|
Post by Lizuka #BLM on Mar 7, 2022 12:47:38 GMT -5
And can't forget about that hall of Fame induction! Which may very well have won him over to coming back if they had inducted Matt, too, given Jeff said he wasn't interested in going in without him, as a team, at least for an initial induction, which, yeah. They are cartoonishly qualified as a unit. They're a rare case where I think you could easily justify inducting them both together and each separately. Only other one I can really think of is Edge and Christian.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,121
|
Post by Mozenrath on Mar 7, 2022 12:50:54 GMT -5
Which may very well have won him over to coming back if they had inducted Matt, too, given Jeff said he wasn't interested in going in without him, as a team, at least for an initial induction, which, yeah. They are cartoonishly qualified as a unit. They're a rare case where I think you could easily justify inducting them both together and each separately. Only other one I can really think of is Edge and Christian. I definitely agree with that. I do think sometimes that maybe WWE cuts off their own nose to spite their face with these things, given they get really defiant about any kinds of suggestions to induct people, even when it's someone who would fit perfectly fine. Like, I still wonder if the hesitation to induct Vader in life was due to them thinking that if they did it, then every dying wrestler would ask, or that people would act like Billy Graham and claim to be at death's door every time they want WWE's attention. (Graham does seem to be legitimately sick, but he sure seems to almost die a lot for a guy who is still around.)
|
|
|
Post by 06vwgti on Mar 7, 2022 12:53:18 GMT -5
They're a rare case where I think you could easily justify inducting them both together and each separately. Only other one I can really think of is Edge and Christian. I definitely agree with that. I do think sometimes that maybe WWE cuts off their own nose to spite their face with these things, given they get really defiant about any kinds of suggestions to induct people, even when it's someone who would fit perfectly fine. Like, I still wonder if the hesitation to induct Vader in life was due to them thinking that if they did it, then every dying wrestler would ask, or that people would act like Billy Graham and claim to be at death's door every time they want WWE's attention. (Graham does seem to be legitimately sick, but he sure seems to almost die a lot for a guy who is still around.) The whole Vader thing was weird not having in while he was alive, hell they even had him induct Stan Hansen
|
|
|
Post by nihilismizhawt on Mar 7, 2022 13:55:15 GMT -5
It feels like any time you make a moral judgment about WWE and say something they do is wrong, someone has to chime back with "Yeah but they can" and a bunch of technicality-wringing on why things are okay while looking past the 'should' in such complaints, and a naive view of how corporate leverage and the lacking power of any individual worker has actually function with one another in saying "Well they signed a paper so that means it's cool and right". You're not wrong, but these are not technicalities, this is black letter law. If you want to change the law, go ahead, I'm not arguing at all the morality of it in any way, other than to say, Jeff knew what was in his contract, presumably AEW would have or should have known Jeff's legal standing and WWE is totally in the clear to pursue legal action if that has been violated. Few people shit on WWE more than I do on this board, this isn't about WWE, it's about legality, not WWE or morality. Are you sure it's black letter law? Black letter law is usually knowing what's in the contracts, and what happened, right? Can anyone really produce a current WWE contract, and what is the language of the non-compete? So here is the black letter law in Connecticut. "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. (NEW) (a) For purposes of this section: (1) "Person" has the meaning given in section 1-1(k). (2) "Employer" means any person who has employees, excluding the state or any political subdivision of the state. (3) "Employee" has the meaning given in section 46a-51(9). (4) "Noncompete agreement" means any agreement between an employer and employee under which the employee agrees that the employee shall not compete with the employer in providing products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. " In the black letter law, does it say "Shall not negotiate next job during that time?" Because everyone talking about negotiating the next job is like he appeared on Dynamite before his non-compete was up. Now if you want to bring up contact tampering, I'd love to see the language in WWE's contracts about what's allowed and not allowed in negotiation a contract after a release and someone is bound to a 90 day non-compete. People bring up NFL, but that's part of the NFL agreement within it's parameters of teams. Someone could easily negotiate working with NBC as an announcer before their contract is up, it's another place. WWE and AEW are other places, same industry, which is why Jeff Hardy can't show up on AEW TV or house shows to provide products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. Negotiating his next contract is NOT providing services. It's amazing that a passing line by Meltzer can create 6 pages of discussion based on IWC "knowledge", and not the actual law or what's in WWE contracts. In fact, Big Time Wrestling announced the Hardy Boyz weeks ago, that they would be appearing on indie shows. Other than the excuse of "Well WWE wouldn't care about them because they're small", can someone tell me legally how WWE wrestlers for years have been able to say where their appearances would be after the ending of their 90 day compete, before the non-compete was up?
