By Richard Gardner, Torch specialist

Vince McMahon signaled the end of Bret Hart's role as on-air General Manager of Raw this week, firing him in one of those Machiavellian moments that raises questions of how far Vince McMahon's onscreen character overlaps with his own character. In his place was a mystery GM who communicated with Michael Cole via a laptop.

While replacing one of the greatest wrestlers of all time with a MacBook Pro may seem insulting, removing Bret Hart from his position as GM was the right thing to do. Hart never looked comfortable in the role. While it was clear that The Hitman still had plenty to offer in a non-wrestling role, the General Manager concept has been stale for a number of years.

The belief that each WWE brand needs a General Manager is a fallacy. The GM is essentially a plot device that is used to explain why certain feuds are taking place. Being basically a prop to just stand there and announce matches was beneath Bret Hart, who could have been used in far more creative ways. Aligning him with the Hart Dynasty would have been more productive, but his ambiguous allegiance with the group lead to one of the biggest logic holes of his tenure as GM.

The Usos made their debut under Hart's watch by attacking The Hart Dynasty. The Hitman had the power to punish the debuting tag team for the sneak attack, but appeared lackadaisical about the situation, telling The Hart Dynasty to take care of their own business. That Hart was unwilling to take action against wrestlers who had attacked his family did not fit with his character, and The Hart Dynasty's continued presence on Raw would have caused constant logic gaps while he was GM.

While removing Hart from his position was the right thing to do, as he should not have been in that position in the first place, the timing was bizarre and indicative of the lack of long-term planning in WWE's booking strategy. He had only been given the role on May 24, so it seemed ludicrous to remove him after such a short period of time. He was involved in a storyline with Wade Barrett's NXT faction on the previous Monday, which will seemingly never be resolved. The absence of a replacement on Monday suggested that Hart's storyline dismissal was rushed, like so many other aspects of WWE creative.

Yet Bret Hart's removal from the position of Raw GM is the best scenario for all concerned. He never seemed comfortable reading the material that he was given, and was awkward in his role of announcing matches for other wrestlers. Both WWE and TNA have overused nostalgia in 2010, and Bret Hart was in danger of being overexposed as a personality. That is not to say that he cannot contribute to the WWE in an effective manner, but it is difficult to sustain interest in a nostalgia act that appears on a weekly basis, particularly when it is in a non-wrestling role.

The timing of Bret Hart's abrupt disappearance from WWE was less than ideal, suggesting that there may be some other developments behind the scenes that forced the move.

Nevertheless the GM role never suited him. He was overexposed to the audience, something that seemed impossible when he returned to WWE after a 12-year hiatus. Hopefully this won't be the last we see of Bret Hart this year, and WWE can define a more suitable role for him in the future.

We suggest these recent related articles...

GARDNER'S KEY MOMENT OF THE WEEK: Royal Rumble Sunday - Why the Rumble draws while Summerslam & Survivor Series have dropped off

GARDNER'S KEY MOMENT OF THE WEEK: Kurt Angle's condition at the Genesis PPV a product of TNA's lax policies

GARDNER'S KEY MOMENT OF THE WEEK: Tough Enough officially returning - is the format and show still relevant?