A MitB super swerve.

[blink]

So what have we established here.

1) Ziggler's contract was won on the 15th July 2012.
2) It is a one year contract.
3) Therefore it expires on 15th July 2013.
4) MitB 2013 takes place on 14th July 2013.
5) Therefore both Ziggler's contract and the next WHC MitB winner's contract technically will both be valid on the 14th and 15th July 2013.

So a double cash in is theoretically possible at either MitB 2013 or Raw 15/07/13.

Do you honestly think they would acknowledge the date? Unless your name is cm punk they could care less about dates. Plus its ppv to ppv. And something thats owned by someone cant be put up for grabs unless hes stripped of it... which, im not positive, but is not possible in wwe storylines. And while it would lead to a nee feud over the case that would leave the champ in a bit of a limbo and hed wind up feuding with the same old title contenders thus pushing the cash in back even further. I want to win this debate so bad its driving me nuts! Lol

[Robstar]

I agree with you 100%. I mean guys are requesting feuds with ziggler because they know he will make them shine. Now thats what i call having respect from your peers! And not only does he make his competitors look good, but he makes himself look good in the process.i only hope all this jobbing is essentially his quiet befpre the storm. Ziggler will blow the door off its hinges when he gets the opportunity.

My only real issue with this is that he's actually still getting himself over. I don't think so. I believe that push has come to shove and they have reached Zigglers expiry date. Like they did to a degree with Zack Ryder. I really hater to mention them alongside each other but there it is.

[URATOOL]

Do you honestly think they would acknowledge the date? Unless your name is cm punk they could care less about dates. Plus its ppv to ppv. And something thats owned by someone cant be put up for grabs unless hes stripped of it... which, im not positive, but is not possible in wwe storylines. And while it would lead to a nee feud over the case that would leave the champ in a bit of a limbo and hed wind up feuding with the same old title contenders thus pushing the cash in back even further. I want to win this debate so bad its driving me nuts! Lol

*loads 'holes in your argument canon'*

1) It's a one year contract, not an 'until next years MitB PPV' contract. *BOOM*
2) Ziggler's contract is A WHC contract. Not THE WHC contract. So your whole owning and stripping point it's wrong. If he owned the only WHC contract then how could Jack Swagger compete for the title against ADR at WM? So yes they can have two MitB contracts at once. *BOOM*

[blink]

*loads 'holes in your argument canon'*

1) It's a one year contract, not an 'until next years MitB PPV' contract. *BOOM*
2) Ziggler's contract is A WHC contract. Not THE WHC contract. So your whole owning and stripping point it's wrong. If he owned the only WHC contract then how could Jack Swagger compete for the title against ADR at WM? So yes they can have two MitB contracts at once. *BOOM*

First off swagger can challege for it cuz hes the #1 contender. Ziggler has a guaranteed shot whenever he wants it but that doesnt mean other people cant challenge for the title. He owns a contract that guarantees a shot for the title not against a specific champion only. And its a yearly ppv. YEARLY! Just cuz the sunday doesnt fall on the exact date doesnt make it a yearly ppv. There inlies my reasoning on that part. Its ppv to ppv. Year to year. When it was held at mania theu always said they had till next years mania. Could be march. Could be april. But they had until mania the next year. Same concept here.

Oh yeah, ahem, BOOM!

[URATOOL]

First off swagger can challege for it cuz hes the #1 contender. Ziggler has a guaranteed shot whenever he wants it but that doesnt mean other people cant challenge for the title. He owns a contract that guarantees a shot for the title not against a specific champion only. And its a yearly ppv. YEARLY! Just cuz the sunday doesnt fall on the exact date doesnt make it a yearly ppv. There inlies my reasoning on that part. Its ppv to ppv. Year to year. When it was held at mania theu always said they had till next years mania. Could be march. Could be april. But they had until mania the next year. Same concept here.

Oh yeah, ahem, BOOM!

So you agree that multiple WHC contract can exist and no, it is a ONE YEAR contract. *BOOM*

[blink]

So you agree that multiple WHC contract can exist and no, it is a ONE YEAR contract. *BOOM*

Nay! The money in the bank contract is classified as just that, a mitb contract. Its different cuz he can cash it in at the drop of the hat instead of having to wait for a traditional challenge. Theres the diff! And i said it is a one year ppv to ppv contract! They always said from mania to mania, why would it be any different now? Ba-ba-ba-BOOM!

[URATOOL]

Nay! The money in the bank contract is classified as just that, a mitb contract. Its different cuz he can cash it in at the drop of the hat instead of having to wait for a traditional challenge. Theres the diff! And i said it is a one year ppv to ppv contract! They always said from mania to mania, why would it be any different now? Ba-ba-ba-BOOM!

Oh dear. You are about to look rather wrong when a MOD agrees my post. (it's being moderated as it contains a link to the WWE site)

[URATOOL]

http://www.wwe.com/f/doc/2012/07/2012_Money_in_the_Bank_keyart_CONTRACT.pdf

[blink]

Negative my friend. In fact im going to go ahead and claim victory. In fact i own victory amd based on my logic you cannot contend for something that is already owned by another. So i win hahahahaha!

[URATOOL]

Negative my friend. In fact im going to go ahead and claim victory. In fact i own victory amd based on my logic you cannot contend for something that is already owned by another. So i win hahahahaha!

So you looked at the link and realised you fucked up on the PPV to PPV argument and that it is clearly a ONE YEAR contract. So now you are trying to claim that because, you have decided, that only one WHC contract can exist, you are right. Oh dear. Someone get this guy his medication.