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 7, 2022 14:02:18 GMT -5
You're not wrong, but these are not technicalities, this is black letter law. If you want to change the law, go ahead, I'm not arguing at all the morality of it in any way, other than to say, Jeff knew what was in his contract, presumably AEW would have or should have known Jeff's legal standing and WWE is totally in the clear to pursue legal action if that has been violated. Few people shit on WWE more than I do on this board, this isn't about WWE, it's about legality, not WWE or morality. Are you sure it's black letter law? Black letter law is usually knowing what's in the contracts, and what happened, right? Can anyone really produce a current WWE contract, and what is the language of the non-compete? So here is the black letter law in Connecticut. "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. (NEW) (a) For purposes of this section: (1) "Person" has the meaning given in section 1-1(k). (2) "Employer" means any person who has employees, excluding the state or any political subdivision of the state. (3) "Employee" has the meaning given in section 46a-51(9). (4) "Noncompete agreement" means any agreement between an employer and employee under which the employee agrees that the employee shall not compete with the employer in providing products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. " In the black letter law, does it say "Shall not negotiate next job during that time?" Because everyone talking about negotiating the next job is like he appeared on Dynamite before his non-compete was up. Now if you want to bring up contact tampering, I'd love to see the language in WWE's contracts about what's allowed and not allowed in negotiation a contract after a release and someone is bound to a 90 day non-compete. People bring up NFL, but that's part of the NFL agreement within it's parameters of teams. Someone could easily negotiate working with NBC as an announcer before their contract is up, it's another place. WWE and AEW are other places, same industry, which is why Jeff Hardy can't show up on AEW TV or house shows to provide products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. Negotiating his next contract is NOT providing services. It's amazing that a passing line by Meltzer can create 6 pages of discussion based on IWC "knowledge", and not the actual law or what's in WWE contracts. In fact, Big Time Wrestling announced the Hardy Boyz weeks ago, that they would be appearing on indie shows. Other than the excuse of "Well WWE wouldn't care about them because they're small", can someone tell me legally how WWE wrestlers for years have been able to say where their appearances would be after the ending of their 90 day compete, before the non-compete was up? You keep missing the fact that it’s not actually a non-compete, he’s still under contract with WWE until Wednesday, and is being paid. The definition you posted above for non-compete says “for any period of time after termination of employment.” His employment is terminated on March 9th, not when notice of future termination was given 90 days prior. Also, if it was a standard non-compete being analyzed by a court for reasonableness, the fact that the individual is getting paid for the duration of the non-compete certainly tips the scale in favor of reasonableness.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,602
|
Post by cjh on Mar 7, 2022 14:11:09 GMT -5
You're not wrong, but these are not technicalities, this is black letter law. If you want to change the law, go ahead, I'm not arguing at all the morality of it in any way, other than to say, Jeff knew what was in his contract, presumably AEW would have or should have known Jeff's legal standing and WWE is totally in the clear to pursue legal action if that has been violated. Few people shit on WWE more than I do on this board, this isn't about WWE, it's about legality, not WWE or morality. Are you sure it's black letter law? Black letter law is usually knowing what's in the contracts, and what happened, right? Can anyone really produce a current WWE contract, and what is the language of the non-compete? So here is the black letter law in Connecticut. "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. (NEW) (a) For purposes of this section: (1) "Person" has the meaning given in section 1-1(k). (2) "Employer" means any person who has employees, excluding the state or any political subdivision of the state. (3) "Employee" has the meaning given in section 46a-51(9). (4) "Noncompete agreement" means any agreement between an employer and employee under which the employee agrees that the employee shall not compete with the employer in providing products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. " In the black letter law, does it say "Shall not negotiate next job during that time?" Because everyone talking about negotiating the next job is like he appeared on Dynamite before his non-compete was up. Now if you want to bring up contact tampering, I'd love to see the language in WWE's contracts about what's allowed and not allowed in negotiation a contract after a release and someone is bound to a 90 day