Skip to main content

BoD Daily Update

WWE.com Smackdown Preview

http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/2015-1-2/smackdown-five-point-preview-jan-2-2015-26969941



WWE Including New Clause in Performer Contracts

Due to the situations with CM Punk and Alberto Del Rio, the WWE has included a clause in performer contracts that if they are fired for disciplinary reasons that they forfeit all merchandise rights and cannot work in pro wrestling or MMA for one year.

Credit Dave Meltzer, Wrestling Observer Newsletter



Update on the Bunny/Adam Rose Storyline

While the Bunny has been off of TV recently he will return to continue the storyline with Rose soon.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0101/588143/wwe-hall-of-famer-endorses-seth-rollins/



TNA Performer Re-Signs with the Company

Per John Gaburik, Ethan Carter III has signed a new deal with the company.

http://pwinsider.com/article/90506/another-tna-star-signs-new-deal.html?p=1




And don't forget to vote in the 2nd Round of Place to be Nation's "Greatest Song of the 90's" Tournament. Click on the links below to vote for up to four songs in each bracket:

http://placetobenation.com/greatest-song-of-the-90s-tournament-pool-round-two-group-o/

http://placetobenation.com/greatest-song-of-the-90s-tournament-pool-round-two-group-p/



Also, you can also vote in this week's shoot interview poll if you haven't already. Its been a tight race so make a selection by clicking on the link below:

http://vote.pollcode.com/13144536

Comments

  1. Wow. That contract clause definitely falls under the "We're the only game in town, so you'll sign this and like it" mode of thinking.


    Probably won't cost the E much in terms of talent, but it's a spiteful and dickish thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just like with Punk, if the performer hires an attorney, those clauses won't stick. Until they start calling them "employees" and give them health benefits, no court in the country is going to stop an independent contractor from making money elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, look at that. Daily update up early. Way to go, sir.

    BAY-LESS! BAY-LESS! BAY-LESS!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't cheer him too much. He'll get a big head and think he deserves two houses or something.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Ghost Of Meekin's MoobsJanuary 2, 2015 at 7:14 AM

    Given that any performer can be fired for any arbitrary reason, what's to stop WWE falling behind with merchandise payments for a couple of months and then firing a talent?

    ReplyDelete
  6. and a dog that is not plagued by misfortune.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I feel like any competent lawyer would have a field day tearing apart a WWE contract.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MikeyMike, JuggernautJanuary 2, 2015 at 7:16 AM

    That is absolutely ridiculous that they can't work for another company for another year.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sorry; clearly, you are not familiar with the operations of the wrestling business. Wrestlers are lucky they're not required by contract to blow creative.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ditto everyone else. That clause sounds like complete bullshit. They refuse to call themselves wrestling unless it serves the purpose of fucking someone over

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd like to think this is true and I'm no expert on the law or anything but once a contract is signed after the terms (no matter how unfair) have been made abundantly clear, isn't that contract binding no matter what?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good for TNA. EC3 is exactly the kind of young non-WWE guy they should lock up. (I know he was on NXT, but that's like thinking of Triple H as a WCW guy).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pretty much all of this. I had the same thought as you and Mr. Indeed when I read the update.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not sure Del Rio is thrown in there. There isn't a single person on the face of the earth who is buying tickets to see Alberto Del Rio.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It could still be challenged in court.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What dave said.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So if a wrestler has no skills other than wrestling WWE can prevent them from earning a living for a whole year? That's bullshit and unenforceable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's exactly the point and it's why it would likely get thrown out if challenged in court. You can't say someone is an at-will employee then turn around and tell them they can't work if they are fired. It's the most laughably stupid clause I've ever heard.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Mr. Indeed"


    I could get used to this.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not if said terms are illegal in some manner. And as DD said, if someone's willing to challenge it in court. Which carries its own set of issues. (Jurisdiction, Lawyer's fees, Future employment, etc...)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually, you can. If a company asks you to sign a non-compete agreement while you're living in a right-to-work state, that's pretty much what they're doing.


