Brock signs new WWE contract

[The GOAT]

Jumping into the discussion late here, but I would say you're right about him lying not being likely. Since this was announced off WWE air time, it's unlikely it would be a lie. I think WWE is unlikely to lie about something like this because of its stockholders. If people honestly believed Lesnar had resigned and purchased shares due to the idea that Lesnar's continued future with the company would be profitable, if it ended up being a lie, the WWE would be in some deep shit.

In reference to Lesnar signing a new contract (I can use the resign or re sign anymore, I keep thinking about the ambiguity when I type it) I think it is great.

In regards to the talk about Heyman turning on Lesnar, I can't see it. When he turned on Lesnar before, it seemed odd. I mean, the Big Show was a lot younger and still arguably in the prime of his career, but Lesnar had already looked overtly impressive. This time around, Lesnar's mystique is leagues more impressive than it was then. With the UFC reign and his basically unstoppable bulldozing of WWE, it would make Heyman look like a big moron to switch on him, even if he joined Reigns. I mean Reigns would be the best choice if Heyman were to turn, but it still would seem idiotic. Why turn on the most invincible looking wrestler in the world, the man who has saved you from numerous ass beatings in the past years? Also, after the beating Lesnar gave him after the first turn, the beating CM Punk gave him after that betrayal, Paul might want to stick to his loyalty guns for a while.

Yeah, Heyman turning on Lesnar makes almost zero sense. I know the idea of Reigns going heel gets some folks hard, but it'd be pretty difficult thing to buy into Heyman's character betraying Brock at this point. It didn't make much sense back then either but at least Big Show was manhandling Lesnar and even broke one of his ribs on the road to their match at Survivor Series that year. With Reigns, there hasn't even been one iota of violent physicality between him and Brock at all yet. Reigns would have to convincingly beat Lesnar like five or ten times in a row before Heyman would even slightly consider ditching Brock for Reigns. And even then, he wouldn't want Brock on his ass.

Also, if you need to 'turn' on someone just to ensure your new desired client wins, that kinda defeats the whole purpose of ditching them for the other guy in the first place, which is supposed to be because you think the other guy is superior.

 

[Red Rain]

Yeah, Heyman turning on Lesnar makes almost zero sense. I know the idea of Reigns going heel gets some folks hard, but it'd be pretty difficult thing to buy into Heyman's character betraying Brock at this point. It didn't make much sense back then either but at least Big Show was manhandling Lesnar and even broke one of his ribs on the road to their match at Survivor Series that year. With Reigns, there hasn't even been one iota of violent physicality between him and Brock at all yet. Reigns would have to convincingly beat Lesnar like five or ten times in a row before Heyman would even slightly consider ditching Brock for Reigns. And even then, he wouldn't want Brock on his ass.

Also, if you need to 'turn' on someone just to ensure your new desired client wins, that kinda defeats the whole purpose of ditching them for the other guy in the first place, which is supposed to be because you think the other guy is superior.

Are we to assume that you believe that a 37 year old Brock Lesnar on the downside is a better athlete than 29 year old Roman Reigns on his upside?
We can each sit back and remember Brock Lesnar for the athlete he once was.
We might also consider the fact that Lesnar's landmark wins were vs men on the downside of their respective careers and needed help Heyman's help to defeat CM Punk.
Lesnar's MMA career wasn't that great. He was 4-3 in UFC and lost his last two matches to far superior fighters. His MMA career just wasn't that convincing when you truly break down each match.
Heyman would be saving Lesnar from himself. It's like a father who knows his child has limitations. It would be the same excuse as with Big Show except Reigns earning potential far exceeds Big Show's.
Reigns has greater potential to cross over and make Heyman more money. Lesnar's athleticism, while once phenomenal, today is nowhere near what it once was.

Why should Heyman hold on? Lesnar is a shadow of himself who's beaten has beens and nobodys for the past six years of his professional life. A great pure athlete, but still far past his prime.

 

[ShaRpY HaRdY]

Is there an official announcement on the official length of his contract or just does it say multi year still.

 

[The GOAT]

Are we to assume that you believe that a 37 year old Brock Lesnar on the downside is a better athlete than 29 year old Roman Reigns on his upside?
We can each sit back and remember Brock Lesnar for the athlete he once was.
We might also consider the fact that Lesnar's landmark wins were vs men on the downside of their respective careers and needed help Heyman's help to defeat CM Punk.
Lesnar's MMA career wasn't that great. He was 4-3 in UFC and lost his last two matches to far superior fighters. His MMA career just wasn't that convincing when you truly break down each match.
Heyman would be saving Lesnar from himself. It's like a father who knows his child has limitations. It would be the same excuse as with Big Show except Reigns earning potential far exceeds Big Show's.
Reigns has greater potential to cross over and make Heyman more money. Lesnar's athleticism, while once phenomenal, today is nowhere near what it once was.

Why should Heyman hold on? Lesnar is a shadow of himself who's beaten has beens and nobodys for the past six years of his professional life. A great pure athlete, but still far past his prime.