non-compete. People bring up NFL, but that's part of the NFL agreement within it's parameters of teams. Someone could easily negotiate working with NBC as an announcer before their contract is up, it's another place. WWE and AEW are other places, same industry, which is why Jeff Hardy can't show up on AEW TV or house shows to provide products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. Negotiating his next contract is NOT providing services. It's amazing that a passing line by Meltzer can create 6 pages of discussion based on IWC "knowledge", and not the actual law or what's in WWE contracts. In fact, Big Time Wrestling announced the Hardy Boyz weeks ago, that they would be appearing on indie shows. Other than the excuse of "Well WWE wouldn't care about them because they're small", can someone tell me legally how WWE wrestlers for years have been able to say where their appearances would be after the ending of their 90 day compete, before the non-compete was up? WWE usually doesn't care about non-televised indy bookings, but televised cards are a different story. Jerry Lawler has a contract that allows him to take indy dates, and in 2003, he took a booking for MLW. When it became clear his match was going to air on MLW's TV show, WWE told him he had to cancel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2022 14:14:56 GMT -5
I don't think the WWE contracts actually have a non-compete, WWE just has the right to terminate the contract unilaterally on 90-days notice.
WWE may have a claim, here, for tampering/tortious interference, if it can credibly establish that AEW was negotiating with Hardy before his contract had lapsed. Evaluating from 10,000 feet, though, the damages would be nominal at best, given that WWE "fired" Jeff Hardy by evoking the 90-day notice provision. Essentially, AEW may be liable for inducing Jeff Hardy to breach a few weeks of his contract.
I just don't see WWE ever pushing the issue of an actual non-compete agreement, because that's an absolute minefield when it comes to the classification of wrestlers as "independent contractors." Non-compete agreements are a hallmark of an employer/employee relationship, legally speaking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2022 14:20:43 GMT -5
Are you sure it's black letter law? Black letter law is usually knowing what's in the contracts, and what happened, right? Can anyone really produce a current WWE contract, and what is the language of the non-compete? So here is the black letter law in Connecticut. "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. (NEW) (a) For purposes of this section: (1) "Person" has the meaning given in section 1-1(k). (2) "Employer" means any person who has employees, excluding the state or any political subdivision of the state. (3) "Employee" has the meaning given in section 46a-51(9). (4) "Noncompete agreement" means any agreement between an employer and employee under which the employee agrees that the employee shall not compete with the employer in providing products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. " In the black letter law, does it say "Shall not negotiate next job during that time?" Because everyone talking about negotiating the next job is like he appeared on Dynamite before his non-compete was up. Now if you want to bring up contact tampering, I'd love to see the language in WWE's contracts about what's allowed and not allowed in negotiation a contract after a release and someone is bound to a 90 day non-compete. People bring up NFL, but that's part of the NFL agreement within it's parameters of teams. Someone could easily negotiate working with NBC as an announcer before their contract is up, it's another place. WWE and AEW are other places, same industry, which is why Jeff Hardy can't show up on AEW TV or house shows to provide products, processes or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes or services in any geographic area or for any period of time after termination of employment. Negotiating his next contract is NOT providing services. It's amazing that a passing line by Meltzer can create 6 pages of discussion based on IWC "knowledge", and not the actual law or what's in WWE contracts. In fact, Big Time Wrestling announced the Hardy Boyz weeks ago, that they would be appearing on indie shows. Other than the excuse of "Well WWE wouldn't care about them because they're small", can someone tell me legally how WWE wrestlers for years have been able to say where their appearances would be after the ending of their 90 day compete, before the non-compete was up? You keep missing the fact that it’s not actually a non-compete, he’s still under contract with WWE until Wednesday, and is being paid. The definition you posted above for non-compete says “for any period of time after termination of employment.” His employment is terminated on March 9th, not when notice of future termination was given 90 days prior. Also, if it was a standard non-compete being analyzed by a court for reasonableness, the fact that the individual is getting paid for the duration of the non-compete certainly tips the scale in favor of reasonableness. Ah, just noticed you beat me to