    I think it's horrible, and it shows an unbelievable pettiness on the part of WWE, but companies are constantly getting away with shit like that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That clause is iilegal as Hell and would never stand up in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
  23. an illegal contract or illegal contract terms are still illegal even if someone is stupid enough to sign it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's shit like those contract clauses that make me feel like actively rooting against WWE. It's difficult to stay a fan when you know of their disgusting practices.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I love how Punk is mentioned as leaving for "disciplinary" reasons. Now I know Punk continues to insist he was fired and didn't quit, but this opens up a huge can of worms. WWE can demand someone work with an injury and when they don't, fire them for "disciplinary" problems, refusing to pay money owed.


    Beyond that, I've never heard of any company or business where you can forfeit money owed by being fired. You work for Target for two hours, get caught stealing while fucking a customer in the toy aisle, they still have to hand you two hours of pay on the way out the door. In no way can you take away money already earned. This clause is so ludicrous it makes me wonder how truthful the report is. Even WWE and McDevitt can't be stupid enough to try and enforce this one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No. A contract considered to be illegal is not binding, and pretty much anything can be challenged. It's part of why we have a legal system.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, I didn't say Matt because you both have the same first name. I was going to say "that idiot," but I didn't think that was specific enough.


    heh.

    ReplyDelete
  28. non-compete clauses are a thing. However WWE has three issues. First, they call them independent contractors. You can't put a non-compete on a contracted employee. Second, MMA isn't wrestling. Doubt that would stand up as a valid non-compete since it is a different industry. Third, regardless of the non-compete issue there is no way that you can withhold money already earned for any reason. Doesn't matter if the wrestler fucked LInda McMahon while Stephanie watched. All employment law says that if you earned it, you get it, regardless of exit circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cena vs Orton,one more timeJanuary 2, 2015 at 7:43 AM

    There has to be some sort of dressing room revolt over this,there just absolutely has to.The talent cannot take this lying down.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Even WWE and McDevitt can't be stupid enough to try and enforce this one."



    HAHAHA! Wait... you're serious, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I would think they MIGHT have a shot on merchandise, especially if it's something like Punk's case where there was 6 months between him leaving and the "official" end of the contract. But they're lawyer's as competent as their doctor if they think the non-compete will hold up.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's worse than that, they won't even call them at will employees. They pretend that they're independent contractors, even though they meet none of the 20 plus guidelines the IRS has set up to legally define what an independent contractor is.


    But I guess if they're to scared to unionize, they'll get whatever the WWE sees fit to give them

    ReplyDelete
  33. I am. I know Vince and WWE think they are above the law (and why not, they have been allowed to get away with the Independent contractor thing for years) but there is no business in this country that is allowed to not pay money owed, no matter whether the person engaged in criminal activity on the way out or not. Yes you may be required to pay restitution, but beyond that, if you work, you get paid no matter the circumstances of the exit. That is such a basic legal principle that I find it ludicrous that WWE would try to enforce it, or even try to scare employees.

    ReplyDelete
  34. They'll try. They'll fail. They'll pay everybody's costs. They're idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No chance in hell. That locker room is fucking WHIPPED, otherwise Punk would have had friends walking out the door with him, Cesaro would have asked for his release either the night of or the next morning after the McMahon podcast, and WWE would be in the courtroom constantly, seeing their "standard contract" ripped to shreds one lawsuit at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I thought WWE and UFC weren't competitors, that was always Vince's line as WWE got killed every month on PPV. How they feel they can enforce people not being able to work in other businesses is beyond me. That they would introduce such a clause at a time when there aren't any other serious wrestling organizations in the US says a lot. They're just a nasty corporation.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Do wrestlers even have agents? I don't mean guys working for the company, real agents like other sports figures have?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Was just listening to Jericho podcast previewing the Bischoff/Prichard debate thing they're doing in Philly this month.


    There was something interesting they dropped in it that I wonder about. Bischoff said Randy Savage brought his Slim Jim deal and the entire sponsorship to WCW when he left the WWF and that it was so lucrative of a deal that it basically paid for Savage himself. Prichard basically said Savage more or less stole it from the WWF. He said they had negotiated it for Randy, that they had set it up for him with their legal people and more or less made it sound like this was supposed to be a crown jewel sponsor for company.