The crux of my argument is that Heyman has no reason to believe Reigns is superior to Lesnar going into Wrestlemania. Reigns' kayfabe accomplishments prove only that he will make a worthy adversary for Brock, not that he'd necessarily make a better client to invest in than him. His accomplishments so far still do not compare to what Brock accomplished back then or to what he's accomplished since returning in 2012. (Also, 37 isn't that old and age is just a number anyway. Brock is still an absolute dominant athlete and the idea that he's "far past his prime" is laughable.)

If Heyman is to realistically turn on Brock, the better choice would be to do it in a rematch at Summerslam. Say Reigns beats Brock and breaks his ribs in the process (Brock has damaged ribs coming off the Rumble title defense, remember... that was obviously a set-up for the match with Reigns at WM), and this is why Brock only demands his rematch later in the year - because he wanted to be 100% healthy again before going back after the title. A betrayal would be a little more believable then because Reigns would have already beaten Lesnar once and even temporarily put him on the shelf, which would cause Heyman to smell vulnerability, especially when he sat back and watched how dominant of a title reign Reigns went on to have over the next five months leading into Summerslam. But at Wrestlemania itself? It's a huge, huge stretch.

Also, Brock didn't need help beating Punk at Summerslam '13, but that's a different argument for another time.

 

[The GOAT]

Is there an official announcement on the official length of his contract or just does it say multi year still.

According to the Observer, it's for three more years. No word yet on how many dates he's agreed to work, though.

 

[Red Rain]

The crux of my argument is that Heyman has no reason to believe Reigns is superior to Lesnar going into Wrestlemania. Reigns' kayfabe accomplishments prove only that he will make a worthy adversary for Brock, not that he'd necessarily make a better client to invest in than him. His accomplishments so far still do not compare to what Brock accomplished back then or to what he's accomplished since returning in 2012. (Also, 37 isn't that old and age is just a number anyway. Brock is still an absolute dominant athlete and the idea that he's "far past his prime" is laughable.)

If Heyman is to realistically turn on Brock, the better choice would be to do it in a rematch at Summerslam. Say Reigns beats Brock and breaks his ribs in the process (Brock has damaged ribs coming off the Rumble title defense, remember... that was obviously a set-up for the match with Reigns at WM), and this is why Brock only demands his rematch later in the year - because he wanted to be 100% healthy again before going back after the title. A betrayal would be a little more believable then because Reigns would have already beaten Lesnar once and even temporarily put him on the shelf, which would cause Heyman to smell vulnerability, especially when he sat back and watched how dominant of a title reign Reigns went on to have over the next five months leading into Summerslam. But at Wrestlemania itself? It's a huge, huge stretch.

Also, Brock didn't need help beating Punk at Summerslam '13, but that's a different argument for another time.

I'll concede to your points but its important to note if Heyman had secretly worked out a deal previously (of course without Lesnar's knowledge) with Reigns, Heyman would be reaping benefits. What benefits?
I'm talking about the benefits associated with the type of exposure Roman Reigns is receiving at the moment. The commercials, the endorsements would all be fees in which Heyman would receive a share of.
I would surmise that Heyman would have use the opportunity of 'Wrestlemania season' to have gotten into Reigns' ear beforehand and molded much of the transformation we are seeing in Reigns at this time.
It could have been as early as the hernia Reigns suffered. With WWE preparing to lowball Lesnar, due to PPV/WWE Network transition, it would be a fine time to reach Reigns at his most vulnerable moment.
With the change from the PPV format to the WWE Network, its a tad more difficult to measure Lesnar's drawing power. With Reigns untapped potential waiting in the wings, why not manipulate the young star?

None of this is happening. I'm simply conjecturing the mentality of an agent who has an aging client with limited earnings potential vs a younger client with larger crossover potential.
It would behoove Heyman to wait as to your premise. Reigns has the physical gifts, but none of baggage or attitude problems his other clients have had.

I get your logic, but I suppose I'm factoring in things beyond the ring that can't necessarily be accounted for to the naked eye. There's a plausible fallacy in my argument and I acknowledge that possibility.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I also think Heyman turning on Brock could easily make sense, especially after Paul E explains it and you are all eating from his hand. He can simply say he did it to prove he is the true king of happenings in WWE, and as bad as Brock is he can't hack it without Heyman. Heyman can pound his chest and say he can create new stars at the drop of a hat.

It would be great for all parties involved IMO. Brock becomes an official face, even though reactions lately have been positive for him. Reigns probably starts getting cheered because that's just how fickle people are.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I also think Heyman turning on Brock could easily make sense, especially after Paul E explains it and you are all eating from his hand. He can simply say he did it to prove he is the true king of happenings in WWE, and as bad as Brock is he can't hack it without Heyman. Heyman can pound his chest and say he can create new stars at the drop of a hat.

