Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 8:39:55 GMT -5
There's not a CHANCE that clause is in his contract.
Literally, I'm calling it right now. Not a goddamn chance. For one thing, because it's like unenforceable. It would put a company in a place where no matter what a talent is done they'd have to keep him and there's not a chance in hell that's true. There's no way that if he sues and Impact takes it to court there isn't a courtroom in the world that isn't going to take "We thought having some accused of sexual impropriety 14 times in our industry was too much of a safety risk to our wrestlers" as undue hardship.
It doesn't exist because it's too stupid on it's face to exist.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 19, 2020 8:43:21 GMT -5
There's not a CHANCE that clause is in his contract. Literally, I'm calling it right now. Not a goddamn chance. For one thing, because it's like unenforceable. It would put a company in a place where no matter what a talent is done they'd have to keep him and there's not a chance in hell that's true. There's no way that if he sues and Impact takes it to court there isn't a courtroom in the world that isn't going to take "We thought having some accused of sexual impropriety 14 times in our industry was too much of a safety risk to our wrestlers" as undue hardship. It doesn't exist because it's too stupid on it's face to exist. Exactly. No company in the entire world wants to respond to 14 accusations of inappropriate behavior with “Eh, well, not much we can do. None of those didn’t happen during his latest run here so we’re just going to let him keep working. It’s in the contract, you see”. That is the most easily preventable PR shitstorm for a company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 8:45:15 GMT -5
There's not a CHANCE that clause is in his contract. Literally, I'm calling it right now. Not a goddamn chance. For one thing, because it's like unenforceable. It would put a company in a place where no matter what a talent is done they'd have to keep him and there's not a chance in hell that's true. There's no way that if he sues and Impact takes it to court there isn't a courtroom in the world that isn't going to take "We thought having some accused of sexual impropriety 14 times in our industry was too much of a safety risk to our wrestlers" as undue hardship. It doesn't exist because it's too stupid on it's face to exist. Exactly. No company in the entire world wants to respond to 14 accusations of inappropriate behavior with “Eh, well, not much we can do. None of those didn’t happen during his latest run here so we’re just going to let him keep working. It’s in the contract, you see”. That is the most easily preventable PR shitstorm for a company. And, crucially, in my opinion: Any HR department worth its salt is going to KNOW that well ahead of time. Which is why I think that it wouldn't be in the contract to begin with. And even in the unlikely event it is there's no way it can be enforced.
|
|
|
Post by Chairman of the Board on Jul 19, 2020 8:55:05 GMT -5
What am I saying? That it is probable and/or possible Impact uses boiler plate language in many contracts? That wouldn’t be unique to Impact. The wording would be the worry. Hell, it being boiler plate seems like even worse to me because what they’re basically saying is “We don’t check or ask about the history of our talent so if anything happens, it has to affect us in here and now” which...come on, dude. Again you’re twisting facts to fit your personal narrative. I do not know much about Impact contracts but I do know some can be for <50k. I would speculate a clause like that is to protect “independent contractors” from being unjustly terminated It’s possible and in my option probable this isn’t language specific to Joey Ryan. What we do know is Impact felt it could legally terminate the deal. Therefore I would argue that the clause we are talking about is most likely a non-story. You can twist it into either Joey Ryan purposely protecting himself as a sexual predator and/or twist it into Impact harboring predators but in my opinion the truth to that clause could easily turn out to be mundane. You are entitled to your opinion but to me it is your opinion currently with ZERO factual basis.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 19, 2020 8:58:52 GMT -5
The wording would be the worry. Hell, it being boiler plate seems like even worse to me because what they’re basically saying is “We don’t check or ask about the history of our talent so if anything happens, it has to affect us in here and now” which...come on, dude. Again you’re twisting facts to fit your personal narrative. I do not know much about Impact contracts but I do know some can be for <50k. I would speculate a clause like that is to protect “independent contractors” from being unjustly terminated It’s possible and in my option probable this isn’t language specific to Joey Ryan. What we do know is Impact felt it could legally terminate the deal. Therefore I would argue that the clause we are talking about is most likely a non-story. You can twist it into either Joey Ryan purposely protecting himself as a sexual predator and/or twist it into Impact harboring predators but in my opinion the truth to that clause could easily turn out to be mundane. You are entitled to your opinion but to me it is your opinion currently with ZERO factual basis. What facts would you want from such a thing? I asked you whether you understood what implications such a thing would have and you seem to except you seem to think it’s boilerplate. As Phoenix said above, what company would allow something like that to happen? What reason would they want to go through a potential PR storm? And who in HR would agree to that since HR departments are more known to support companies than workers when the going gets tough? ESPECIALLY with independent contractors who don’t have the same workers rights as employees? What facts do you expect me to say? All we know is what Joey says and since I have no reason to believe him before, why should I give him the benefit of the doubt here?