    So putting things together, if I recall correctly, Savage pretty much left with no notice after promising Vince that he wouldn't and Vince grooming him to be one of his chief backstage hands.


    So is the blackballing of Savage basically:
    1) Savage told Vince one thing and did another
    2) Vince felt burned by having trusted Savage more than he's trusted most wrestlers.
    3) Savage, at least in Vince's opinion, stole the Slim Jim deal which cost Vince a hefty hefty sum of money.


    That seems to make more sense than the statutory rape story which no one will corroborate. Vince will forgive a lot of things but intentionally screwing him over while simultaneously taking money out of his pocket is a bridge too far.


    And really the only other guy who did exactly that to him was Jeff Jarrett, and Jarrett is dead to the company as well.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just hit me that I (and some others) may be reading "merchandise rights" incorrectly. What makes more sense is that WWE can sell leftover Punk merchandise or Del Rio merchandise AFTER they were fired, and then not pay them for that merchandise. However up to that point, any money on merchandise would have to be paid. That would make more sense and the term "merchandise rights" makes me think that I was being too simplistic in thinking that it was all moneys owed on merchandise. That said, the issue wth Punk is that he has his own name.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "That idiot, Mr. Indeed."


    I still like it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Cena vs Orton,one more timeJanuary 2, 2015 at 7:52 AM

    Surely there has to be a boiling point,I mean how much more of this shit can they take?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm sure I remember Bam Bam Bigelow in some Slim Jim commercials sometime in 1995, how did that come about?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Savage didn't steal it. Savage nurtured that deal by showing up at events like Nascar. The slim jim guys LOVED Randy. Vince and the WWE didn't nurture the deal according to sources. Savage cultivated it and made it his own. Without Savage, by that point there would have been no Slim Jim Deal.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's probably as close to the truth as anyone will get, barring Zombie Randy Savage coming out of the grave to do a shoot that consists of more than just him saying "BRAINS!"


    Although Jarrett isn't as dead as he used to be, I do remember Vince sending his condolences when Jeff's first wife died.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'm not saying I think he stole, I'm just saying that may be Vince's/the WWE perspective on it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yeah, I don't remember. I believe Bischoff said Randy coming costed them the sponsorship, but I don't know if there was overlap, or a time frame, or maybe the Bigelow ones are from before Randy left.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The MMA thing is the weirdest bit to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if anyone brought this to court, wouldn't the WWE have to prove that the UFC or whatever is direct competition to the WWE?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well there might have been an agreement that WWE could use his name when it comes to merchandise, and that could still be in effect after his departure I suppose. I just don't think they can create new stuff with his name.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Crikey Mate Down Under AussieJanuary 2, 2015 at 7:54 AM

    I live in one of the most isolated places in the world, a tiny pocket of civilisation in the bottom corner of Australia, cut off from everywhere else by ocean and desert. The local indy fed are holding a show that is a five minute walk from my house that is advertising Del Rio as the headline act. There is a very slim chance I will make the walk down the road to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  50. IF a wrestler ever brought it to court, and got to judgement, that would merely be one of multiple reasons it got thrown out. And a minor one, at that.


    (IANAL, but I'd think WWE's "sports entertainment" moniker would actually hurt them here, as UFC/MMA is traditionally under "sports", which would NOT fall under "competition". Hell, the only thing that I could see in that situation would be something like ESPN's old Playmakers show, or maybe American Gladiators.)

    ReplyDelete
  51. MikeyMike, JuggernautJanuary 2, 2015 at 7:57 AM

    As a W2 employee, I do remember signing a restriction that I couldn't go to another company in my current industry within six months. But my company also pays for my licensing so it makes sense. Plus, I'm not an independent contractor.
    The WWE's policy doesn't make ANY sense. Sorry to bring that up again but it's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  52. WWE can dick over the wrestlers because they are the only game in town

    ReplyDelete
  53. I would assume a lot of WWE's legal wrangling is complete BS, but their ace in the hole is that if anyone does take them to court (like over the independent contractor thing), if they win, they will never work for WWE again and it's the only game in town.


