|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 11, 2016 18:45:07 GMT -5
So he's trying to merge the parts of his expired WCW contract that benefits him with the parts of his WWE contract he signed in 2001, saying that his expired WCW contract gives him the rights to audit the WCW books. While at the same time that WCW contract specifically says he has no rights to any royalties. Their refusal to let him audit the books based off of a previous generation contract is his basis for saying they breached their contract and gave him the right to sue?
Sorry Buff don't think this quite has the stuff. Can't use the idea to merge the 2 contracts together to benefit you and not take the bad parts that go with it too.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 11, 2016 19:35:28 GMT -5
So he's trying to merge the parts of his expired WCW contract that benefits him with the parts of his WWE contract he signed in 2001, saying that his expired WCW contract gives him the rights to audit the WCW books. While at the same time that WCW contract specifically says he has no rights to any royalties. Their refusal to let him audit the books based off of a previous generation contract is his basis for saying they breached their contract and gave him the right to sue? Sorry Buff don't think this quite has the stuff. Can't use the idea to merge the 2 contracts together to benefit you and not take the bad parts that go with it too. Actually, the very minute he showed up on RAW under WWE ownership of his contract, the WCW contract ceased to matter. WHat does matter is if his contract, as all before 2004, states that future technologies not yet in existence would garner him a right to reimbursement. Sicne he got fired so fast, there is no 2004 out clause for McDevitt to trot out, as he did with Dupree. Its' a smple matter of "When I worked for you, I signed X, and now X has come to pass, and on this new technology, my likeness appears, thus I am owed the royalties taht both parties agreed to in 2001".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 19:38:10 GMT -5
What's the over/under on him showing up for the court date wearing one of his hats? And doing the Buff Dance?
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 11, 2016 19:50:31 GMT -5
What's the over/under on him showing up for the court date wearing one of his hats? And doing the Buff Dance? I just assumed it was a given, also that win or lose he be allowed to hit the Blockbuster on the baliff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 19:57:11 GMT -5
What's the over/under on him showing up for the court date wearing one of his hats? And doing the Buff Dance? I just assumed it was a given, also that win or lose he be allowed to hit the Blockbuster on the baliff. After the WWE wins, McDevitt rips the hat off Buff's head and stomps on it repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 11, 2016 20:01:57 GMT -5
So he's trying to merge the parts of his expired WCW contract that benefits him with the parts of his WWE contract he signed in 2001, saying that his expired WCW contract gives him the rights to audit the WCW books. While at the same time that WCW contract specifically says he has no rights to any royalties. Their refusal to let him audit the books based off of a previous generation contract is his basis for saying they breached their contract and gave him the right to sue? Sorry Buff don't think this quite has the stuff. Can't use the idea to merge the 2 contracts together to benefit you and not take the bad parts that go with it too. Actually, the very minute he showed up on RAW under WWE ownership of his contract, the WCW contract ceased to matter. WHat does matter is if his contract, as all before 2004, states that future technologies not yet in existence would garner him a right to reimbursement. Sicne he got fired so fast, there is no 2004 out clause for McDevitt to trot out, as he did with Dupree. Its' a smple matter of "When I worked for you, I signed X, and now X has come to pass, and on this new technology, my likeness appears, thus I am owed the royalties taht both parties agreed to in 2001". He's using the parts of his expired WCW contract that he wants to merge with his WWE contract in this case as his basis to audit WWE's books to back up his claim of breach of contract. That enables him to bring up this lawsuit as his 2001 signed contract leaves him with no legal rights to sue unless there's a breach of contract. At the same time that same 1998-2001 expired WCW contract that he wants merged with his later signed WCW/WWE Invasion contract specifically states that he isn't due any royalties whatsoever. Way I'm reading it is he wants to use that 1998-2001 contract to enable him to try to audit the books, which WWE rightfully denied as he had another contract signed after it, but that same 1998-2001 contract says he's not due anything. So he basically wants to cherry pick parts of a previous generation contract and apply those choice parts to his newer 2001 signed one.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Aug 11, 2016 20:22:38 GMT -5
So he's trying to merge the parts of his expired WCW contract that benefits him with the parts of his WWE contract he signed in 2001, saying that his expired WCW contract gives him the rights to audit the WCW books. While at the same time that WCW contract specifically says he has no rights to any royalties. Their refusal to let him audit the books based off of a previous generation contract is his basis for saying they breached their contract and gave him the right to sue? Sorry Buff don't think this quite has the stuff. Can't use the idea to merge the 2 contracts together to benefit you and not take the bad parts that go with it too. Actually, the very minute he showed up on RAW under WWE ownership of his contract, the WCW contract ceased to matter. WHat does matter is if his contract, as all before 2004, states that future technologies not yet in existence would garner him a right to reimbursement. Sicne he got fired so fast, there is no 2004 out clause for McDevitt to trot out, as he did with Dupree. Its' a smple matter of "When I worked for you, I signed X, and now X has come to pass, and on this new technology, my likeness appears, thus I am owed the royalties taht both parties agreed to in 2001". But Bagwell is claiming he is owed everything based on his WCW deal that expired 3 months before he agreed to a WWE deal, using that clause in his WWE contract. That makes no sense. He is trying to apply a contract and those terms that WWE was never party to and he either paid to get out or let expire to his WWE deal. If if he is owed something based on his WWE deal, fine but how does WWE become responsible for a deal they never agreed to take on?
