, even if there was a strong case that they were getting much more for that than just buying the WM PPV.

And that is why I think this year's WM is absolutely massive for the WWE. IMO this is a potential make-or-break for The Network. We don't know the numbers at the moment. The last we heard was that the 1M mark had been hit. And, I'd still see that as a minimum.

And, I'm not convinced that people see this like Spotify or Netflix and once you are subscribed you stay subscribed. The Network is largely event driven and I think we can very much expect a peak for WM with a tail off in the summer.

So, you'd be thinking that as a minimum The Network has to hit their largest WM buyrate of 1.2M. And more comfortably would exceed this by 20% or so.

And maybe I'm reading this wrong. Afterall, I'm not privvy to the WWE plans and financials. But, my feeling would be that this WM should be all about cementing the Network, not a new face of the company.

It may be that Vince sees those two going hand in hand, but my experience is that its really hard to sell something that is relatively new, as Reigns is to most people who are not following wrestling closely.

Maybe they blew their shot with the Rock at the Rumble, but as a minimum if I were putting Reigns in the main event, I'd be having the Rock as a mentor or special guest ref to even the odds with Heyman. Because the Rock puts bums on seats. Advertise it, have him at Raw, have a podcast interview with SCSA, I think you are getting Network subscriptions.

So, maybe I'm over-analyzing this. But, I'm almost as interested in what this WM does for WWE's Network, as I am about the in-ring product.

It is noted that during the #cancelwwenetwork (or whatever) that they actually picked up more subscribers than they lost

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It is noted that during the #cancelwwenetwork (or whatever) that they actually picked up more subscribers than they lost

I think Vince was asked about it at the last shareholders call, and his answer was that controversy is good as it gets people talking about the product.

I can well see people seeing the controversy and paying 9.99 to see the recording of the Rumble and find out what it was all about.

The question is (and its the biggest question the Network has) how many of those are continuing their subscriptions?

Prometheus wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It is noted that during the #cancelwwenetwork (or whatever) that they actually picked up more subscribers than they lost

I think Vince was asked about it at the last shareholders call, and his answer was that controversy is good as it gets people talking about the product.

I can well see people seeing the controversy and paying 9.99 to see the recording of the Rumble and find out what it was all about.

The question is (and its the biggest question the Network has) how many of those are continuing their subscriptions?

I read something that the increase in figures (to 1m+) didnt reflect the true picture.

AS it happened when the Network launched overseas, the net figure of subscribers from the USA fell significantly but when the overseas figures from the launch were added, it took the figures up and over a million.

Adam D wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It is noted that during the #cancelwwenetwork (or whatever) that they actually picked up more subscribers than they lost

I think Vince was asked about it at the last shareholders call, and his answer was that controversy is good as it gets people talking about the product.

I can well see people seeing the controversy and paying 9.99 to see the recording of the Rumble and find out what it was all about.

The question is (and its the biggest question the Network has) how many of those are continuing their subscriptions?

I read something that the increase in figures (to 1m+) didnt reflect the true picture.

AS it happened when the Network launched overseas, the net figure of subscribers from the USA fell significantly but when the overseas figures from the launch were added, it took the figures up and over a million.

Trouble is Adam. I think unless you have access to the raw data there is a lot of murkiness in these numbers.

For example, I'd subscribed to the Network before it was available here. When it became available in my region I unsubscribed and then re-joined. So, that would have looked like an American subscriber was leaving and a European one joining. Whereas in reality, I'm just the same guy.

I know that a lot of people joined when it became available here. And I know that a lot still have their old account from before it was available here. So, I'm not saying I'm that representative. I'm just saying that I'm a muddy issue and I think there are a few of those, because those joining and leaving numbers are just so big.

WWE
BREAKING NEWS: Intercontinental Champion Bad News Barrett will defend his title against multiple WWE Superstar opponents in a Ladder Match on the Grandest Stage in Entertainment, WWE WrestleMania 31, LIVE Sunday, March 29 at 8e/5p on WWE Network. #31to31

Ladder Match at mania? Get in! Could steal the show

Barrett vs Ziggler vs Ambrose vs Bryan vs Neville vs? 

Hopefully the rumours are true and Shelton is coming back...

Looking at the booking, I'm guessing R-Truth will be in the match. It's looking face-heavy, so wouldn't be surprised if Sheamus is in the match as a heel. I think the line up will be Barrett vs Ambrose vs Bryan vs R-Truth vs Sheamus vs Ziggler.

Crazy to think that post-Mania the IC and US champions could be Bryan and Cena.

Its interesting that most people think Bryan will be in it. Clearly, there is very little space for a Bryan singles match, but I will wince any time he takes a ladder bump

I was hoping Bryan and Ziggler would have a singles match at Mania ala Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels, nothing other than a peeved off desire to show everyone that they're the best at what they do could have been the catalyst. 

I don't think either Danial Bryan, the star of last years WrestleMania or the man who got r8d of the Authority, Dolph Ziggler should be anywhere near an IC Title match, I don't think its the same as Cena and the US Title, they'd neve4 had put Cena in that type of match in 2006 and if Rusev was crapping all over America then they'd never be looking at Cena for this guy anyway. - it's more about the ever dominant, powerful, overbearing Russia against Old Glory

WWE really is trying to put something for everyone in this WM aren't they?

- A multi-man ladder match for the spot junkies
- HHH and Sting for the historians
- Undertaker and Wyatt for people who like all the pageantry
- Reigns and Lesnar for Vince