I don't agree with buying Impact. Two reasons mainly.
1. A lot of good stars would get misused or lost with all the talent on rooster.
2. No competition will cause WWE to become lazy again.
Other than that I agree with most of it.

welcome to the attitude era. they already did that but people like to bash attitude era, yet then they say these things like 'wwe should do this to make it better'... when the same was done during attitude era, but noooo lets bash attitude era and then be hypocrites by wanting wwe to do attitude era stuff again

@4: it could go either way. They either need to combine the shows and completely drop the stupid obviously lame "rivalry" storyline they have going now or actually separate the shows into two different sub companies that compete for funding based on ratings which would create an actual rivalry like I said in my blog.

@5: I basically agree with wrestlingfan plus it would cost a huge amount because the management of TNA hate McMahon and would make him pay way more than it is worth.

@6: Again if they went with my Idea this would be a decent spot for ECW.

Personally I thought the Attitude Era was great.

Originally Posted by Mr. McMahon

welcome to the attitude era. they already did that but people like to bash attitude era, yet then they say these things like 'wwe should do this to make it better'... when the same was done during attitude era, but noooo lets bash attitude era and then be hypocrites by wanting wwe to do attitude era stuff again

The Attitude Era was over-hyped, simple as that. The only reason why people hyped the Attitude Era was because of the Austin-Rock era. Without these two legends, would the Attitude Era be the same? No. I honestly think the Attitude Era had some great yet ridiculous stuff and is looked at as the best period in WWF/E history but the point is, Stone Cold and The Rock made that era either way.

WWE doesn't need to be edgier like the Attitude Era. They need to start making new talent and push talents that's over with the fans like Zack Ryder and Dolf Ziggler. They can't keep depending on there main event guys, they need to make stars. Also, great storlines are a plus too obviously. WWE is doing good at the moment.

^Agreed. The Attitude Era is seriously overated. We got edginess, which was awesome, but we didn't get the best wrestling.

I actually enjoy the current product that the WWE is putting on. You don't need to curse for your show to be entertaining, and if certain people think that's the case, then go watch Jersey Shore or something. I'm really happy that they don't put on as many childish comedy acts as they did last year with Hornswoggle.

I know I'm gonna get hated for this, but, do you think you are the only ones who think of these ideas? You don't think WWE creative and VKM (who have kept this business alive for what 20 something years) think through all these points? That they just wake up and decide to throw garbage in our face? Get realistic. I will admit that you have great points, except think about this, you want one show with what 80 different superstars and then you want them to buy out TNA, adding more wrestlers? Which one of your favorite wrestler will get pushed. And then add another show on the weekend, when your attitude demographic (i'm assuming are 19-28 year olds) aren't really at home. any way loved the post though

WWE is gonna do what WWE wants to do they don't give a shit about what we think just look at Cena Era No!! people is not the PG Era it's the Cena Era cuz if you see from 2008 til Now Cena has won 90% of his match and lost 10% and they call Attitude Era overrated cuz it was Stone Cold and The Rock who made that happen sorry but they had the likes of Triple H, The Undertaker, Mick Foley, Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Dudley Boyz, Hardy Boyz, The Acolytes and the list keeps going they had allot of good wrestlers so Attitude Era ain't Overrated Cena Era is Overrated IMO