Is "We wish you the best in your future endeavours" done?

[Essential1]

What I mean is, will WWE release main rosters talent without there being a major incident? Is there some reason why they don't fire people like they used to?

It confuses me a great deal to know guys like R-Truth,Santino,Great Khali,Hornswoggle,Alicia Fox,Rosa Mendes,JTG,Jack Swagger,Curt Hawkins,Yoshi Tatsu and Zack Ryder.

The 2007/2008 breed that are either pretty much past their sell by date or just faded into obscurity but will still have a job most likely by next year unless their contract runs out.

[JCBaggee]

The general consensus is it has to do with Linda's various political campaigns promoting the company as a job creator, an image which isn't helped if you cut the bottom 10% once a year.

For now, it looks like they're allowing contracts to expire save for the most extreme cases (such as the recent release of Sin Cara Clasico). It's fine, I suppose. The spectacle and buzz around the "spring cleanings" was always exciting, but it's terrible to root for and take enjoyment out of people losing their jobs.

[EoE: Well There's Your Problem]

Yeah, they just wait for contracts to expire more often than not as opposed to just firing people.

[Reflecto]

Apr 20, 2014 1:01:18 GMT -5 JCBaggee said:

The general consensus is it has to do with Linda's various political campaigns promoting the company as a job creator, an image which isn't helped if you cut the bottom 10% once a year.

For now, it looks like they're allowing contracts to expire save for the most extreme cases (such as the recent release of Sin Cara Clasico). It's fine, I suppose. The spectacle and buzz around the "spring cleanings" was always exciting, but it's terrible to root for and take enjoyment out of people losing their jobs.

Even Sin Cara Clasico was allowed to- he was released- but they still let his deal expire. Apparently the consensus is more Hunter believing it's just better to let all contracts expire naturally instead of costly firings, which has its blessings (company looks better) and its curses (if WWE fires a wrestler, they have no-compete clauses- but if the wrestler's contract expires, they're free to sign with another company immediately.)

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 20, 2014 1:19:49 GMT -5 Reflecto said:

Apr 20, 2014 1:01:18 GMT -5 JCBaggee said:

The general consensus is it has to do with Linda's various political campaigns promoting the company as a job creator, an image which isn't helped if you cut the bottom 10% once a year.

For now, it looks like they're allowing contracts to expire save for the most extreme cases (such as the recent release of Sin Cara Clasico). It's fine, I suppose. The spectacle and buzz around the "spring cleanings" was always exciting, but it's terrible to root for and take enjoyment out of people losing their jobs.

Even Sin Cara Clasico was allowed to- he was released- but they still let his deal expire. Apparently the consensus is more Hunter believing it's just better to let all contracts expire naturally instead of costly firings, which has its blessings (company looks better) and its curses (if WWE fires a wrestler, they have no-compete clauses- but if the wrestler's contract expires, they're free to sign with another company immediately.)

They could at least use these people whose contracts are running out. That way they at least have some name value when they leave.

[JCBaggee]

Apr 20, 2014 1:29:45 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 20, 2014 1:19:49 GMT -5 Reflecto said:

Even Sin Cara Clasico was allowed to- he was released- but they still let his deal expire. Apparently the consensus is more Hunter believing it's just better to let all contracts expire naturally instead of costly firings, which has its blessings (company looks better) and its curses (if WWE fires a wrestler, they have no-compete clauses- but if the wrestler's contract expires, they're free to sign with another company immediately.)

They could at least use these people whose contracts are running out. That way they at least have some name value when they leave.

Not using them to deteriorate their name value would have the same effect as firing them and enacting the no compete clause.

[Reflecto]

Apr 20, 2014 1:33:27 GMT -5 JCBaggee said:

Apr 20, 2014 1:29:45 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

They could at least use these people whose contracts are running out. That way they at least have some name value when they leave.

Not using them to deteriorate their name value would have the same effect as firing them and enacting the no compete clause.

But jobbing them out would have an even better effect on deteriorating their name value then not using them.