It would be great for all parties involved IMO. Brock becomes an official face, even though reactions lately have been positive for him. Reigns probably starts getting cheered because that's just how fickle people are.

Yeah something along that line could work. I still don't see it happening. But it makes sense.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Yeah something along that line could work. I still don't see it happening. But it makes sense.

I don't see anything happening other than Lesnar beating up Reigns and then him hulking up. Anything that isn't that is a win from a booking standpoint. Then again, seeing the crowd reject that finish could be fun as well, bad as I'd feel for RR

 

[The GOAT]

I also think Heyman turning on Brock could easily make sense, especially after Paul E explains it and you are all eating from his hand. He can simply say he did it to prove he is the true king of happenings in WWE, and as bad as Brock is he can't hack it without Heyman. Heyman can pound his chest and say he can create new stars at the drop of a hat.

It would be great for all parties involved IMO. Brock becomes an official face, even though reactions lately have been positive for him. Reigns probably starts getting cheered because that's just how fickle people are.

That's the most cookie-cutter explanation he could possibly come up with. I know the standards for storytelling are low when it comes to pro wrestling/WWE, but still, something that doesn't completely insult the intelligence of the viewer would be nice.

As for creating new stars at the drop of a hat, I recall him saying the same thing in regards to Cesaro last year, and look at where that got him. He promised that Curtis Axel and Ryback would become big stars too, but they were busts under Heyman's tutelage as well. Brock is the only client that's achieved a high degree of success underneath Heyman's guidance, and considering that he's a once in a lifetime athlete, I think it's safe to say Heyman needs Lesnar more than Lesnar needs him (in kayfabe.)

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

That's the most cookie-cutter explanation he could possibly come up with. I know the standards for storytelling are low when it comes to pro wrestling/WWE, but still, something that doesn't completely insult the intelligence of the viewer would be nice.

As for creating new stars at the drop of a hat, I recall him saying the same thing in regards to Cesaro last year, and look at where that got him. He promised that Curtis Axel and Ryback would become big stars too, but they were busts under Heyman's tutelage as well. Brock is the only client that's achieved a high degree of success underneath Heyman's guidance, and considering that he's a once in a lifetime athlete, I think it's safe to say Heyman needs Lesnar more than Lesnar needs him (in kayfabe.)

you are looking way too into it. If Heyman costs Lesnar his title then no, Heyman clearly doesn't need Lesnar new than he needs Heyman. Even so, a heel making delusional claims is just par for the course.

and if you expect some profound explanations from anything wwe decides to book just stop watching now.

 

[Gman003]

Wow these story lines are interesting. I have recently stumbled upon wwe after 10 yearsand I mmust say it's changed. Alot of the same names but a ton of new people as well.
Any fans that have been around since the 90 's ?

 

[Jacob Fox]

Wow these story lines are interesting. I have recently stumbled upon wwe after 10 yearsand I mmust say it's changed. Alot of the same names but a ton of new people as well.
Any fans that have been around since the 90 's ?

I've been watching WWF/WWE since 1986.

 

[Gman003]

Great to hear. I was scared it might be all young people or something tbh. Lol
im kinda relieved.
I am sooo rusty with modern day wrestling, but I'm glad lesnar is staying. That's one name I remember lol Brock (the next big thing) vs rock lmao that's what i remember. And stone cold 3:16. Haha sorry im just going on about randomness, just reminiscing on old times.
Anyways sorry for the rants. I'm ready to settle down. It's just nobody I know is into it anymore (understandably) I just caught it by complete accident and man.... it's pretty entertaining. And as long as you realize that it's purely entertainment, it's really not that bad.
I started watching in the mid 90s born in 89. So I'm not thaaat old but old enough to remember the attitude era.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Great to hear. I was scared it might be all young people or something tbh. Lol
im kinda relieved.
I am sooo rusty with modern day wrestling, but I'm glad lesnar is staying. That's one name I remember lol Brock (the next big thing) vs rock lmao that's what i remember. And stone cold 3:16. Haha sorry im just going on about randomness, just reminiscing on old times.
Anyways sorry for the rants. I'm ready to settle down. It's just nobody I know is into it anymore (understandably) I just caught it by complete accident and man.... it's pretty entertaining. And as long as you realize that it's purely entertainment, it's really not that bad.
I started watching in the mid 90s born in 89. So I'm not thaaat old but old enough to remember the attitude era.

Not "thaat" old, huh? You mean not old like someone old enough to be watching since 1986? *I'm just teasing*

I wouldn't be concerned about anyone's ages here. I think I might be the oldest person here but even many of the people here who are much younger than me are extremely knowledgeable about wrestling throughout the years. My sister, whose user name is TheMonic started watching it when I did. Plus there are a couple other guys who are north of 30 too.

A lot of wrestling fans do enter wrestling casually, but there are the occasional guys like me who get hooked and stick with it for almost 30 years with no plan on stopping. But regardless, there are a lot of people here who have been through the Attitude Era and even many who were still young are knowledgeable about it. A great group of fans.