    And it would take an exceptionally pissed off person with a lot of money to even think about suing them.


    Punk is actually the closest to being able to do that, but he seems past the point of caring to waste all that money to inflict damage on them.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Never underestimate Punk being spiteful.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And since I didn't say it to end 2014, and will probably never say it again due to their present and future irrelevance:


    Fuck you, Dixie Carter.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Cena vs Orton,one more timeJanuary 2, 2015 at 8:02 AM

    She makes Jim Herd look competent.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Another thing about Non Compete Clauses is the geographic component. What do they think their scope is? Connecticut? The whole U.S.? The World?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I'd assume that clause is illegal as it's prohibition of trade. I suppose the talent could always go and work in Japan or Mexico, but not everyone would want to. Plus, if a 'name' talent decides they don't want to renew a contract with WWE and want to go to, say, Lucha Underground, I assume WWE could just fire them for "disciplinary reasons" and sabotage their deal, which surely couldn't stand up to scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  59. There has to be a local talent you're more interested in watching.

    ReplyDelete
  60. See, the Mr part would be gone. Used for specificity.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'll still never understand why they didn't do the Heyman deal.


    Heyman is like the Billy Beane of wrestling. He'll find a way to make the product acceptable. Just give him control, keep an eye on the finances, and who cares if he wants an ownership stake. So he gets 5% or something. 95% of a Heyman run TNA is a hell of a lot more valuable than 100% of Dixieland.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Between the whole "you have to change your name to work here because we don't own it" bit and this, they really don't come off well, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  63. The Universe, duh.


    I could see Vince's Preserved Head suing Hulk Hogan XI after Hogan wants to go wrestle for the Antares Wrestling Federation.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I am endlessly amused by this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  65. MikeyMike, JuggernautJanuary 2, 2015 at 8:07 AM

    I want to see they should grow a backbone but I guess if I was in their position I'm not so sure I'd be one to take a stand against Vince.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Well done.

    Didn't American Idol have a contract where the finalists become essentially "forever and throughout the universe" properties of 19 Management.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I really think it's just a "You don't like it? Sue us then" move and they're basically challenging their wrestlers to put up the money to sue them, and if someone actually does, they'll quietly settle with that individual.


    Other than the top guys, who probably aren't leaving WWE, and if they are, aren't leaving for UFC or lesser pro wrestling, most guys don't want the financial burden of pursuing a lawsuit and will just eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I guess, but if you get to that point, and depending on who you are, you probably weren't going to work for them again anyway. I remember a bunch of people stating that Colt Cabana would now never work for the company again, but...and I may be off base here...I don't think CC was going to ever be offered work from the WWE again anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Meltzer said that the clause is unlikely to hold up in court but that a majority of the wrestlers would not be able to afford the legal expenses to start a case.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Colt's a good example, because you're right, he'll never work there again. But a guy like Colt doesn't have FU money to where he can waste it on a lawsuit. And that the thing, most of the guys who would be affected by their legal clauses aren't the guys who have been making the top money. The top guys usually get paid well until they're ready to move on to something else.


    Punk is really an exception to all of that.

    So it really takes a guy with deep pockets who has a serious axe to grind with the company for a lawsuit to be a threat.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ah, the old Go Fuck Yourself Clause.

    ReplyDelete
  72. quick google shows Ultimate Warrior (who was actually the 1st), Savage, Bigelow, and Kevin Nash did Slim Jim ads.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I don't know how deep though. It probably wouldn't be a months long case and actually, if a wrestler just went to that one lawyer that Punk did, all of the research would be done.

    ReplyDelete
  74. People like to see people they've seen on TV before. That's why all those dinner theater plays always have someone from MASH or Happy Days or some show like that

    ReplyDelete
  75. Night - Honorary BSK MemberJanuary 2, 2015 at 8:21 AM

    Plus Randy did the nasty with Stephanie.

    ReplyDelete
  76. WWE Legal Dept: Negotiating BS ways to screw you over because we can.

    Now.

    Then.

    FOREVER.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Gah, something something about Nash snapping his quad, I can't quite get the wording!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Night - Honorary BSK MemberJanuary 2, 2015 at 8:22 AM

    Some of them do. Even Samoa Joe said he had an agent.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Great. Now I want to see Donny Most as the lead in Fiddler on the Roof.