it. Pete is 100% right here, from everything I've seen. WWE contracts do not have a non-compete clause. That's just a common misnomer. This is an issue of potential tampering, not an issue of noncompliance with a non-compete. That said, I think it'll end up being much ado about nothing, unless WWE truly decides that Jeff Hardy is worth triggering a costly legal battle in a case where potential damages are likely not all that significant. And, I haven't seen any proof that AEW actually negotiated with Hardy before his contract expired. I know Vince and McDevitt are known as petty, but I think that the powers that be that make these types of decisions aren't in the business of pissing money away out of sheer pettiness. The simple fact is, viewing the forest through the proverbial trees, "this other company harmed us by negotiating with our employee who we were planning on firing in 90 days, within that 90 day period" is a very, very weak legal argument.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Mar 7, 2022 14:25:33 GMT -5
Problem is, WWE isnt the only company that does this stuff. So if someone tried to look too closely at WWE's independent contracts, many other companies will start making donations to the legal team to make sure they get the right outcome, so there isnt a jurisprudence set that might impact on them. AEW likely wont really want that themselves, even if they operate differently. If this goes anywhere legal, it gets settled quickly and quietly. The WWE are a cash rich, billion dollar company, outside money wouldn't make a bit of difference to their legal defence so wouldn't be coming. They're not some mom and pop shop being used as a proxy to attack all regulation, they already have the best lawyers money can buy so there's not much more money can buy on that front. It's more likely that outside money would be used to pressure both sides to settle quietly. The WWE have folded repeatedly when big name talent lawyered up, there wasn't some big gamechanging rush of cash to save them and help them fight to the bitter end against Brock. Push comes to shove, far richer people would tell them to settle, and they would. Yeah, WWE is a cash rich billionaire operation, but there are bigger abusers of the independent contractor status with even more money that would stand to lose a great deal of it if the IC rules get changed.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Mar 7, 2022 14:26:19 GMT -5
This whole Hardy thing is still bizarre. Like am I wrong for thinking WwE didn’t do anything wrong In this case at all? A known user strangely walks out of a match into the crowd, what would you think? I could be reaching but I think Jeff was looking to get fired. He hasn’t exactly been subtle about his intentions. They were completely in the wrong by not following their own policies in firing Jeff Hardy for not going to rehab when they had no evidence that he was using again. Yes, Jeff Hardy's earned zero benefit of the doubt, but firing someone for drug use based only off an assumption when evidence says otherwise is really f***ing stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2022 14:28:29 GMT -5
The WWE are a cash rich, billion dollar company, outside money wouldn't make a bit of difference to their legal defence so wouldn't be coming. They're not some mom and pop shop being used as a proxy to attack all regulation, they already have the best lawyers money can buy so there's not much more money can buy on that front. It's more likely that outside money would be used to pressure both sides to settle quietly. The WWE have folded repeatedly when big name talent lawyered up, there wasn't some big gamechanging rush of cash to save them and help them fight to the bitter end against Brock. Push comes to shove, far richer people would tell them to settle, and they would. Yeah, WWE is a cash rich billionaire operation, but there are bigger abusers of the independent contractor status with even more money that would stand to lose a great deal of it if the IC rules get changed. Yeah, if WWE decides to poke this bear, it'll be going after Jeff Hardy for deliberately breaching the contract. It won't be going at AEW for contract tampering, or anything related to a "non-compete." Speaking of bigger abusers of the independent contractor status, Shahid Khan owns sports teams. He's got the best, Ivy League lawyers imaginable, who exclusively do that kind of stuff on speed dial. I just don't see any way WWE goes there for exactly that reason.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 7, 2022 14:29:56 GMT -5
This whole Hardy thing is still bizarre. Like am I wrong for thinking WwE didn’t do anything wrong In this case at all? A known user strangely walks out of a match into the crowd, what would you think? I could be reaching but I think Jeff was looking to get fired. He hasn’t exactly been subtle about his intentions. They were completely in the wrong by not following their own policies in firing Jeff Hardy for not going to rehab when they had no evidence that he was using again. Yes, Jeff Hardy's earned zero benefit of the doubt, but firing someone for drug use based only off an assumption when evidence says otherwise is really f***ing stupid. Yeah, if the intent was to fire him for either refusing rehab or for walking out on the match, then I can see them firing him before the results come back. But the fact they tried to re-sign him makes it seem they weren’t going to fire him for just walking out on the match if it wasn’t drug-related, in which case they jumped the gun.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 7, 2022 14:32:33 GMT -5
