Did Undertaker refuse to job to Shane McMahon?

[Hanley!]

Undertaker vs Shane McMahon was a weird ass match for Wrestlemania from the moment it was announced, but now that we're a few weeks removed from Wrestlemania, the match makes even less sense than it once did.

If Shane won, it was supposed to be Undertaker's last Wrestlemania. And Shane was supposed to gain control of Raw. Shane lost. But for the last three weeks he's had control of Raw. Not only that, but Undertaker was reportedly talking backstage about it maybe being his last Wrestlemania. With that considered, you have to wonder why Shane didn't win the match. That way they wouldn't have had to renege on the match's stipulation.

Also, despite there being no rumours of Undertaker being injured after Wrestlemania (for once), he suddenly dropped out of the European tour, which he had been advertised for. A tour that was already seriously lacking in star power due to all of the injuries and Daniel Bryan dropping out too. Which also raises a few questions.

What do people think is going on with the Undertaker right now? Was he asked to lose to Shane McMahon but refused? And if so, would you blame him?

[Str8Shooter]

I suppose he would be one of a select few who could flat out say "no" and have them agree to his demand.

I still think they got Shane because with all the injuries they had, they felt they needed a "big match" and since Shane had been gone so long they figured he could fit the bill. Then Taker needed something big, so they threw them together, and then developed the ridiculous stipulations after the match had been decided on. It was just them making things up as they went along.

Now they are throwing Shane in charge, because they didn't expect how much people react to him, and they want to keep him around but have no real "reason" to do it, so they are making it up as they go along again.

[Circled Square]

Vince, the absolute madman, has been making shit up as he's went along ever since Rollins went down.