WWE Royal Rumble 2012 Preview: No Outside Talents Reportedly to Be in Rumble
According to Ring Side News, several WWE sources have said that there will be no outside talents to be featured in the Royal Rumble Match this year. The WWE Royal Rumble match, which is going back to the original format of 30 participants unlike last year's 40 is said to not have enough room to fill in the talent that they want to feature as well as outside ones fans want to see. This is the official quote:
Unlike last year's Royal Rumble match, which featured 40 wrestlers and saw names like Booker T and Kevin Nash make their WWE returns, reports say that this year's match is more likely to focus on names that are already with the company, and if there are any surprise entrants, they will likely be names such as The Undertaker, who is not considered an "outside talent."
This is a huge letdown not only for us writers on Bleacher Report who have been working hard to create "what-if" articles/slideshows, but also for the fans who were expecting a big name to make his WWE return such as the former face of WWE and UFC star Brock Lesnar or the almost-TNA-contract-free Rob Van Dam.
As far as anyone new who could be in the Rumble this year, according to the sources there has been talk of having FCW talent debut in the Rumble. This is the official quote:
Creative has been discussing the idea of potentially featuring a few FCW developmental talents in the match this year, although this has not been confirmed. It is more likely, however, if there are a few slots left in the match to fill, that WWE will go with in-house names rather than outside names making a "one-time appearance/return."
I love the Royal Rumble as it is one for the greatest things to watch not just in WWE, but professional wrestling itself. We should not get too upset though, as we can still expect the returns of Undertaker, Randy Orton, Christian, Alberto Del Rio and maybe even Kevin Nash again. Stay tuned for further news and thanks for reading.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?