|
|
|
Post by Chairman of the Board on Jul 19, 2020 9:10:31 GMT -5
Again you’re twisting facts to fit your personal narrative. I do not know much about Impact contracts but I do know some can be for <50k. I would speculate a clause like that is to protect “independent contractors” from being unjustly terminated It’s possible and in my option probable this isn’t language specific to Joey Ryan. What we do know is Impact felt it could legally terminate the deal. Therefore I would argue that the clause we are talking about is most likely a non-story. You can twist it into either Joey Ryan purposely protecting himself as a sexual predator and/or twist it into Impact harboring predators but in my opinion the truth to that clause could easily turn out to be mundane. You are entitled to your opinion but to me it is your opinion currently with ZERO factual basis. What facts would you want from such a thing? I asked you whether you understood what implications such a thing would have and you seem to except you seem to think it’s boilerplate. As Phoenix said above, what company would allow something like that to happen? What reason would they want to go through a potential PR storm? And who in HR would agree to that since HR departments are more known to support companies than workers when the going gets tough? ESPECIALLY with independent contractors who don’t have the same workers rights as employees? What facts do you expect me to say? All we know is what Joey says and since I have no reason to believe him before, why should I give him the benefit of the doubt here? I don’t expect anything from you. I’m saying it’s quite possible that the clause Joey Ryan referenced is in many contracts. I’m also saying that Impact did terminate him so it is probable they had other language imbedded to protect themselves. In my real life I have helped negotiate real labor contracts. I’ve literally testified in front of labor boards,. I’m trying to articulate that the clause could be much todo about nothing. It could be boiler plate language that is moot due to another contract clause. 2 people on a message board agreeing over pure speculation doesn’t make it fact. Again you are entitled to your opinion I’m just providing my opinion and trying to explain. You don’t have to agree with me but I feel my opinion could be valuable to people who want to hear well rounded thoughts on the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 9:22:35 GMT -5
I'm so interested in this conversation. I'm making a post on AskHR over on reddit about it to see if any of those folks have an opinion. I'll let you know when I know more.
|
|
|
Post by Chairman of the Board on Jul 19, 2020 9:39:52 GMT -5
I'm so interested in this conversation. I'm making a post on AskHR over on reddit about it to see if any of those folks have an opinion. I'll let you know when I know more. Prob a good idea. I mean it won’t prove Impacts case either way but hypothetically....with the little info we have (Joey Ryan mentioning the clause) this is what I would speculate... The contract had a clause very similar to what Joey Ryan described... The contract also had language protecting Impact from conduct detrimental to the company... So hypothetically this could be the end of the clause talk or we could see Ryan take Impact to court because he as he stressed several times in the video, no charges we ever files on any allegations, which could be a caveat to language like that. I also find myself curious as to his lawyer allowing him to speak on the matter unless both parties truly believe legally these allegations do not have merit. Again, I have no stake in his innocence or guilt. I’m saying legally putting out a video like this either means he’s a sociopath with a terrible lawyer or a person who believes he is innocent with a good lawyer. Only time will tell but I was taken back by how articulate and seemingly extensive the video was, almost as if his lawyer screened it before he released it, which is speculation on my part...
|
|
Facetious
King Koopa
ADAM COLE BAYBAY
Posts: 11,422
|
Post by Facetious on Jul 19, 2020 9:47:42 GMT -5
I'm sure Joey's video will bring him back into the wrestling world with open arms. Let's give a big round of applause for your new trainer at Team Vision Dojo, Joey Ryan!!!
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Jul 19, 2020 10:14:02 GMT -5
He might have something with the Impact termination and how they never contacted him to do an internal investigation and the contract thing.
