|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Sept 6, 2011 19:44:10 GMT -5
No, people would wrestle hurt for Vince because they were afraid of losing their spots. WWE has done guaranteed contracts for as long as I can remember with only a few exceptions. Meaning if you don't work, you don't get paid AS MUCH. The downside for a WWE contract is still enough for somebody to support their family. Granted, there have been times where they released somebody while they were injured, but it doesn't happen often. The last one I can think of is Test who was fired while out with a neck injury. And he showed back up in the company a few years later. Vince is no saint, but he's certainly a good employer. He takes care of his guys, that's for damn sure. Guys are afraid of losing their spot as in some cases they've been told there's a good chance there won't be a spot for them on the roster when they return, just ask Paul Burchill. Is it really taking care of guys if you're all but forcing them to work hurt for fear of being released when they get back? That's how guys end up getting hooked on painkillers and other substances or have injuries mounting to the point where they're wrecks before their 40s. I'm not defending the way TNA treats their injured workers, hopefully the Daffney suit forces them to sort themselves out, but both companies have a long way to go before they can be called good employers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Sept 6, 2011 20:06:57 GMT -5
Also, Daffney retweeted the cagesideseats article, and didn't refute it at all, which would lead me to say, yes, it's her story as well. Still doesn't change that the story itself was full of errors and heresay. Daffney may have retweet it, but if she actually uses that as her basis of the case, she will be demolished. I'm just a jobless internet poster, and I can see the Emperor doesn't have any clothes on. What would a top attorney do to her?
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Sept 6, 2011 20:14:10 GMT -5
Woah woah woah, let's not jump the gun and make McMahon the paragon of virtue here. While he has changed standards over the years (especially since his company went public), He and his company have been linked to many a scandal including sexual harrassment, Child molestation and steriods. And as far as taking care of medical and all that, there were many wrestlers who wrestled injured for him because if you didnt work, you didn't get paid. While he's changed those things, who's to say he wouldn't have if the WWE didn't go public? No, people would wrestle hurt for Vince because they were afraid of losing their spots. WWE has done guaranteed contracts for as long as I can remember with only a few exceptions. Meaning if you don't work, you don't get paid AS MUCH. The downside for a WWE contract is still enough for somebody to support their family. Granted, there have been times where they released somebody while they were injured, but it doesn't happen often. The last one I can think of is Test who was fired while out with a neck injury. And he showed back up in the company a few years later. Vince is no saint, but he's certainly a good employer. He takes care of his guys, that's for damn sure. How far back can you remember, because guaranteed contracts weren't given out until Hall and Nash made the jump. Vince even told Flair before his first wwf run that he doesn't give guaranteed contracts, but opportunities to make more than he was in wcw. Vince gives more downside contracts with incentives and most likely guarantees only the top stars.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Sept 6, 2011 21:15:36 GMT -5
No, people would wrestle hurt for Vince because they were afraid of losing their spots. WWE has done guaranteed contracts for as long as I can remember with only a few exceptions. Meaning if you don't work, you don't get paid AS MUCH. The downside for a WWE contract is still enough for somebody to support their family. Granted, there have been times where they released somebody while they were injured, but it doesn't happen often. The last one I can think of is Test who was fired while out with a neck injury. And he showed back up in the company a few years later. Vince is no saint, but he's certainly a good employer. He takes care of his guys, that's for damn sure. Guys are afraid of losing their spot as in some cases they've been told there's a good chance there won't be a spot for them on the roster when they return, just ask Paul Burchill. Is it really taking care of guys if you're all but forcing them to work hurt for fear of being released when they get back? That's how guys end up getting hooked on painkillers and other substances or have injuries mounting to the point where they're wrecks before their 40s. Yea, I've heard the Paul Birchill story. It's also the only story that I'm aware of like that, and it's not even something that can