    ReplyDelete
  80. C'mon sir. Come harder than that.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Give me a few weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Cena vs Orton,one more timeJanuary 2, 2015 at 8:25 AM

    Maybe if one of the wrestlers would send an anonymous tip to mainstream media outlets(CNN,etc),generating publicity of some sort? Just a suggestion,no idea how american media actually works

    ReplyDelete
  83. But Dixie would have lost her job and nobody else would hire her because she's a useless person. Bob had to look after his good for nothing kid.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yeah, I get it. I just choose to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. For a line that almost writes itself? You still sick, bud?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Even if all he did was gurgle out the word "brains" for two hours, I'd probably still watch it. And I don't even really like shoot interviews.

    ReplyDelete
  87. A little. :/

    ReplyDelete
  88. Now I'm seeing VKM as Stallone as Judge Dredd.


    I need to lie down.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Cena vs Orton,one more timeJanuary 2, 2015 at 8:27 AM

    Now with 700% less lube

    ReplyDelete
  90. If the Benoit deaths didn't get government intrusion into WWE's affairs, this damn sure won't do jack and shit.

    ReplyDelete
  91. This has gone on a long time. Maybe go see a doc?

    ReplyDelete
  92. You forgot to add the ™

    ReplyDelete
  93. "Hey Dixie, we're going to let Paul take over"


    "Well what am I going to do?"


    "Well, we're making you Director of Administrative Operations."


    "What's that?"


    "Well, you get to work from home, you supervise the Administrative staff which is currently just you, and you get the same paycheck"

    ReplyDelete
  94. No compete is pretty standard, although a year is a long ass time. I'm not sure how enforceable that is.


    The merchandise thing doesn't seem too out of line though, to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Apparently he insisted that she remain a TV character too. His brat was gonna be a star!

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Um. How will this affect my action figure?"

    ReplyDelete
  97. Yeah, but he was a Canadian. No one cares about 'those' people

    ReplyDelete
  98. The only way the government ever gets involved is if Linda runs again, maybe even wins, and the Democrats decide to go after her.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I doubt that it's retroactive. They couldn't get out of paying what was already earned and owed. That's looking for trouble in a big way.


    If you walk out on us, we won't be paying you for the Meekin's Moobs shirts that we sell going forward.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I'd pay to see that myself.

    ReplyDelete
  101. It's basically just sniffles now. Annoying, and I wouldn't want to sit near me in the movie theatre lately, but it's manageable. I'm sure I'll be recovered by Monday when I have to go back to work. Pah.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "While the Bunny has been off of TV recently he will return to continue the storyline with Rose soon, as 8 year olds and Vince Jordan are hoppin' mad he isn't currently on the show."

    ReplyDelete
  103. They would have gone after them one of the first two times she ran if they actually gave a shit. All WWE is to pretty much any politician is an easy target for attack ads. You'll NEVER see anyone outside of Linda touting WWE's "success" as a positive, other than in a self-serving manner.

    ReplyDelete
  104. join Sag-Aftra. let their many lawyers go to work

    ReplyDelete
  105. I'd assume you could still do indies that aren't using the show for TV or Internet PPV.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Per John Gaburik, Ethan Carter III has signed a new deal with the company. He will the customary TNA contract, which as we all know is a yearly membership to the 'Jelly of the Month' club."

    ReplyDelete
  107. Neither of those unions want anything to do with wrestling. The only times a wrestler has joined was through other movie/TV work, and most of them admit that they did it to get the benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Don't act like you don't love it.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Can't believe the Authority came back before VJ did.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Clearly, the Authority was in more demand.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I'm surprised WWE doesn't just have current talent sign over permanent likeness rights the way some films and TV do (Star Wars notably). They could then just use talent likenesses in perpetuity without having to sign new deals.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Yeah, more than likely. I'm not sure how the whole thing holds up for independent contractors at all, tbh.

    ReplyDelete
  113. It would be in line with their WWE Name Generator policy...