And someone earlier mentioned him possibly opening up his own wrestling show; he had that. Bar Wrestling. He promptly closed it when the allegations started gaining steam.
|
|
|
Post by sdoyle7798 on Jul 19, 2020 11:34:44 GMT -5
What facts would you want from such a thing? I asked you whether you understood what implications such a thing would have and you seem to except you seem to think it’s boilerplate. As Phoenix said above, what company would allow something like that to happen? What reason would they want to go through a potential PR storm? And who in HR would agree to that since HR departments are more known to support companies than workers when the going gets tough? ESPECIALLY with independent contractors who don’t have the same workers rights as employees? What facts do you expect me to say? All we know is what Joey says and since I have no reason to believe him before, why should I give him the benefit of the doubt here? I don’t expect anything from you. I’m saying it’s quite possible that the clause Joey Ryan referenced is in many contracts. I’m also saying that Impact did terminate him so it is probable they had other language imbedded to protect themselves. In my real life I have helped negotiate real labor contracts. I’ve literally testified in front of labor boards,. I’m trying to articulate that the clause could be much todo about nothing. It could be boiler plate language that is moot due to another contract clause. 2 people on a message board agreeing over pure speculation doesn’t make it fact. Again you are entitled to your opinion I’m just providing my opinion and trying to explain. You don’t have to agree with me but I feel my opinion could be valuable to people who want to hear well rounded thoughts on the issue. If that clause is in many contracts, why are Elgin and David Crist gone?
|
|
Venti
Unicron
Posts: 2,945
|
Post by Venti on Jul 19, 2020 14:01:13 GMT -5
I haven't sat through the entire hour long video, but I have listened to the clips from it that were posted on Twitter. And the dude basically admits to several things that are still creepy and predatory, whether he realizes it or not.
|
|
|
Post by 111111 on Jul 19, 2020 14:05:27 GMT -5
I’ll save you all an hour: “My wife left me and now I’m using it as an excuse for being a skeeze bag”
|
|
Laces
Bubba Ho-Tep
Munkus(Thirst)Trap
...they'll reunite one day...
Posts: 575
|
Post by Laces on Jul 19, 2020 14:14:31 GMT -5
Imagine watching a predator whine for an hour about how his victims coming out is making his life so hard and actually feeling bad for him/believing him/deciding to question the victims.
Can't relate.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jul 19, 2020 14:22:42 GMT -5
Even with a pandemic shutting down everything and having so many opportunities for things to do cut off, I don't hate myself enough to watch an entire hour's worth of Joey Ryan trying to justify himself being a sleazebag.
|
|
El Pollo Guerrera
Grimlock
His name has chicken in it, and he is good at makin' .gifs, so that's cool.
Status: Runner
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by El Pollo Guerrera on Jul 19, 2020 14:22:55 GMT -5
I'm still unclear about this clause that's been mentioned. Is it possible that the clause says that Impact won't be held responsible for any of Ryan's actions before signing the contract and it's just being misinterpreted?
I guess we'll only know the answer when the contract is published or leaked.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Jul 19, 2020 17:02:41 GMT -5
Hi. HR professional by trade here. No company in any industry with an even halfway competent HR team would EVER include language in a contract that they can't fire someone for something they did before working for that company that isn't discovered until after the fact. Especially not something that's potentially a criminal matter. So either Impact has the most incompetent HR team on the planet of Joey is a bald-faced liar.
|
|
|
Post by mrpeacock on Jul 19, 2020 17:19:47 GMT -5
Hi. HR professional by trade here. No company in any industry with an even halfway competent HR team would EVER include language in a contract that they can't fire someone for something they did before working for that company that isn't discovered until after the fact. Especially not something that's potentially a criminal matter. So either Impact has the most incompetent HR team on the planet of Joey is a bald-faced liar. I mean.....I could believe either
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 232,683
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Jul 19, 2020 17:26:08 GMT -5
I wonder if Marty Scurill watched this and went "Y'know what? I'm just gonna stay quiet from now on."
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Jul 19, 2020 18:11:38 GMT -5
I wonder if Marty Scurill watched this and went "Y'know what? I'm just gonna stay quiet from now on." Guy probably thought that after his two attempts at apologies.
|
|