[Mozenrath]

I don't think WWE overly cares about their name value when they leave. Even the most optimistic TNA fan realizes by now that no one player is going to make a major shift in ratings. Maybe someone like Cena or Punk would get a buzz going, but if getting Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy didn't have a lasting effect, when they still had some WWE buzz and got to use their own names, then I don't think JTG or someone like that is going to move the dial.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 20, 2014 1:42:23 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

I don't think WWE overly cares about their name value when they leave. Even the most optimistic TNA fan realizes by now that no one player is going to make a major shift in ratings. Maybe someone like Cena or Punk would get a buzz going, but if getting Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy didn't have a lasting effect, when they still had some WWE buzz and got to use their own names, then I don't think JTG or someone like that is going to move the dial.

Which is why WWE should just back up off of the name thing, to let these guys use their real names or whatever names they're most known under. If JTG ever got released, but couldn't be JTG in TNA or on the indy scene, he effectively has to start his career over from scratch.

He wouldn't have that thing that makes him marketable to indy promoters or allows him to command a higher price than whatever they're paying their own talent.

[Mozenrath]

Apr 20, 2014 1:46:43 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 20, 2014 1:42:23 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

I don't think WWE overly cares about their name value when they leave. Even the most optimistic TNA fan realizes by now that no one player is going to make a major shift in ratings. Maybe someone like Cena or Punk would get a buzz going, but if getting Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy didn't have a lasting effect, when they still had some WWE buzz and got to use their own names, then I don't think JTG or someone like that is going to move the dial.

Which is why WWE should just back up off of the name thing, to let these guys use their real names or whatever names they're most known under. If JTG ever got released, but couldn't be JTG in TNA or on the indy scene, he effectively has to start his career over from scratch.

He wouldn't have that thing that makes him marketable to indy promoters or allows him to command a higher price than whatever they're paying their own talent.

He could just do what the Outlaws did, and just use his gimmick anyway if it's a small enough show for WWE to look the other way.

Kidding aside, he would probably just go back to wearing the Cryme Tyme stuff and maybe try to hook back up with Shad, so while he couldn't be called JTG, likely, he would probably still manage, and probably even better than if he wore his most recent jobber gear.

[xxshoyuweeniexx]

Apr 20, 2014 1:46:43 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 20, 2014 1:42:23 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

I don't think WWE overly cares about their name value when they leave. Even the most optimistic TNA fan realizes by now that no one player is going to make a major shift in ratings. Maybe someone like Cena or Punk would get a buzz going, but if getting Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy didn't have a lasting effect, when they still had some WWE buzz and got to use their own names, then I don't think JTG or someone like that is going to move the dial.

Which is why WWE should just back up off of the name thing, to let these guys use their real names or whatever names they're most known under. If JTG ever got released, but couldn't be JTG in TNA or on the indy scene, he effectively has to start his career over from scratch.

He wouldn't have that thing that makes him marketable to indy promoters or allows him to command a higher price than whatever they're paying their own talent.

Some guys take the initiatve to copyright their own ring name and I'm assuming their gimmick just in case they're let go or decide to leave the company so they can still use it somewhere else. MVP did, back in the day Macho, Hogan, Raven, Jericho,and some other WWF to WCW or WCW to WWE guys did the same. And I think Punk can still be called CM Punk if he wanted to wrestle in the indies.

[Joe Neglia]

Apr 20, 2014 1:46:43 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Which is why WWE should just back up off of the name thing, to let these guys use their real names or whatever names they're most known under. If JTG ever got released, but couldn't be JTG in TNA or on the indy scene, he effectively has to start his career over from scratch.

He wouldn't have that thing that makes him marketable to indy promoters or allows him to command a higher price than whatever they're paying their own talent.

But see, that's exactly why they do it. These are characters they groomed and created, they own the rights to those characters; why let your competition reap those benefits? That's just good business sense, whether its from a small mom-n-pop company or a huge machine like WWE. And to be fair, they're fairly relaxed in it in certain ways. To my knowledge, they still have no problem with former employees using WWE-owned gimmicks and names on the indy circuit; they just don't allow it for anything that is televised or recorded for distribution.

