67 more
King Koopa
He's just a Sexy Kurt
Posts: 11,503
|
Post by 67 more on Jan 1, 2015 3:09:26 GMT -5
WWE recently made changes to their performers contracts following the departures of Alberto del Rio and CM Punk over the past year. The contracts now state that if a talent is fired for disciplinary reasons by the WWE that they forfeit all of their merchandise rights and are not allowed to work in professional wrestling or MMA for one year. www.wrestling-news.net/changes-made-to-wwe-contracts/58828/If true, that's pretty f***ing petty.
|
|
Heartbreaker
King Koopa
Is actually Bindi Irwin
RIP Punk's media scrum, Page 54, Muffins, Biting People Bad™ (2022 - 2022)
Posts: 11,846
|
Post by Heartbreaker on Jan 1, 2015 3:10:55 GMT -5
Our first shitstorm of 2015, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Defrebel - White Pony on Jan 1, 2015 3:12:54 GMT -5
The Wellness gods are angry.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2015 3:14:29 GMT -5
It'll never hold up.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2015 3:15:40 GMT -5
|
|
Lupin the Third
Patti Mayonnaise
I'm sorry.....I love you. *boot to the head*--3rd most culpable in the jixing of NXT, D'oh!
Join the Dark Order....
Posts: 36,319
|
Post by Lupin the Third on Jan 1, 2015 3:20:39 GMT -5
I would just need to make sure I have a Jewish lawyer that ends the phone call with, "Great. Let's get these mother f***ers."
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,578
|
Post by cjh on Jan 1, 2015 3:25:58 GMT -5
That's not a change. It's exactly they tried to do, unsuccessfully, with Punk and Del Rio. Exactly. This is completely different from the regular WWE no-compete clause where you basically still work for the company for another 90 days and continue to get regular paychecks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 3:29:16 GMT -5
If true, that won't last long given they already quickly bargained out of it with both Punk and Alberto.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jan 1, 2015 3:29:39 GMT -5
It's like everyone's expecting every release to be "disciplinary" from now on so they can withhold merch royalties, keep them from making money for a year and basically kill careers.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Jan 1, 2015 3:30:08 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be a change to existing contracts (somehow?), or is this policy for all future contracts going forward?
Either wait, if this is true, never will hold up.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Jan 1, 2015 3:32:33 GMT -5
No way that this can be true.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,907
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Jan 1, 2015 3:51:28 GMT -5
Looks like they're gambling on guys not bothering to hire a lawyer. Lionel Hutz could get this tossed. They can't withhold money owed, especially if you don't violate your contract.
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Jan 1, 2015 3:54:01 GMT -5
It seems like there has been increasing threats of legal action with the past couple of terminations involving Punk and Del Rio. This only seems to increase the chances that WWE's contract practices are taken down at some point in the future rather than solving the issue at hand.
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Jan 1, 2015 3:59:52 GMT -5
Our first NeWZ of 2015?
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 1, 2015 4:02:56 GMT -5
Man this company is laughable. They already tried this twice, and both times a judge ruled against them. What makes them think they'll ever have luck with this?
Also, somewhat unrelated, but I think releasing Del Rio for "disciplinary" reasons is still bogus as all hell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 4:42:47 GMT -5
WWE thinks they can just throw whatever they want into a contract and as long as it's in the contract, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
"If we fire you, we get to come over to your house and kick your kids in the face."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 4:53:44 GMT -5
I think that some people don't seem to realize that the standard 90 day "No Compete" is actually just a "We're going to release you in 90 days".
I would assume that WWE has zero legal ability to enforce an actual "non-compete" clause that prevents someone from having gainful employment.
|
|
|
Post by ZombieElvis on Jan 1, 2015 5:01:59 GMT -5
With stuff like this in the contracts shouldn't the whole "independent contractors" thing go away?
If this is true it sounds like WWE wants to take everything in their contacts and in about 5-10 years the newz will be that wrestlers have to sign over their first born. That way WWE can start training future talent while they are still in diapers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 6:11:44 GMT -5
How can WWE add this to existing contracts without talent needing to sign new ones or at least amendments? They could just add we reserve right to never pay if you turn up to work with a nose on your face. I would refuse that deal.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 1, 2015 6:21:43 GMT -5
They're 0 for 3 in their attempts to make punitive non compete clauses stick so they stand no chance of making this work. The more they try to punish their talent, the more likely they are to be faced with a suit that could unravel their shady 'independant contractors' deal.
|
|