|
|
Post by wwemark1 on Jul 19, 2007 10:22:34 GMT -5
On the 7/19 edition of TNA Today JB interviewed Triple X. He mentioned about how they lost to AMW & they was it for them. Skipper, said with his new contract there aren't any restraints. on him so they put the "band back together".
Source: Myself
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackjack on Jul 19, 2007 11:02:54 GMT -5
just like some of us expected... skipper's new contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Jul 19, 2007 11:14:11 GMT -5
I'm just glad Elix is back. I like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by ihatebenoit on Jul 19, 2007 11:34:56 GMT -5
As opposed to WWE where they would have just ignored it. Nice to see TNA stick to their storylines.
|
|
|
|
Post by quepaso on Jul 19, 2007 11:59:20 GMT -5
On the 7/19 edition of TNA Today JB interviewed Triple X. He mentioned about how they lost to AMW & they was it for them. Skipper, said with his new contract there aren't any restorations on him so they put the "band back together". Source: Myself What? How can someone have restorations on themself? |
|
|
|
Post by wwemark1 on Jul 19, 2007 12:54:45 GMT -5
Sorry, it's supposed to be restraints.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBT on Jul 19, 2007 21:55:58 GMT -5
As opposed to WWE where they would have just ignored it. Nice to see TNA stick to their storylines. Technically no. They just gave a loophole, rather nonchelant way of voiding a roadblock the company made on its own part. |
|
|
|
Post by thevileone on Jul 20, 2007 3:33:51 GMT -5
That's pretty much it.
They do ignore the fact that Daniels essentially turned on Skipper and that they were enemies afterward.
That's why stipulations like that suck. To make them is like booking yourself into a corner. And when they ultimately go back on it they have to come up with a lame excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eyce on Jul 20, 2007 5:35:00 GMT -5
I was hoping for something like "The bitch who enforced the rule got sacked conveniently two weeks ago, so the stipulation became void."
|
|
