[quote name='JJSP']Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel about an angle designed to have him suspended still allowing him to work house shows (though it makes sense considering they're embarking on the Australian tour and those tickets have been on sale for months).[/QUOTE]
Well, one major downside to running the angle with Punk suspended is that they're promoting one of their hottest talents right now will *not* be at any shows or events. That's a problem.
1) "Man, Punk was awesome last night!" or "I can't believe what he said about WWE, I hope he gets his ass kicked!"
2) "Well, yeah, but he was suspended. I saw it on the WWE website, so he won't be at the upcoming show in our podunk town."
1) "Well, I guess I won't be going then."
The major problem is how to continue selling tickets to a freshly envigorated fanbase when the storyline is contingent upon believing that WWE really has suspended him.
They ran into that problem last year with John Cena after he was "fired." Their explanation that he decided to simply buy tickets to every show in every city (also: Juan Cena) was widely mocked and ridiculed. You surely remember the absurd storyline progression where Cena was not only not employed, but wore his full merchandise suite, jean shorts and knee pads (

ing KNEE PADS) and got promo and in-ring time week in and week out far more than any "current employee" in WWE.
They fired Cena and then ran with the storyline in a way that made it preposterously un

ingbelieveable. With Punk, they seem to have learned from that. So credit is due there. If WWE has taken the approach of saying "hey, this dude has a contract and has to fulfill his obligations," then that's a reasonable and respectable approach, honestly.