Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,933 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Oct 2, 2020 7:50:32 GMT -5
Vince gonna Vince. Even if it drives all his talent away.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819 
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Oct 2, 2020 8:09:46 GMT -5
Can someone explain the phrase "counting against the downside guarantee" please. I'm an idiot an don't know what words mean.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,933
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Oct 2, 2020 8:11:40 GMT -5
Can someone explain the phrase "counting against the downside guarantee" please. I'm an idiot an don't know what words mean. A talent's Downside is the amount that they'd still get paid even if they spent the whole year injured and unable to perform (and therefore unable to earn bonuses for Wrestlemania, or making extra if they did more dates than their contract specified, or didn't sell any merch at all). |
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Oct 2, 2020 8:29:46 GMT -5
Can someone explain the phrase "counting against the downside guarantee" please. I'm an idiot an don't know what words mean. A talent's Downside is the amount that they'd still get paid even if they spent the whole year injured and unable to perform (and therefore unable to earn bonuses for Wrestlemania, or making extra if they did more dates than their contract specified, or didn't sell any merch at all). Ah thank you. So what does "counting against" that mean? Like if they make 1000 dollars from twitch then that's not extra money and it's counted as part of the guarantee so WWE doesn't have to give them that 1000 from their own pockets? |
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Workin On My Night Cheese on Oct 2, 2020 8:33:51 GMT -5
A talent's Downside is the amount that they'd still get paid even if they spent the whole year injured and unable to perform (and therefore unable to earn bonuses for Wrestlemania, or making extra if they did more dates than their contract specified, or didn't sell any merch at all). Ah thank you. So what does "counting against" that mean? Like if they make 1000 dollars from twitch then that's not extra money and it's counted as part of the guarantee not 1000 dollars coming out of WWE's pockets? My understanding is this (let’s assume a talent makes literally nothing in this hypothetical): *Wrestler has $50,000 downside *They make, say, $10,000 from Twitch *WWE, instead of paying $50,000, only pay the talent $40,000 |
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 8:35:09 GMT -5
A talent's Downside is the amount that they'd still get paid even if they spent the whole year injured and unable to perform (and therefore unable to earn bonuses for Wrestlemania, or making extra if they did more dates than their contract specified, or didn't sell any merch at all). Ah thank you. So what does "counting against" that mean? Like if they make 1000 dollars from twitch then that's not extra money and it's counted as part of the guarantee as opposed to 1000 coming out of WWE's pockets? I believe so yes. They get paid for the shows they work throughout the year and usually make above their guarantee if they’re working a lot. For example, if a wrestler has a downside of $300,000 and works shows throughout the year that only pay out $200,000, WWE will then pay them $100,000 to reach that downside. Wrestlers that are not working enough to make their downside in just shows will end up getting screwed if it’s true that WWE will be paying them Twitch money toward the downside. Wrestlers that already make at or above their guarantee based on shows won’t be as affected (except if it’s true WWE will take a percentage). |
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 8:38:21 GMT -5
Oh guys but it was nothing except Cameo, nothing's wrong here, everyone just blew it out of proportion, this is about protecting trademarks. What a big deal everyone made over nothing because they want an excuse to hate this company. Have we seen it confirmed that they’re taking over accounts under their real names or just any with WWE-owned names? I’d assume they can’t “take over” an account used under their real name, unless the contracts they sign have some really far-reaching clauses (possible). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 8:53:23 GMT -5
So saw this pointed out that this completely goes against twitch TOS So in the eyes of Twitch, this villainizes the people who already have the accounts and not the WWE / outside party coming in and demanding/taking control of them. I mean, the people who don't agree with this will just delete their accounts in a couple weeks.........right? |
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Oct 2, 2020 9:09:16 GMT -5
I suspect talents have their lawyers going over their deals now because even ignoring the independent contractor lie, changing the terms of the deal to take money from other gigs is questionable as hell, especially at a time they're not fulfilling their side ofthe deal.
|
|
camphor #BLM
Don Corleone
It's Skull-Sorcerer vs Super Sorcerer in a legendary LEG BAT battle!