    ReplyDelete
  114. I hate that it sounds like I'm defending WWE on the clause, but surely it doesn't say a wrestler would be banned from "all of wrestling." It has to be like the no-compete clause where they just can't show up on a televised event, but could instantly start taking indy bookings.

    ReplyDelete
  115. It's one union. Never known unions to object to more dues paying members. But if they are upset about incoming revenue, there are several other unions that wrestlers could conceivably fit into. Stunt workers comes to mind first

    ReplyDelete
  116. Oooooh... Jelly!

    ReplyDelete
  117. It's the gift that keeps on giving, Clark.

    ReplyDelete
  118. She also made the rich people rookie mistake of reaching WAY too high with her first attempts. I still maintain that she could have gotten into the CT state senate or even POSSIBLY the U.S. house at a much reduced cost if she were actually serious about legislating. Then after 6 years, you can try for the...er...Brass Ring.

    ReplyDelete
  119. The Royals have a deal with a theater restaurant here - whenever they have a new show opening they have the star throw out the first ball and sing "take me out to the ballgame" in the 7th inning. I've seen (I think) every MASH regular except the guy who played Potter, 4 members of Happy Days, 2 Brady's and and 2 Partridge family members and Ellie May Clampett do it.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Yeah that clause is a waste if time. Del Rio had one anyways and the court said no. Nice try wwe but no.

    ReplyDelete
  121. That clause is fairly common, if I was to get fired for disciplinary reasons, then I would be prohibited from working for someone else in the same industry for 6 months.
    It's to stop being fired for passing privileged information or similar yet still have a job lined up.

    ReplyDelete
  122. yes and no. Non-compete clauses are fairly common. Hell I signed one just to be a store manager at Hollywood Video (and then left to go to Blockbuster with no repercussions). But there are 3 factors.
    1. regular employee vs. WWE's "independent contractor" status
    2. possibly withholding owed compensation (that wording is a bit iffy so I'm reluctant to say that is exactly what would occur)
    3. "Same industry" UFC is in no way the same industry as WWE

    ReplyDelete
  123. Isn't the bit about being a manager key, like this would normally relate to people at a management or executive level, not talent or normal store employees?

    ReplyDelete
  124. but it does say UFC. there has long been 90 day no compete clauses. It's why Jericho waited 90 days to hit WWF. It is why guys wait 90 days before TNA. But this is both longer and more expansive, including an industry that is not the same as professional wrestling.

    ReplyDelete
  125. At the end of the day, the company's job is to look out for the company, even if their methods are questionably enforceable (to a point anyhow.) They will force people to fight, and many won't, so the company wins.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I know employees with no compete clauses. Employees still have access to client lists, and all sorts of IP.

    ReplyDelete
  127. it doesn't? Depends on what it means. It if means not receiving compensation for unpaid merchandise sales DURING a period they worked, then it is illegal as Hell. If it means not receiving further merchandise income for your likeness and name once your are officially fired, then it's arguable, although likenesses are always iffy with courts of law. They tend to frown on people selling other people's picture on merchandise without permission. On the other hand comic book companies have sold other people's creations without compensation for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  128. It's a common clause and usually very hard to enforce. The only time it's really ever successful is if a sales person brings all their contacts to another competitor in the same market within a few months.


    The problem with the WWE is the wrestlers are independent contractors and even if they terminate a contract based on disciplinary reasons, it's on them to prove the MMA company (or whoever) is the same industry, the contract was terminated only for disciplinary reasons, the disciplinary reasons need to be clearly identified, and the contractor is doing the exact same work. They're never going to win with that clause.

    ReplyDelete
  129. it is normally higher up, which is why I thought it was laughable I had to sign one and I ignored it when I left. I zero access to any information that anyone else did other than the database that showed our members, what they rented, what they owed, etc. Same info any employee had access too, and they didn't sign non-competes. Honestly I think it was just to try and scare folks from jumping to Blockbuster or other video stores. Obviously it failed with me

    ReplyDelete
  130. yes on a high level. A high level exec at Google can't jump to Microsoft and vice versa for a period of time. Proprietary info and all. But other than being punitive, what argument can WWE have for their non-compete clause of a year?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Well, I suppose that's something.

