Why I'm Against Adding To The Shield, Roode's Return, Explaining TNA's Major Problems

The following is today's edition of Ask WNW. Ask WNW is the most popular feature on the website where Richard Gray answers four questions daily, Monday through Friday. To submit your question for the next installment of Ask WNW, click here.
Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

What are your thoughts on adding to The Shield?

Several readers have inquired about WWE replacing Seth Rollins in The Shield by adding another member. WWE is aware of the speculation, which is why they played into it with an article on dot com over the weekend where they listed 6 Seth Rollins replacements. For those that missed it, dot com listed Adrian Neville, Big E, Dolph Ziggler, Cody Rhodes, John Morrison and Daniel Bryan. I don't know where WWE plans to go from a creative standpoint but I don't like the idea of "adding another member" to The Shield. After everything the trio accomplished, anything else is going to come off as watered down. WWE should play out the defection of Seth Rollins before pushing all three in singles competition. Take a look at past successful factions, very few have endured the same level of success in a later version.

Is Bobby Roode going to return to TNA any time soon?

Bobby Roode's "suspension" from TNA is fictitious and was done to write him off television, while showcasing the on-air authority of MVP. I expect Roode back at Slammiversary on Sunday.

Do you believe that Dixie Carter and company are hoping to gain enough exposure and credibility that Vince McMahon would step in and deliver a big payday to the Carter family and TNA investors?

Dixie Carter and her family had the opportunity to sell TNA Wrestling to a group involving Toby Keith and Jeff Jarrett last year and they would not sell. To put it quite simply, they wanted too much money and wouldn't take a penny less. While the Carters vehemently denied trying to unload the company, I know there were internal talks about doing just that if the price was right. Obviously if TNA's problems continue and they are not renewed by Spike TV, people will point to Vince McMahon as a viable suitor to purchase the tape library. Why wouldn't he be interested?

TNA is currently in trouble, regardless of what some of their loyalists will tell you. Recently, I expressed my concern on social media about Jeff Jarrett, as part TNA owner, starting a competing promotion. Loyalists pushed back hard, arguing it wasn't a big deal and TNA is just in transition. That's just not the case.

Jeff Jarrett owns as much as 29% of TNA and is starting a competing promotion. Jarrett's new promotion, Global Force Wrestling, is financially backed by Toby Keith. This is the same group that was trying to purchase TNA last year. They're not only going for TNA's share of the marketplace but their talent roster as well. I fully expect strong plays to be made for top TNA names such as Kurt Angle, Samoa Joe and possibly even AJ Styles.

Last week's Impact garnered a viewing audience under 1 million viewers. While we can easily point to stiff competition up against the 2014 NBA Finals, drawing such a low number at a time when their deal with Spike TV is coming up is nothing short of dangerous.

Finally, photos surfaced over the weekend of the company's Basebrawl live event in Bowie, MD where the show just didn't draw. Let's not even mention the company is facing a major issue with the Slammiversary main event as MVP has a knee injury.

I want TNA to succeed as much (if not more) than the next person but to act as if they're just in transition and are guaranteed their spot as the "number 2 promotion next to WWE" would be to flat out deny the facts. This isn't a company in transition, this is a company in trouble. It's a very important week for TNA as they need to reset strong with Slammiversary and their television tapings in New York City. However, I would be lying to you if I said I was optimistic.

From the Ask WNW vault…

February 2013: Does having pay-per-views like Elimination Chamber, Hell in a Cell and TLC hurt the prestige of the gimmick matches and cause them to lose luster? - No, I like the way WWE has handled their B-level pay-per-views with the gimmicks. I’m not a big fan of gimmick matches but when used correctly, they work. WWE has been able to integrate the gimmicks into their B-level shows, making them more meaningful and giving viewers a reason to order, without killing the gimmick matches themselves. They’ve done this by putting the gimmicks on one or two “main event” matches of the show but not making every bout on the card a gimmick. I do not feel the gimmicks should be completely exclusive to their respective pay-per-views as I would have no problem with a Money in the Bank ladder match at Wrestlemania. That was talked about for this year’s show but upon last check, they’ve decided against it.

Remember questions that are legible stand the best chance of getting answered. Check out the Ask WNW archive at this link.

The next installment of Ask WNW is scheduled to run on Tuesday, June 10, 2014.

You can submit a question for the next installment of Ask WNW at this link. If you have problems with the form, you can send your question to AskWNW@wrestlingnewsworld.com.

Related Articles