Posts: 1,448
|
Post by camphor #BLM on Oct 2, 2020 9:11:53 GMT -5
If they're using Twitch against their downside guarantee, that means they could basically be working for free. I would immediately stop my Twitch as a f*** you until I'm out of the company Yeah, that's what it sounds like to me, too. What the actual f***. Can someone explain the phrase "counting against the downside guarantee" please. I'm an idiot an don't know what words mean.  Finally, the "Might Makes Right Amusing Debate Squad", who always says, "well they didn't have to sign a contract and a deal's a deal and that's business LOLZ I'M SO SINIKAL." Here's your Business Avatar's current argument:  Now make a delightfully amusing argument about how this is good that the independent contractors' free time belongs to their employer independent contract supervisor owner. I'll even give you the logical next step to pretending you're not saying "might makes right": "UNTIL A COURT STOPS HIM, HE CAN LEGALLY CHANGE THE DEAL HOWEVER HE WANTS CUZ IT'S NOT ILLEGAL YET." |
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 9:16:25 GMT -5
I suspect talents have their lawyers going over their deals now because even ignoring the independent contractor lie, changing the terms of the deal to take money from other gigs is questionable as hell, especially at a time they're not fulfilling their side ofthe deal. Depends on the language of the contract. There may be a clause that covers them making money off their trademarked names on third-party platforms. |
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Oct 2, 2020 9:22:20 GMT -5
Oh guys but it was nothing except Cameo, nothing's wrong here, everyone just blew it out of proportion, this is about protecting trademarks. What a big deal everyone made over nothing because they want an excuse to hate this company. Have we seen it confirmed that they’re taking over accounts under their real names or just any with WWE-owned names? I’d assume they can’t “take over” an account used under their real name, unless the contracts they sign have some really far-reaching clauses (possible). I don't think anyone has a WWE-owned name on twitch anymore. They just got done stressing how people couldn't use WWE-owned names. This isn't about WWE-owned IP. |
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 9:53:14 GMT -5
Have we seen it confirmed that they’re taking over accounts under their real names or just any with WWE-owned names? I’d assume they can’t “take over” an account used under their real name, unless the contracts they sign have some really far-reaching clauses (possible). I don't think anyone has a WWE-owned name on twitch anymore. They just got done stressing how people couldn't use WWE-owned names. This isn't about WWE-owned IP. So then do we know that they are planning on “taking over” people’s real name Twitch accounts? Like Paige closed down her Paige Twitch and opened a Saraya one. I have trouble believing WWE is now going to take over her Saraya Twitch. And if they try to do that, I can’t imagine it lasts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 10:26:24 GMT -5
Vince said back in 2002 that he wanted to kill his own creation and we all thought it was a storyline.
|
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Oct 2, 2020 10:30:37 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has a WWE-owned name on twitch anymore. They just got done stressing how people couldn't use WWE-owned names. This isn't about WWE-owned IP. So then do we know that they are planning on “taking over” people’s real name Twitch accounts? Like Paige closed down her Paige Twitch and opened a Saraya one. I have trouble believing WWE is now going to take over her Saraya Twitch. And if they try to do that, I can’t imagine it lasts. What possible other meaning could this news story have if nobody is operating a twitch account with a WWE-owned name? Why would the news story be phrased this way at all if WWE was simply offering people an arrangement to use WWE-owned names, down to "talent were told this week that the company will be taking control of their Twitch accounts in four weeks" when nobody is using a WWE-owned name? You're bringing a lot of conjecture and elements into this that nobody covering this story is talking about, and nobody covering this is talking about them because they aren't really there. The reason we don't have the explicit confirmation this is about real life names that you asked about is because whatever name people are using is no longer the story. There is no lack of clarity or specification here because there don't look to be cases or reasons for this, this is a sweeping action. |
|
XIII
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 19,034
Member is Online
|
Post by XIII on Oct 2, 2020 10:33:11 GMT -5
Vince said back in 2002 that he wanted to kill his own creation and we all thought it was a storyline. He also cut a promo as a face about how the judicial system is designed for billionaires to drag cases out until the other party is broke and defeated. He definitely thinks that he’s untouchable. Luckily pride comes before the fall. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 10:41:47 GMT -5
Vince said back in 2002 that he wanted to kill his own creation and we all thought it was a storyline. He also cut a promo as a face about how the judicial system is designed for billionaires to drag cases out until the other party is broke and defeated. He definitely thinks that he’s untouchable. Luckily pride comes before the fall. Ugh. I remember that promo. Honestly, I think he is untouchable at this point. Maybe not his legacy, but I'm pretty sure Vince is going to die filthy rich and without having to answer for anything. Look at the scroll of shit he's gotten away with. Sometimes the bad guys win. |
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 10:55:45 GMT -5
So then do we know that they are planning on “taking over” people’s real name Twitch accounts? Like Paige closed down her Paige Twitch and opened a Saraya one. I have trouble believing WWE is now going to take over her Saraya Twitch. And if they try to do that, I can’t imagine it lasts. What possible other meaning could this news story have if nobody is operating a twitch account with a WWE-owned name? Why would the news story be phrased this way at all if WWE was simply offering people an arrangement to use WWE-owned names, down to "talent were told this week that the company will be taking control of their Twitch accounts in four weeks" when nobody is using a WWE-owned name? You're bringing a lot of conjecture and elements into this that nobody covering this story is talking about, and nobody covering this is talking about them because they aren't really there. The reason we don't have the explicit confirmation this is about real life names that you asked about is because whatever name people are using is no longer the story. There is no lack of clarity or specification here because there don't look to be cases or reasons for this, this is a sweeping action. If that’s the case, I doubt this lasts then. Doesn’t compute for me legally unless it is somehow covered in their contracts. |
|
"Magic" Mark Hurr
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Here, have some chili dogs
Now featuring half the brain that you do.
Posts: 16,754
|
Post by "Magic" Mark Hurr on Oct 2, 2020 11:02:38 GMT -5
This is such a nasty move. Crazy how they circled back around and made a bad thing worse. Like they really pulled a nasty dipshit move.
|
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Oct 2, 2020 11:49:27 GMT -5
|
|