be 100% verified for truth. But even if wrestlers are told that they won't have a spot when they return, that's just the nature of the business. It sucks for a person to be put in that position, but it's still their own decision to work while they're hurt. Take that girl from Tough Enough for instance (can't remember her name right now). She got injured and was thus eliminated from the contest. Or the guy from the last season of The Ultimate Fighter that got injured on the first episode and had to leave the competition. It's a tough break, but it happens. If a midcarder or someone that's not all that valuable to the company gets injured, WWE isn't obligated to use them when they come back. And why should they be? If a wrestler is out for 6 months, who's to say that they will be needed when they're ready to come back? No, people would wrestle hurt for Vince because they were afraid of losing their spots. WWE has done guaranteed contracts for as long as I can remember with only a few exceptions. Meaning if you don't work, you don't get paid AS MUCH. The downside for a WWE contract is still enough for somebody to support their family. Granted, there have been times where they released somebody while they were injured, but it doesn't happen often. The last one I can think of is Test who was fired while out with a neck injury. And he showed back up in the company a few years later. Vince is no saint, but he's certainly a good employer. He takes care of his guys, that's for damn sure. How far back can you remember, because guaranteed contracts weren't given out until Hall and Nash made the jump. Vince even told Flair before his first wwf run that he doesn't give guaranteed contracts, but opportunities to make more than he was in wcw. Vince gives more downside contracts with incentives and most likely guarantees only the top stars. Obviously I can remember back that far, and I was watching for years before then. But I also didn't know anything about contracts and backstage stuff until around 1999. But regardless, they've done guaranteed contracts for like 16 years so I think the point stands. Sure, it's something that they changed to cover their own asses, but it's also something that benefits the performers. But back to the main point, how is it unfair to not pay a wrestler when they're hurt? Sure, the company should pay the medical bills, but beyond that they're just paying them for nothing. But the truth is that injured WWE stars still get paid, so I am failing to see the point. So what if that wasn't the case in 1987? It's the case now and has been for longer than some fans have been alive.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Sept 6, 2011 22:29:36 GMT -5
I think the main difference is that WWE is very much a corporate company. That can mean bad things, but it can also mean good things too. They will always do a sufficient amount to take care of wrestlers because if stories about them not paying medical bills or having wrestlers working at part time jobs get out, it makes them look bad. I like to think they would take care of wrestlers anyway, but essentially, they have an image to protect and sponsers to appease and that holds them accountable.
TNA on the other hand really benefit from how low profile they are. They have gotten away with things no other sport would try, simply because there isn't any bad press (or any type of press for them to get.) Seriously, TMZ are basically the only bad press they get.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Sept 7, 2011 12:31:11 GMT -5
I think the main difference is that WWE is very much a corporate company. That can mean bad things, but it can also mean good things too. They will always do a sufficient amount to take care of wrestlers because if stories about them not paying medical bills or having wrestlers working at part time jobs get out, it makes them look bad. I like to think they would take care of wrestlers anyway, but essentially, they have an image to protect and sponsers to appease and that holds them accountable. TNA on the other hand really benefit from how low profile they are. They have gotten away with things no other sport would try, simply because there isn't any bad press (or any type of press for them to get.) Seriously, TMZ are basically the only bad press they get. Well a lot of it boils down to WWE simply having the resources to pay their wrestlers well. I seem to remember a list of superstar's pay coming out a few years ago, and even the jobbers were making over 100K. IIRC that was just their downside, and didn't include merch sales and PPV bonuses. I also think they get portion of the gate revenues but I could be wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Sept 7, 2011 12:35:55 GMT -5
The problem with the "TNA have no money to pay people or cover medical bills" arguement is that they've spent a ton of money of celebrities and former WCW/WWE stars.