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 11, 2016 20:43:27 GMT -5
Actually, the very minute he showed up on RAW under WWE ownership of his contract, the WCW contract ceased to matter. WHat does matter is if his contract, as all before 2004, states that future technologies not yet in existence would garner him a right to reimbursement. Sicne he got fired so fast, there is no 2004 out clause for McDevitt to trot out, as he did with Dupree. Its' a smple matter of "When I worked for you, I signed X, and now X has come to pass, and on this new technology, my likeness appears, thus I am owed the royalties taht both parties agreed to in 2001". But Bagwell is claiming he is owed everything based on his WCW deal that expired 3 months before he agreed to a WWE deal, using that clause in his WWE contract. That makes no sense. He is trying to apply a contract and those terms that WWE was never party to and he either paid to get out or let expire to his WWE deal. If if he is owed something based on his WWE deal, fine but how does WWE become responsible for a deal they never agreed to take on? The WCW thing, the only way theyd' be responsible is if they agreed to "take on debts" (and money owed, even in perpetuity, is a debt). I'm only looking at McDevitt's previous defenses, namely the 2004 rewriting that removed a "future technologies" wording that did exist in the initial WWE contracts in 2001. If Buff singed one of those, and given that he had dealisn with talent relations, one can assume that he did, then that is the only part he will need. No he can't say "Well, this company woudl have paid me X, so I want that AND this", but he can say "I singed this, and it says I get this, so I want it".
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Aug 11, 2016 20:43:43 GMT -5
Buff's co-counsel Judy Bagwell thinks he has a great case because he's buff and the Network is not the stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Aug 11, 2016 20:46:42 GMT -5
The fatal flaw in this lawsuit is that it hinges on the fact that someone would pay to see a Buff Bagwell match.
|
|
|
Post by Doogie Bowser, MD on Aug 11, 2016 20:52:17 GMT -5
The sale of WCW assets to WWE was constructed specifically to exclude the actual business entity. WWE wasn't about to assume that mountain of debt and lopsided contracts. Legally, the "WCW, Inc." entity created by WWE has absolutely nothing to do with the "World Championship Wrestling, Inc." that was owned by TBS/Time-Warner.
Thus, Buff has no stuff.
|
|
|
Post by SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids on Aug 11, 2016 23:39:39 GMT -5
Simple answer? Take Buff off the Network. No one would miss him. Blue Dot is warming up in the bullpen...
|
|
|
Post by SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids on Aug 11, 2016 23:45:17 GMT -5
Once again, doesn't syndication law come into play? If Buff wins, regular t.v. might be nothing but infomercials, local news, and sports...
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Aug 11, 2016 23:50:55 GMT -5
But Bagwell is claiming he is owed everything based on his WCW deal that expired 3 months before he agreed to a WWE deal, using that clause in his WWE contract. That makes no sense. He is trying to apply a contract and those terms that WWE was never party to and he either paid to get out or let expire to his WWE deal. If if he is owed something based on his WWE deal, fine but how does WWE become responsible for a deal they never agreed to take on? The WCW thing, the only way theyd' be responsible is if they agreed to "take on debts" (and money owed, even in perpetuity, is a debt). I'm only looking at McDevitt's previous defenses, namely the 2004 rewriting that removed a "future technologies" wording that did exist in the initial WWE contracts in 2001. If Buff singed one of those, and given that he had dealisn with talent relations, one can assume that he did, then that is the only part he will need. No he can't say "Well, this company woudl have paid me X, so I want that AND this", but he can say "I singed this, and it says I get this, so I want it". That is what I am saying though. He is trying to get paid for his WCW work based on his WCW contract terms because of something in his WWE deal. The WWE deal should only be covering his WWE work (all 2 months of it) and nothing to do with WCW which he is trying for.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 12, 2016 6:22:26 GMT -5
The removal of the futureproofing clause post 2004 makes all the legends deals they had former talent sign over the past decade seem like an incredibly cynical attempt to get people to sign away their royalties for a few small paydays. No wonder Scott Steiner's lawyer told him it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
|
|
Squirrel Master
Hank Scorpio
"Then the Squirrel Master came out of left field and told me I'm his bitch!"
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Squirrel Master on Aug 12, 2016 13:06:04 GMT -5
Somebody call his Momma!
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Aug 12, 2016 14:31:30 GMT -5
Everyone please raise your hand if you believe WWE has intended to have WCW as separate wrestling venture and the future of that idea has depended on one match between Booker T and Buff Bagwell in Tacoma. Thing is though, Tacoma is like the northern Corpus Christi, and WCW had rarely if ever toured the north anyway. The crowd that show pretty much only popped for the run in (which featured Austin) and sat on their hands for 2 hours. Crazy Vince is the idiot who decided that this meant all WCW wrestlers put on boring matches and will never be cheered over WWE guys.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,778
|
Post by hassanchop on Aug 12, 2016 14:35:13 GMT -5
If the trial goes on, will Lance Storm be there to explain Bagwell's WWE run?
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Aug 12, 2016 14:59:17 GMT -5
If the trial goes on, will Lance Storm be there to explain Bagwell's WWE run? Forget that. Will Buff Daddy call Mama Bagwell as a special witness?
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Aug 12, 2016 23:35:10 GMT -5
Someone woke the beast:
|
|