Yeah, WWE is a cash rich billionaire operation, but there are bigger abusers of the independent contractor status with even more money that would stand to lose a great deal of it if the IC rules get changed. Yeah, if WWE decides to poke this bear, it'll be going after Jeff Hardy for deliberately breaching the contract. It won't be going at AEW for contract tampering, or anything related to a "non-compete." Speaking of bigger abusers of the independent contractor status, Shahid Khan owns sports teams. He's got the best, Ivy League lawyers imaginable, who exclusively do that kind of stuff on speed dial. I just don't see any way WWE goes there for exactly that reason. I think it depends on the wording of the contract. They might be benefitted by going after AEW for tortious interference or even seeking an injunction to bar Hardy from appearing depending on the language. I remember looking at some older contracts that had leaked and there were some 1-year actual non-competes triggered by a breach of certain terms of the contract. So if that came in play here, they might get both parties involved to make it a big mess. But I don’t think WWE is really going to care enough about this particular situation to go that route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2022 14:38:06 GMT -5
Yeah, if WWE decides to poke this bear, it'll be going after Jeff Hardy for deliberately breaching the contract. It won't be going at AEW for contract tampering, or anything related to a "non-compete." Speaking of bigger abusers of the independent contractor status, Shahid Khan owns sports teams. He's got the best, Ivy League lawyers imaginable, who exclusively do that kind of stuff on speed dial. I just don't see any way WWE goes there for exactly that reason. I think it depends on the wording of the contract. They might be benefitted by going after AEW for tortious interference or even seeking an injunction to bar Hardy from appearing depending on the language. I remember looking at some older contracts that had leaked and there were some 1-year actual non-competes triggered by a breach of certain terms of the contract. So if that came in play here, they might get both parties involved to make it a big mess. But I don’t think WWE is really going to care enough about this particular situation to go that route. Yeah, I saw one online that was purportedly Stephanie McMahon's 2013 talent contract, and it had an "if this contract is breached under section 12 (essentially willful breach), then WRESTLER may not work for another professional wrestling, mixed martial arts, etc... company for a to be specified period of not less than a year" provision. If Jeff's contract has that provision, I think they can argue something to the effect of "this guy materially breached his contract by walking out on a match, and willfully induced the dissolution of the contractual relationship" and try and bar him from working anywhere else for a year that way. But, I don't think WWE will go the route of trying to argue that Jeff Hardy was under a non-compete and/or that AEW tampered because of the potential employee/independent contractor ramifications discussed above. I agree with you though, I just don't think it's worth the headache. I guess exemplary or punitive damages may be possible on a tortious inference claim, but never on a garden variety breach of contract. And the damages would just be the value of Jeff's contract for the length of time he was in breach, otherwise. Just doesn't strike me as worth the headache. But, WWE and its legal team aren't always predictable or rational, historically, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by welshpenguin on Mar 7, 2022 15:52:42 GMT -5
This whole Hardy thing is still bizarre. Like am I wrong for thinking WwE didn’t do anything wrong In this case at all? A known user strangely walks out of a match into the crowd, what would you think? I could be reaching but I think Jeff was looking to get fired. He hasn’t exactly been subtle about his intentions. Completely agree. Jeff was acting erratic & unprofessional & with his his history, I don’t blame wwe for jumping the gun & not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Looks like that’s what he wanted anyway, he can now go & join his brother 🙄
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 7, 2022 16:07:55 GMT -5
I'll say it again; it doesn't matter about Jeff's history or whether WWE thought it'd be easier to just fire him, they set up the procedures for a reason, procedures that are available on WWE's own corporate website. If he got sent home, his drug test came back positive, they asked him to go to rehab and he doesn't accept, fire him. Because those are the guidelines you as a company put down.
