Well, there is this story coming out from PWINSIDER:
The Rock's WWE future is apparently in question. The Rock is said to be upset with Vince McMahon and WWE right now since the company has yet to make an offer to renew The Rock's contract. Because of this conflict, The Rock isn't expected to work WrestleMania unless things can be ironed out between the two sides.
I don't know how much of it to believe, but last year they busted him out for two shows prior to Mania and it came off good, good in the sense the match was great till Foley decided to job out to Orton again even though Mick put him over huge at Backlash.
"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
"the match was great till Foley decided to job out to Orton again even though Mick put him over huge at Backlash."
You gotta get over this.
I was disappointed in an aesthetic sense that Foley got so soundly beaten by Orton twice in a row, but you have to remember that the singles rematch wasn't initially planned for April. It was going to be later that year, but they asked Mick to stick around for a little bit longer when Lesnar, Angle, and Goldberg all left at the same time. So they did what they thought would be the decisive finish in March, but then decided to continue the angle. If they'd known from the beginning that it would've been a two-match program, then you'd probably put Rock & Sock over Flair and have Orton lay Mick out after the match to set up the one-on-one.
(Regardless, this thread is quickly going to shift to the far more important other thing that you posted.)
Originally posted by A Fangood in the sense the match was great till Foley decided to job out to Orton again even though Mick put him over huge at Backlash.
Dude, Foley is of the Terry Funk-old school style in that he puts young guys over to help the business. He has nothing left to prove, so why not? I personally think this match is what help elevate Orton to the next level.
I would say that Rock would be making a big mistake by getting too big for his wrestling contract, even if it is a semi-annual type of deal these days. I would have to think that his name is certainly worth SOMETHING, and he'd probably be better to just keep the agreement going until he's more established in Hollywood.
I'll never get over that. I know Mick does this to help younger stars, it worked for Austin, Rock and HHH, but I don't think Orton is near that league. I will give credit to Mick to lay down, since certain older wrestlers won't. I just think that him constantly jobbing through those three months till Mania and then jobbing at Mania was bad booking. Even the Raw before Mania, they got their heads kicked in by Evolution, it was stupid.
I love having Rock back in any form, but I don't blame him for staying away. It is just better for him to do movies, make a few million and live in L.A. than getting beat up every other night and being away from your family for most of the year. I think any rational person would have taken that choice. I think Vince should re-up his contract, but have him at least do a program or two a year. Rock is their best example of wrestler turned actor and helps give the impression, wreslters aren't stupid or untalented. I would hope both sides or at least Vince realize, the WWE needs Rock more than the Rock needs the WWE. Also, would you want to deal with the Smackdown booking right now or the HHH show, I mean Raw, every day? Yeah, neither would I.
"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
The Torch website reported today that Vince might be trying to show the Rock that he 'doesn't need him' with Austin back in the fold, and another very interesting tidbit is that apparently the Rock was hoping to face none other than Sting at WM21.
I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits." --- President Jed Bartlett, The West Wing
Obviously I don't know the specifics, but it's worth bearing in mind that Rocky might be fishing for a contract with a set downside which, considering there's never any guarantee as to when the guy's next to going to be available for anything more than one-night guest spot, I can totally understand Vince turning his nose up at. Why the two parties can't just agree to a pay-per-show handshake deal I'll never know.
"The Torch website reported today that Vince might be trying to show the Rock that he 'doesn't need him' with Austin back in the fold"
Sounds like Speculative Keller at his best rather than concrete facts.
+10. So that would make Vince McMahon Dr. Hans Reinhardt, no doubt. But does that mean Phil Mushnick is Harry Booth? And does that make Triple H Capt. Dan Holland?