Hi. I'm great thanks for asking. Moving on…
1. How do you feel about wwe naming their backlash ppv wrestlemania backlash? I get they're trying to spice up the interest and make it sound like more of a big deal but I do believe it's a mistake and takes away from wrestlemania being an annual big deal. After all what's the next ppv name gonna be? WRESTLEMANIA match that started this blood feud and now they have to settle it in a HELL IN A CELL.
2. Lesnar works for wwe. They pay him a lot of money. How come every Lesnar is the same 2-3 move B.S ? Does he have it in his contract to not be bothered to have more than a 5-10 min match and only use 2 moves? Or could Vince tell him to work 25 minutes technical and he'd have to do what he's told?
3. Could Bret have sued Goldberg for millions in lost wages due to negligence? And for that matter sued WCW for failing to train their power plant wrestlers properly? Now to play devil's advocate bret surely knew the kick was coming so why did he just take it to the face? Why not cover up properly or just sell it by dropping and not taking any contact like lots of them do? Did Bret fail to protect himself?
1. I don't get the idea of unifying the titles and then not defending them. Also the WWE Stan argument is that they should “save it for a bigger show”, which is weird because they literally named the show WRESTLEMANIA Backlash because they wanted to make it a big show.
2. Vince could tell him to do whatever he wants and Lesnar would happily do it. Vince chooses not to for whatever reason.
3. I feel like suing in court over a wrestling match wouldn't go well for anyone involved. I'm also not 100% convinced that it was as much of Goldberg's fault as Bret portrays, but he's the pro so I assume he knows best.