Yeah, Meltzer's comment that they may never be back seems really weird. This seems like a very minor thing that may cost them a slap on the wrist. The worst thing that is going to happen is they'll get buried, which is basically what Sami's career already was until a month ago.
Smackdown would be fine without them. Whether for better or worse, the WWE has made sure that no wrestler(s) are above their brand. Their ratings would stay more or less steady and fans will just cheer for another indy favorite.
I really don't think they are going anywhere and it will work itself out, but the WWE tends to be in the catbird seat with these guys and the wrestlers know it.
Kevin Kelly: "Mr. Austin, would you like to comment on Wade Keller's Take that endorsing the XFL hurts your anti-authority character?"
Steve Austin: "Oh shit, he actually said that? I thought the boys in the back were ribbing me!"
Kelly: "No, he really said that. Did they tell you the part about you sitting in the stands, looking all skeptical?"
Austin: "AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah... oh man that was too much."
Originally posted by QuezzyIt depends what you mean by fine. Would the ratings stay the same? Maybe so. Would the show be any good? Definitely not.
Advertisers do njot care about how good the wrestling is on mo Me at or Tuesday night's, they just care how many people are watching.
Yes, I understood that the first time it was explained. But like I said, it depends on your definition of "fine". My own definition of fine, since I am not an advertiser but a fan of wrestling, is a show that I want to watch and the current state of Smackdown minus Owens and Zayn is not a show that I want to watch. Therefore, it is not "fine".
Wpob, that is very close to how I saw it, except that I find it perversely amusing... I'd change just a couple of the roles you assigned to the players, though. Kev and "Shawna" are the ones who called the cops, (Booker and Hurricane)