    ReplyDelete
  132. If it's go-forward then I have no issue at all. If it's retroactive to include money already due, then I don't agree, but I don't know enough about this to comment on the legality.


    I do know that I have worked jobs where I earn bonuses that are vested for a period of time and even if I earn them, if I cease to be employed before the end of the vesting period then I forfeit. It just happened to me when I left a job 2 months ago. I don't know the legality of that either, the amount wasn't worth it to me to fight it in my case.

    ReplyDelete
  133. The comic book companies have pulled a lot of really shady tricks over the years. Alan Moore's been about the only guy to really fight back while he still has market value and he looks like a crazy person to most people. I wrote so many papers on how comic book companies were getting away with screwing people over in law school....

    ReplyDelete
  134. ain't capitalism grand?

    ReplyDelete
  135. I don't know enough to really comment.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Natural Born Killaz should not be last.

    ReplyDelete
  137. I don't think so, but Caliber once tried to hire him!

    ReplyDelete
  138. Pretty sure my infected butt hairs are in more demand.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I went to law school, yes, but I'm a programmer now. It's much more fun and better employment options.

    ReplyDelete
  140. understandable. I just can't see any way to justify a non-compete. In the past it was 90 days after a contract expired to prevent guys from company hopping. No one fought it even though it seemed illegal. At the same time a fired guy like Xpac got to show up immediately. Others however got their releases but had to wait out it out (Austin, Pillman, and Raven in ECW). But the only arguments would be to prevent company hopping and getting fired on purpose and that WWE "made" the person who shows up in TNA or other company. But with trademarks and copyrights, you can't bring the same name or character over anyway. It's just a dubious argument as wrestlers aren't bringing proprietary info. It seems simply punitive to try and keep guys from leaving or intentionally getting fired.

    ReplyDelete
  141. That guy....I was just trying to answer a question for him when he *really* went off the rails. I don't wish him ill, but I think taking a break from here was best for him.

    ReplyDelete
  142. The independent contractor thing does make it sketchy as hell. If I hire an electrician, I can't prevent him from going elsewhere if I fire him. Even if I had him sign something I powerfully doubt that I could have that enforced.

    ReplyDelete
  143. leanings that way. every economic system is garbage. capitalism doesn't work as soon as you expand out of the small village marketplace. communism obviously has a whole set of issues. I'm a believer in a WELL-regulated capitalist economy with many common goods/necessities such as water, health care, energy, gasoline, etc. being owned or well regulated by the government.

    ReplyDelete
  144. it is because of the lack of exposure due to the WWE Network.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Found on Ebay - A very disturbed child's bad artwork. I hope it's a child anyway..

    http://www.ebay.com/sch/thedoctorwhoguide2012/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=

    Some of the titles of his artwork:
    HITLER the FLOWER
    Hitler's BOOB Job
    Hitler's Boob Job - different pose
    HITLER in Thong
    Hitler is Farted On
    Hitler the Football Fan
    Hitler Of Gold
    Hitler's Pink Wig
    Hitler's Parasite Problem
    Hitler the Frog
    Hitler and His Portrait
    HITLER GOES BALD
    Hitler the Snowman
    NO HITLER'S ( Sign )
    Sexy Hitler
    Hitler the Gingerbread Man



    It'll cost me about 300 dollars, but I'm going to buy them to prove to people they're real. "Hitler is farted on" is the most expensive, if you were wondering

    ReplyDelete
  146. Night - Honorary BSK MemberJanuary 2, 2015 at 9:11 AM

    Who do you want to win the Rumble and who actually wins the Rumble?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Seems to me like you chose wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Except you're thinking about short term contracts. When a company hires an independent contractor on a long term contract such as an auditor , or IT security, anything which gives them access to privileged information they often have a clause which prevents them from working for a direct competitor or something in the same industry if their contract is terminated for gross misconduct or similar.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Bryan/Ambrose-Reigns.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Bryan is who I want to win and he is who I suspect will end up winning.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Pretty much any system designed and run by imperfect beings will have any number of problems.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Hoping you guys get better sponsorship after that World Series run.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I want ziggler to win; reigns will win

    ReplyDelete
  154. Law school is a big scam nowadays. I barely paid attention at the end and still passed because they don't want to kick anyone out and lose the tuition. It's all about getting and keeping as many people as possible and keeping that revenue coming in. The field is crowded with tons of people who have law degrees and can't find jobs. The only school that seems to guarantee you having a job when you leave is Harvard.