I'll use this example again, if it happened to someone else who doesn't have the same history as Jeff and they decided to not test them because it was that, it could come and bite them on the ass in a different way.
This isn't a friendship group or a local youth club where if you misbehave, you're not allowed in. It's a billion-dollar company that has the resources to make sure things are down pat. Regardless of everything else, if they're not going to follow their own guidelines, why have guidelines?
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Mar 7, 2022 16:57:33 GMT -5
This whole Hardy thing is still bizarre. Like am I wrong for thinking WwE didn’t do anything wrong In this case at all? A known user strangely walks out of a match into the crowd, what would you think? I could be reaching but I think Jeff was looking to get fired. He hasn’t exactly been subtle about his intentions. Completely agree. Jeff was acting erratic & unprofessional & with his his history, I don’t blame wwe for jumping the gun & not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Looks like that’s what he wanted anyway, he can now go & join his brother 🙄 Thats fine. Let them jump the gun and release him. But no sympathy then when they find out they were wrong and he was clean. They went back hat in hand and he told them no. Now they want to be petty bitches and go after him legally when he possibly only did something they themselves have engaged in.
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,701
Member is Online
|
Post by Kalmia on Mar 7, 2022 17:14:20 GMT -5
This whole Hardy thing is still bizarre. Like am I wrong for thinking WwE didn’t do anything wrong In this case at all? A known user strangely walks out of a match into the crowd, what would you think? I could be reaching but I think Jeff was looking to get fired. He hasn’t exactly been subtle about his intentions. Completely agree. Jeff was acting erratic & unprofessional & with his his history, I don’t blame wwe for jumping the gun & not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Looks like that’s what he wanted anyway, he can now go & join his brother 🙄 That's why you suspend people until you have all of the facts in. WWE completely jumped the gun and went against the rules of their own policies. In a lot of places, that's unfair/wrongful dismissal and a lawsuit waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 7, 2022 19:52:29 GMT -5
Completely agree. Jeff was acting erratic & unprofessional & with his his history, I don’t blame wwe for jumping the gun & not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Looks like that’s what he wanted anyway, he can now go & join his brother 🙄 Thats fine. Let them jump the gun and release him. But no sympathy then when they find out they were wrong and he was clean. They went back hat in hand and he told them no. Now they want to be petty bitches and go after him legally when he possibly only did something they themselves have engaged in. We don’t know that they’re being petty, that’s just Meltzer speculating not reporting.
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Mar 7, 2022 19:57:56 GMT -5
Thats fine. Let them jump the gun and release him. But no sympathy then when they find out they were wrong and he was clean. They went back hat in hand and he told them no. Now they want to be petty bitches and go after him legally when he possibly only did something they themselves have engaged in. We don’t know that they’re being petty, that’s just Meltzer speculating not reporting. Yes I am aware. If they bring legal action or in any way try to stop his debut for AEW then they are being petty over their mistake. If not then hey good job being grownups WWE.
|
|