Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 13:07:41 GMT -5
I do not understand how it is cheaper to let the contract run down as opposed to release - isn't the amount they pay for early release just the value of the remaining contract anyway?
Unless Yoshi Tatsu had a shit hot lawyer who negotiated a release clause, then it's the same cost regardless.
|
|
Essential1
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Essential1 on Apr 20, 2014 13:44:00 GMT -5
Reminds me of how long Funaki stayed on the roster...
Then again I think they saw what happened to Val Venis's pee pee and thought twice about sacking him.
|
|
|
Post by Urfarkendarf on Apr 20, 2014 13:52:10 GMT -5
The days of "release days" are over. If there are mass "layoffs" that looks bad to investors, even if the talent they're releasing doesn't draw a dime or hasn't been on TV in a really long time. Now we see more expiring contracts and the occasional release rather than a bunch cut in one swoop. I think the last time that happened was when Mickie James was released, so its been a few years. I imagine the only way we see a bunch of guys gone at one time now is if there was an incident that caused mainstream attention (negative) that required it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Apr 20, 2014 13:53:37 GMT -5
This is one reason why I like Curt Hawkins' career path with the wrestling school. Something to fall back on.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 20, 2014 13:53:45 GMT -5
I do not understand how it is cheaper to let the contract run down as opposed to release - isn't the amount they pay for early release just the value of the remaining contract anyway? Unless Yoshi Tatsu had a shit hot lawyer who negotiated a release clause, then it's the same cost regardless. I don't think it's cheaper, I just think it's better for PR to not officially let people go, which as someone else said works better for political reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 13:54:49 GMT -5
I don't like that. Politics is fake.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Apr 20, 2014 19:44:51 GMT -5
I'm honestly Kind of glad they don't do it anymore. We took a perverse enjoyment in it that I never really enjoyed, and having a guy at least know he's got a job until a set date, while nerve-wracking, still gives them time to prepare. Better than watching the bottom fall out from you.
|
|
|
Post by The Trashman on Apr 20, 2014 19:48:29 GMT -5
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. Why would they want to give someone they have no plans for exposure when they could be using talents they plan on keeping?
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Apr 20, 2014 20:11:12 GMT -5
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. I agree with all those names you listed except for R-Truth, Santino & Swagger. I'd give R-Truth a final run as a heel, since in my opinion that was the best work of his WWE career back in 2011/2012 when he was a heel. Even though I'm not really a fan of Santino, I'd still keep him around since he does serve a purpose for comedy segments once in awhile. And I'd keep Swagger since I really think he's an underrated talent. He'll never be one of the top guys, but he's a solid hand to have in the mid-card/upper mid-card. The rest of them there's literally no use for them at all anymore. Khali can barely move anymore, it's sad seeing him try to walk these days. Hornswoggle has been around way too long & has served his purpose long ago. Alicia Fox has done nothing worth noting since debuting. Rosa just isn't cut out for wrestling. She can't wrestle & she's not even attractive anymore. I don't think I've seen JTG since sometime in 2012. Why hasn't he been released yet? Curt Hawkins is another one I haven't seen in about 2 years. No reason to keep him on the roster. Tatsu is barely used, and is already getting up there in age. He'd be better off going back to NJPW while he still can before he gets too old. Ryder has been a huge bust. I thought he was decent at one time, but was never a big fan. Might as well get rid of him.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,760
|
Post by cjh on Apr 20, 2014 20:20:56 GMT -5
I do not understand how it is cheaper to let the contract run down as opposed to release It isn't cheaper. Let's say JTG has 15 months left on his contract. If WWE releases him tomorrow, they'll have to pay him for 90 more days, but after that, they'll be done with him. If they just let his contract expire and don't use him ever again, then they'll be paying him to do nothing for the next 15 months. Not releasing talent and just letting contracts expire might make WWE look better image-wise, but it is money down the drain if said talent is barely/never used.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Apr 20, 2014 20:45:43 GMT -5
I do not understand how it is cheaper to let the contract run down as opposed to release It isn't cheaper. Let's say JTG has 15 months left on his contract. If WWE releases him tomorrow, they'll have to pay him for 90 more days, but after that, they'll be done with him. If they just let his contract expire and don't use him ever again, then they'll be paying him to do nothing for the next 15 months. Not releasing talent and just letting contracts expire might make WWE look better image-wise, but it is money down the drain if said talent is barely/never used. On the oooooottttthhhheeerrrr hand....you could also look at it as WWE biting the bullet, and enabling the workers they have no plans for to continue making money a little while longer, instead of dumping them out there to work whatever indies they could for $200 a show.
|
|
JCBaggee
Hank Scorpio
Writer, streamer. I used to write for CBR but then they fired everyone who cared about their writers
Posts: 6,791
|
Post by JCBaggee on Apr 21, 2014 10:24:00 GMT -5
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. Not really. Some fans still root for the jobbers. Look at the pops people like Zack Ryder or 3MB get. Putting them on TV not only gives them air time, during which they can get over, but it gives them the cred of being a "former WWE Superstar". The idea that a jobber is not marketable is a foolish one. If you want to devalue a wrestler, you keep them off TV and don't give them a chance to make a connection with the fans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 10:38:47 GMT -5
There's got to big a downside to not releasing people - mainly for those people.
They're basically having people sit at home for months, go unnoticed and forgotten by the audience, and then don't renew their contract.
At that point...........what appeal is there (to audiences) for a forgotten WWE superstar?
TNA and indies will sign people up, I'm sure, but that extra value is gone without people being released. WWE now controls the visibility of future ex-talent, and as a result other companies will really have to hit the reset button big time on a lot of ex-WWE talent. The days of profiting off of established-elsewhere stars are waning.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Apr 21, 2014 10:48:40 GMT -5
I'm honestly Kind of glad they don't do it anymore. We took a perverse enjoyment in it that I never really enjoyed, and having a guy at least know he's got a job until a set date, while nerve-wracking, still gives them time to prepare. Better than watching the bottom fall out from you. I'm glad there are no more weekly "When will WWE start firing wrestlers?" threads. It become less about wondering if someone about to lose their job and more chomping at the bits about another Black Friday bloodshed.
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Apr 21, 2014 13:00:21 GMT -5
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. This is why I didn't shed a tear for WWE when Punk left earlier this year.....it's kind of refreshing when a wrestler has made enough where they can treat a company as expendable as that same company often treats other wrestlers, who have little choice but to stay and take the money, but get booked into the ground/not book, thereby ruining their chances for a good deal from one of the competing companies. Punk pretty much said, "Y'know, I've made enough money to live comfortably on, I think I'm going to go home, heal up, and bang AJ Lee, rather than go through the motions through the rest of my contract (and most likely be Triple H's squashing boy at WM30), in order to not burn any bridges with the All Powerful WWE." It's nice when a wrestler actually is able to have the power to do that, rather than WWE having all the power for once. Besides, WWE still wins in the end.....they can continue to make money off of Punk, as they own a good portion of his career on video, so, other than having to change their plans last minute, they still made out the better in that whole deal.
|
|