Apr 20, 2014 1:59:29 GMT -5 xxshoyuweeniexx said:

Some guys take the initiatve to copyright their own ring name and I'm assuming their gimmick just in case they're let go or decide to leave the company so they can still use it somewhere else. MVP did, back in the day Macho, Hogan, Raven, Jericho,and some other WWF to WCW or WCW to WWE guys did the same. And I think Punk can still be called CM Punk if he wanted to wrestle in the indies.

Punk was actually the very last guy who was allowed to come in under a name he owned (Sting, when and if he ever shows up beyond interviews, will be the sole exception since). The whole thing with trademarking their names was never really a "thing"; it was just implied a wrestler owned his gimmick, regardless of who came up with it and where he used it first. Dutch Mantell gave Steve Austin his name, but Austin owns it and took it with him after he left that promotion. Hulk Hogan and Bruiser Brody were both creations of the WWWF, but they kept the gimmicks. Etc., etc. Then McMahon changed the game when he brought Ed Leslie in and gave him the first name and gimmick fully owned by the WWF: Brutus Beefcake. As the WWF slowly started phasing in these wholly-owned creations, mixed in the Akeems and Bossmans and Beverly Brothers, Turner arrived and started the same practice (Crockett had previously laid claim to a few original gimmicks, but didn't accomplish much in that regard).

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 20, 2014 3:27:04 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

Apr 20, 2014 1:46:43 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Which is why WWE should just back up off of the name thing, to let these guys use their real names or whatever names they're most known under. If JTG ever got released, but couldn't be JTG in TNA or on the indy scene, he effectively has to start his career over from scratch.

He wouldn't have that thing that makes him marketable to indy promoters or allows him to command a higher price than whatever they're paying their own talent.

But see, that's exactly why they do it. These are characters they groomed and created, they own the rights to those characters; why let your competition reap those benefits? That's just good business sense, whether its from a small mom-n-pop company or a huge machine like WWE. And to be fair, they're fairly relaxed in it in certain ways. To my knowledge, they still have no problem with former employees using WWE-owned gimmicks and names on the indy circuit; they just don't allow it for anything that is televised or recorded for distribution.

That still hurts the wrestlers. What incentive would an Indy promoter have to book one of those former WWE talents if his match couldn't be aired on television, or put on a DVD/iPPV? WWE's restrictions would mean these companies would be paying a higher price for a talent with little return on their investment. The wrestlers have to make the difficult choice of either giving up their identity (if they wanted to sign with TNA or another promotion with a TV deal) or give up any chances of being relevant again, which I don't think is fair.

[Mozenrath]

Apr 20, 2014 3:39:36 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 20, 2014 3:27:04 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

But see, that's exactly why they do it. These are characters they groomed and created, they own the rights to those characters; why let your competition reap those benefits? That's just good business sense, whether its from a small mom-n-pop company or a huge machine like WWE. And to be fair, they're fairly relaxed in it in certain ways. To my knowledge, they still have no problem with former employees using WWE-owned gimmicks and names on the indy circuit; they just don't allow it for anything that is televised or recorded for distribution.

That still hurts the wrestlers. What incentive would an Indy promoter have to book one of those former WWE talents if his match couldn't be aired on television, or put on a DVD/iPPV? WWE's restrictions would mean these companies would be paying a higher price for a talent with little return on their investment. The wrestlers have to make the difficult choice of either giving up their identity (if they wanted to sign with TNA or another promotion with a TV deal) or give up any chances of being relevant again, which I don't think is fair.

The vast majority of indie promotions don't have TV deals ans many don't have DVD sales. They don't really need it to justify paying most of these guys.

Say Carlito or Shelton Benjamin was coming in. You might have to pay them, let's say 1500 for an easy number, compared to a couple hundred for one of your regulars. Depending on the nature of the deal, it'd be a one off or a few shows, and you will see a bigger gate, usually, and plenty to make up the difference. Plus, you usually count on a lot of these guys to promote their appearance as well as you doing it, and you get extra eyes and ears right there.

It is still well worth it if you don't overpay or fly someone in unnecessarily or something, because name recognition or face recognition matters a lot in getting someone to check out a promotion for the first time sometimes, and makes it look less fly-by-night. Then, once you get the fan to check you out a few times, you either hope he likes what he sees and stays, or that your promotion is just a seasonal, etc, thing, and the one weekend you have a lot of these guys in is plenty.

You're worrying entirely too much about it, as far as most of these guys go. They either manage, or are the kinds of guys who just retire if WWE lets them go, anyway.

[Joe Neglia]

Apr 20, 2014 3:39:36 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 20, 2014 3:27:04 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

But see, that's exactly why they do it. These are characters they groomed and created, they own the rights to those characters; why let your competition reap those benefits? That's just good business sense, whether its from a small mom-n-pop company or a huge machine like WWE. And to be fair, they're fairly relaxed in it in certain ways. To my knowledge, they still have no problem with former employees using WWE-owned gimmicks and names on the indy circuit; they just don't allow it for anything that is televised or recorded for distribution.

That still hurts the wrestlers. What incentive would an Indy promoter have to book one of those former WWE talents if his match couldn't be aired on television, or put on a DVD/iPPV? WWE's restrictions would mean these companies would be paying a higher price for a talent with little return on their investment. The wrestlers have to make the difficult choice of either giving up their identity (if they wanted to sign with TNA or another promotion with a TV deal) or give up any chances of being relevant again, which I don't think is fair.

These are grown men and women who know exactly what they're getting into when they sign their terms. If they were to allow that, what's to keep a Ted Turner-type from calling up Daniel Bryan, Sheamus, Kane and the entire Shield and saying "Hey guys, we can pay you quadruple what you're making, guaranteed contracts if you show up on our show." - it's not fair or unfair, it's just business.

[kidglov3s]

Apr 20, 2014 3:58:24 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

f they were to allow that, what's to keep a Ted Turner-type from calling up Daniel Bryan, Sheamus, Kane and the entire Shield and saying "Hey guys, we can pay you quadruple what you're making, guaranteed contracts if you show up on our show." - it's not fair or unfair, it's just business.

Are they going to be around when that check clears?

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2014 1:29:45 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 20, 2014 1:19:49 GMT -5 Reflecto said:

Even Sin Cara Clasico was allowed to- he was released- but they still let his deal expire. Apparently the consensus is more Hunter believing it's just better to let all contracts expire naturally instead of costly firings, which has its blessings (company looks better) and its curses (if WWE fires a wrestler, they have no-compete clauses- but if the wrestler's contract expires, they're free to sign with another company immediately.)

They could at least use these people whose contracts are running out. That way they at least have some name value when they leave.

If they don't use them they don't have to pay them as much either as well as the name value issues.


I think they get a percentage of the gate/ ppv buy for each show with there being a guaranteed downside that they get no matter what.


If you don't book someone you only have to pay the downside and nothing over it.

[Deleted]

"Future endeavors" is done, now it's a blurb on .com that says "The WWE has come to terms with _______ on his release. f*** off, you wanker!"

[Sephiroth]

I think NXT has had some effect on this too. Now they have someplace they can send people they are not using much for RAW or Smackdown.

[Joe Neglia]

Apr 20, 2014 11:12:01 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

Apr 20, 2014 3:58:24 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

f they were to allow that, what's to keep a Ted Turner-type from calling up Daniel Bryan, Sheamus, Kane and the entire Shield and saying "Hey guys, we can pay you quadruple what you're making, guaranteed contracts if you show up on our show." - it's not fair or unfair, it's just business.

Are they going to be around when that check clears?

Whole reason and entire point I said "Ted Turner-type" - someone who DOES have the kind of money. Turner, Cuban, Richard Branson or Disney even, those kind.