I'm sorry, if you can give Jonny Fairplay $350,000, you can pay for a wrestler to go to the hospital after a show. And if it's really case of you can't pay for both and have to pick one...well, it says a lot if acquiring the services of an Ex Survivor star is more important than the health and well-being of your wrestlers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Sept 7, 2011 12:44:07 GMT -5
The problem with the "TNA have no money to pay people or cover medical bills" arguement is that they've spent a ton of money of celebrities and former WCW/WWE stars. I'm sorry, if you can give Jonny Fairplay $350,000, you can pay for a wrestler to go to the hospital after a show. And if it's really case of you can't pay for both and have to pick one...well, it says a lot if acquiring the services of an Ex Survivor star is more important than the health and well-being of your wrestlers. Probably cause there was a reason most celebs were paid that amount, and it probably had nothing to do with TNA's willingness to pay them over talent and a special thing talent couldn't do, which was cross over appeal. Again, it's funny how you keep point out what they paid Johnny when the man was hired and released by TNA before anyone ever called one single woman a "Knockout". The pay scale back then was all over the place, unlike the more uniform one now. Hell, I'm sure Shane Douglas said he was getting that around that time, and he was just a backstage talent.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Sept 7, 2011 12:59:58 GMT -5
Hey, there are plenty more recent examples (Jersey Shore girls). Fairplay is just the most blatant one. I think Jenna was getting like $5000 per appearance.
And, yeah, you're still not explaining why it's okay to shell out thousands for celebs and duck medical coverage. It's not like the celebrities even got the ratings up, either. Jesery Shore girls did the lowest numbers of the show, I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:06:38 GMT -5
Hey, there are plenty more recent examples (Jersey Shore girls). Fairplay is just the most blatant one. I think Jenna was getting like $5000 per appearance. And, yeah, you're still not explaining why it's okay to shell out thousands for celebs and duck medical coverage. It's not like the celebrities even got the ratings up, either. Jesery Shore girls did the lowest numbers of the show, I think. To be fair, the ratings thing was partially because they were dumb enough to run it up against Jersey Shore itself. And it did at least get them a good bit of media coverage.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Sept 7, 2011 13:11:01 GMT -5
Hey, there are plenty more recent examples (Jersey Shore girls). Fairplay is just the most blatant one. I think Jenna was getting like $5000 per appearance. And, yeah, you're still not explaining why it's okay to shell out thousands for celebs and duck medical coverage. It's not like the celebrities even got the ratings up, either. Jesery Shore girls did the lowest numbers of the show, I think. To be fair, the ratings thing was partially because they were dumb enough to run it up against Jersey Shore itself. And it did at least get them a good bit of media coverage. If the coverage never amounted to anything, I'm not sure what it achieved. Look, I can just about buy the evil businessman arguement about getting more from paying celebrities than paying decent wages (although it's still awful) but TNA...don't even make money or benefit from all the cash they splash on stars. Seriously, if TNA had spent anything close to what they spent on Jenna or Jersey Shore people into keeping Gail or Kong around, not only would it have been better business I'm guessing the ratings would have been better too. They're running their business in the most unethical manner possible...and still not making any money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Sept 7, 2011 13:20:48 GMT -5
To be fair, the ratings thing was partially because they were dumb enough to run it up against Jersey Shore itself. And it did at least get them a good bit of media coverage. If the coverage never amounted to anything, I'm not sure what it achieved. Look, I can just about buy the evil businessman arguement about getting more from paying celebrities than paying decent wages (although it's still awful) but TNA...don't even make money or benefit from all the cash they splash on stars. Seriously, if TNA had spent anything close to what they spent on Jenna or Jersey Shore people into keeping Gail or Kong around, not only would it have been better business I'm guessing the ratings would have been better too. Why they can bring those guys in instead of increasing talent, besides talent having to ask for it and deserve it first, is that worse option, celebs are only around for a few appearances, two or three at most. Talent do a hell of a lot more dates and get paid more often. It's not that difficult to accept that an occasional cost would just cost on the short term, with a bit of hopeful long term gain. Talent, if done the exact same way, would cause a big drain on resources. Plus, celebs usually have managers and lawyers who deal with this kind of stuff all the time, unlike wrestlers.
|
|