    ReplyDelete
  155. What the hell is this

    ReplyDelete
  156. Um. You remember that thing I said earlier about your choosing wisely? This is the opposite of that.

    ReplyDelete
  157. imperfect....greedy....pick whichever words you want. But yes, you are correct. You just have to do your best to massage the imperfections out. But globalism has really put economic truths on their ass.

    ReplyDelete
  158. either outsider folk art, or a cry for help

    ReplyDelete
  159. Globalism isn't on a level playing field. We have next to no manufacturing because companies are using what is practically slave labor in other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  160. I'm thinkin both. Jesus Christ this is something else. "Tom Daley Photographs" aka things I printed off google and am now selling on eBay.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Up to 736 upvotes for my Winston joke on Deadspin. Unlike Kim K, I didn't need to whore out nude shots to break the Internet

    ReplyDelete
  162. Want: Ziggler. Will: Bryan.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Want: Bryan
    Will: Reigns

    ReplyDelete
  164. What was the joke?

    ReplyDelete
  165. No.


    But I WAS going to send you Hitler boob job #2 as a gift, but you just blew it.I had a nice frame picked out and everything

    ReplyDelete
  166. I can tell you that the rates for business lawyers are getting pushed down hard, around here anyhow. We have a couple of dozen panel counsel that we already pay low rates to because we send them so much volume, and we just threw a big party for them to let them know that this year's rates would be even lower, but here, have a drink and some appetizers.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Winston Churchill?

    ReplyDelete
  168. When FSU got down early, my brother, who was rooting for FSU, said Jameis Winston had the Ducks right where he wanted them.

    Considering the Ducks were sober and on top, I respectfully disagreed.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I think this is probably true for any number of fields.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Unless the contract specifically says they can't work for someone else due to gross misconduct, the company can't prevent them from working somewhere else.


    They can't share priviledged information because that belongs to the company. If they did, it would be like stealing.


    It's really, really hard to enforce a non-compete because it's on the company to prove the other person took the exact same job with another company.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Indeed. I love historical jokes, they're quite grand

    ReplyDelete
  172. Probably so. Law school is still so expensive and sold on this lie lawyers make a bunch of money.

    ReplyDelete
  173. It doesn't need to be enforced officially, other companies don't want the hassle. If there's any chance of court action being taken because you hired some guy, you would choose to hire someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  174. I mean, it was at a nice hotel, and the appy's were pretty good.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Here's another upvote for that joke!

    ReplyDelete
  176. "Hey, even less money for you, but here's some booze and food. Party on!"

    ReplyDelete
  177. Winston Churchill bumps into Clement Attlee in the toilets of Parliament, Churchill quickly turns away from Attlee whilst at the urinal. Attlee laughs "Why're you hiding it Winston? Are you ashamed?". Churchill quickly replies "No, it's just everytime you see something big, you nationalise it."

    ReplyDelete
  178. Yeah, it's basically "no raise this year, but here's a membership to the jello of the month club", just on a grander scale.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Was someone else, actually. My mistake.

    And, I'm pretty sure I can live quite happily without this gift, but I appreciate your thinking of me.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Its a travesty that it is

    ReplyDelete
  181. Unrelated post: I stumbled across someone talking about The Pixar Theory on youtube yesterday. Kind of interesting.

    http://jonnegroni.com/2013/07/11/the-pixar-theory/

    http://www.pixartheory.com/

    ReplyDelete
  182. That no-compete clause is just begging to be tested in court.

    Seriously, the whole "no-compete" thing in 2015 is just stupid. Oh my god, Vince--some guy you didn't want anymore is going to work for another company. Whoopty-fuckin'-doo. Does Vince think Nitro is still on because it's on the Network? What a miserable bunch of human beings to work for.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment