|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Jan 12, 2022 2:50:41 GMT -5
Yeah I'm not pulling for MLW because Court is good, I'm pulling for them because if they can prove this, I want to see WWE punished for their consistent strongarming and attempts to kill off any other promotion in the crib. It's scuzzy and f***ed up and it hurts the industry.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 24,166
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jan 12, 2022 2:56:51 GMT -5
Is there any chance WWE will want to settle out of court because it may result in the exclusive "independent contractor" status in contacts being questioned?
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Jan 12, 2022 2:57:38 GMT -5
Is there any chance WWE will want to settle out of court because it may result in the exclusive "independent contractor" status in contacts being questioned? I doubt the independent contractor thing comes up, even if it gets to court.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Mario Mario on Jan 12, 2022 3:04:20 GMT -5
I mean considering all the talk about MLWs practices supporting for them is definitely going for a lesser of two evils thing ha
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Jan 12, 2022 4:31:38 GMT -5
The biggest issue is likely can MLW prove that Vince/WWE did something, and that's probably more difficult than you'd think. Most of what we know is hearsay, and not PROOF in the eyes of the law. That said I doubt this makes it to court, this reeks of if it looks like it's going give an out of court settlement. Yeah, neither side has a reason for it to get a settlement but that plainly doesn’t mean that isn’t the intention of the thing because a) WWE wouldn’t want anything like this to even slither out (see the stuff involving the Saudi TV deal from shareholders being settled every time) and b) MLW doesn’t want to risk looking bad in its accusations from WWE’s lawyers. Again, if this even reaches an inch of the courts, I’ll be shocked.
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,480
|
Post by dpg on Jan 12, 2022 4:41:48 GMT -5
This feels like a desperation move. I don't like WWE and their sharp practices, but MLW have done some sharp stuff of their own.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Jan 12, 2022 4:54:12 GMT -5
Who would have been in charge of/behind this original halt move on streaming? Vince presumably sanctioned it when it was brought to his attention but I can't imagine he would know anything about other wrestling companies' situations on streaming platforms. Is it a network move?
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Jan 12, 2022 6:46:25 GMT -5
Whether MLW or WWE are dicks or not doesn't really matter, because MLW has a case against WWE for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. If you go by the elements alone, MLW created possible deals with Tubi and Vice, MLW would have gotten exposure and money, WWE found out, they stopped both deals, Tubi was told not to stream MLW, Vice was told that Vince would be pissed off and they wouldn't work with them anymore, both deals were nixed, and MLW lost money. Tubi has no WWE content, yet something like 50 other wrestling related properties not WWE related. Peacock, not affiliated with Tubi (like Fox is), is the home of WWE streaming. So there is certainly enough there to request a trial. Why did WWE care about MLW, while so much other wrestling content is on Tubi? Not sure about how the Sherman Act is litigated, but it's a good a time as any to bring the case, especially in California. WWE has been violating anti-trust for decades, no one wanted to challenge them. Court decided to do it. It could become a class action in theory, with ROH and AEW joining and sharing their own damages from WWE, but neither would want to do that. Maybe Sinclair would. Funny enough, AEW's success most likely hurts MLW's anti-trust claim. But still, the forcing arenas to not book AEW or ROH, trying to hire Eddie Kingston, Will Hobbs, Ricky Starks right after they appeared on AEW TV, hiring half of ROH's roster, going back decades, it all could play into a claim. Also, I'm not sure why people think WWE will crush MLW financially through litigation. The Kansas City Firefighters' Pension Fund just won 39 million in a settlement with WWE over Saudi Arabia fraud and failures, so you can win if you have some merit to your case. And if they have proof of the WWE exec telling the Vice exec that Vince would be pissed so cancel the Vice agreement, well that seems to have some merit to it. Obviously the complaint was likely drafted competently so as to state a claim and not get dismissed right at jump, but they’re going to need some evidence of WWE actually “stopping” the deals or taking steps to stop the deals to get the case to trial (or to force a large settlement). I see questionable motivation for WWE trying to stop these deals when as you said Tubi already has other wrestling content. I also question how WWE would even have any sway over Vice when they don’t have a relationship with them - the complaint tries to paint Vice as needing WWE for its Dark Side of the Ring program but I don’t see how that would be accurate considering the shows typically paint the company in a negative light.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 12, 2022 7:48:23 GMT -5
The part I'd want to see evidence on is a 40% drop in sales, and what timeframe that lines up with.
Still, Court sucks, but WWE sucks, too, so insert Watanabe Godzilla 2014 meme here.
Just don't want this to end up with even fewer places for wrestlers to work after ROH's situation, so knock on wood in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Jan 12, 2022 7:53:58 GMT -5
A lot of firms will take on cases on contingency that aren’t slam dunks, with the business premise being that the few winners pay for the rest. I don’t know much about the particular firm or case here, though. Following up on this, Meltzer is saying he’s heard it’s been taken on contingency because the lawyer believes it’s a slam dunk. Did Meltzer actually say that verbatim? What’s the actual quote? That’s possibly one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. “Because the lawyer believes it’s a slam dunk.” That’s like saying “He bought all the stock on faith because The Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort, said the investment was a slam dunk.” It’s a f***ing lawyer, ffs.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 12, 2022 8:17:49 GMT -5
Court sucks, but this is about more than him. This is about WWE throwing their weight around to limit the growth of other promotions and that needs to stop.
|
|
|
Post by mistery on Jan 12, 2022 8:18:07 GMT -5
The part I'd want to see evidence on is a 40% drop in sales, and what timeframe that lines up with. Still, Court sucks, but WWE sucks, too, so insert Watanabe Godzilla 2014 meme here. Just don't want this to end up with even fewer places for wrestlers to work after ROH's situation, so knock on wood in that regard. I mean considering Court's reputation, especially when it comes to younger (career wise) talents, its little wonder no one wants to work with him. Stiffs talent on pay, and offers incredibly restricting contracts for insultingly low value. If Joey is to be believed, Court has signed several younger talents for two year deals...worth $150 PER MONTH. And those contracts have clauses where said talent can't work for any promotion Court disallows, with the clause that he can add promotions to that list at any time. So a lot of MLW's talent woes are self inflicted.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Jan 12, 2022 8:52:38 GMT -5
The WWE is full on corporate American business. AEW uses the forbidden door the WWE would like to set it on fire. That is what everyone seemingly fails to realize...That it isn't the territories or some wreck league game for the title of best wrestling company..WWE is SOOO much more than just a wrestling company now...It is a full blown billion dollar industry in and of itself. They are smashing numbers even if the product is lackluster as all hell. The constant need to fulfill some prophecy about being destroyed and a picture painted of this evil entity like it's still the same company it was in 98 is preposterous. Thread a few months old and I’m just now seeing it but yeah this Just because if I say it is a business doesn’t meant I’m condoning it that’s just the way shit is. As an accountant I see this shit all the time. Sorry if people don’t like it or don’t want to hear it but that’s really just how it is
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Jan 12, 2022 9:21:06 GMT -5
Following up on this, Meltzer is saying he’s heard it’s been taken on contingency because the lawyer believes it’s a slam dunk. Did Meltzer actually say that verbatim? What’s the actual quote? That’s possibly one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. “Because the lawyer believes it’s a slam dunk.” That’s like saying “He bought all the stock on faith because The Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort, said the investment was a slam dunk.” It’s a f***ing lawyer, ffs. Contingency means the lawyer is not being paid unless they win, so the lawyer would have no benefit if he didn’t think they could win. Here’s the quote replying to talk about the lawyer being Trump’s personal lawyer at one time: “ Word on the street when I heard about this months ago (the date would be when we wrote the note about MLW's announcement of a new partnership having fallen through which was the Tubi deal and allegedly it was due to Stephanie calling FOX) is taking it pro bono. Evidently believes the case is a slam dunk.“ He then clarified later that he meant contingency and not pro bono.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,975
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jan 12, 2022 9:23:24 GMT -5
The part I'd want to see evidence on is a 40% drop in sales, and what timeframe that lines up with. Still, Court sucks, but WWE sucks, too, so insert Watanabe Godzilla 2014 meme here. Just don't want this to end up with even fewer places for wrestlers to work after ROH's situation, so knock on wood in that regard. I mean considering Court's reputation, especially when it comes to younger (career wise) talents, its little wonder no one wants to work with him. Stiffs talent on pay, and offers incredibly restricting contracts for insultingly low value. If Joey is to be believed, Court has signed several younger talents for two year deals...worth $150 PER MONTH. And those contracts have clauses where said talent can't work for any promotion Court disallows, with the clause that he can add promotions to that list at any time. So a lot of MLW's talent woes are self inflicted. Right. There's a reason MLW catches guys on the way up or the way down. They're sort of a modern Memphis in that respect: you get an eclectic mix of talent, and people that other promotions wouldn't necessarily take a gamble on, but it's because they book on the cheap. Low-Ki, Teddy Hart, and Austin Aries screwed up their chances elsewhere, so they'd stomach the bad pay. Others, like Savio Vega and Tajiri, almost certainly don't really need the money and can stomach getting paid whatever. In Vega's case, it was also for cross-promotion reasons. Jacob Fatu probably has made decent money with MLW. Hammerstone might be doing okay. They're most likely the exception to the rule in the same way most Memphis guys weren't making anywhere near the kind of money Jackie Fargo, Lawler, and the Jarretts were making.
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 14,356
|
Post by salz4life on Jan 12, 2022 9:25:25 GMT -5
But also, synergy. Plus advanced analytics. Also... streaming entertainment vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Jan 12, 2022 9:25:43 GMT -5
Following up on this, Meltzer is saying he’s heard it’s been taken on contingency because the lawyer believes it’s a slam dunk. Did Meltzer actually say that verbatim? What’s the actual quote? That’s possibly one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. “Because the lawyer believes it’s a slam dunk.” That’s like saying “He bought all the stock on faith because The Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort, said the investment was a slam dunk.” It’s a f***ing lawyer, ffs. Yeah if this lawyer is working contingency then I have to think he is a fly by night shyster hoping for a quick settlement. Anyone competent would have done their research and seen that WWE has the resources to stretch this out for ages and cost them a massive amount of money with little promise of reward. And that is WWEs fallback strategy in most every case. Someone mentioned WWE settling that 39 million dollar suit related to Saudi Arabia. WWE settles when they have something to lose. In that case they did not want to disclose the terms of the Saudi deal so they settled rather than have it come out in a court case. They settled with Brock years ago as a court judgement could have possibly hurt or invalidated their independent contractor talent contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story on Jan 12, 2022 9:28:57 GMT -5
On one hand, I want to see WWE get nailed for things if they deserve it. However, think it's hard to sue on antitrust grounds at a point when WWE's got a legit competitor on TNT, there are dozens of other promotions with streaming deals, etc.
Also, if you actually read a lot of what MLW is alleging, it's mostly hearsay. If it goes to discovery, we'll see what happens. It's hard for me to want to root for Court Bauer over the WWE and it's a weird position to be in.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,975
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jan 12, 2022 9:31:43 GMT -5
Did Meltzer actually say that verbatim? What’s the actual quote? That’s possibly one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. “Because the lawyer believes it’s a slam dunk.” That’s like saying “He bought all the stock on faith because The Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort, said the investment was a slam dunk.” It’s a f***ing lawyer, ffs. Contingency means the lawyer is not being paid unless they win, so the lawyer would have no benefit if he didn’t think they could win. Here’s the quote replying to talk about the lawyer being Trump’s personal lawyer at one time: “ Word on the street when I heard about this months ago (the date would be when we wrote the note about MLW's announcement of a new partnership having fallen through which was the Tubi deal and allegedly it was due to Stephanie calling FOX) is taking it pro bono. Evidently believes the case is a slam dunk.“ He then clarified later that he meant contingency and not pro bono. Obviously, law isn't Meltzer's area of expertise, but this does make me wonder a bit. I would assume contingency would include getting paid if a settlement is reached. I don't think that MLW is necessarily seeking that, but if they are hurting from the pandemic, it'd probably be tempting to take a settlement and look at it as a favorable outcome, and for WWE, they've been avoiding court battle battles with their shareholders by paying out settlements. I imagine that even if they aren't trying to prepare to sell like many speculate, they still have had the stated goal of cutting down expenditures and increasing profit, and it just seems like it'd be a really stupid move to try to have a protracted court battle, especially if there was any chance of losing. Tort interference is difficult to prove, but this isn't like the feeble concussion lawsuits. I do think it's in their best interest to not roll the dice.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Jan 12, 2022 9:34:49 GMT -5
Contingency means the lawyer is not being paid unless they win, so the lawyer would have no benefit if he didn’t think they could win. Here’s the quote replying to talk about the lawyer being Trump’s personal lawyer at one time: “ Word on the street when I heard about this months ago (the date would be when we wrote the note about MLW's announcement of a new partnership having fallen through which was the Tubi deal and allegedly it was due to Stephanie calling FOX) is taking it pro bono. Evidently believes the case is a slam dunk.“ He then clarified later that he meant contingency and not pro bono. Obviously, law isn't Meltzer's area of expertise, but this does make me wonder a bit. I would assume contingency would include getting paid if a settlement is reached. I don't think that MLW is necessarily seeking that, but if they are hurting from the pandemic, it'd probably be tempting to take a settlement and look at it as a favorable outcome, and for WWE, they've been avoiding court battle battles with their shareholders by paying out settlements. I imagine that even if they aren't trying to prepare to sell like many speculate, they still have had the stated goal of cutting down expenditures and increasing profit, and it just seems like it'd be a really stupid move to try to have a protracted court battle, especially if there was any chance of losing. Tort interference is difficult to prove, but this isn't like the feeble concussion lawsuits. I do think it's in their best interest to not roll the dice. Yes, contingency usually means you get a percentage of any recovery (settlement or judgment), plus costs (filing fees, transcripts, expert fees, etc).
|
|