|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:40:23 GMT -5
If Punk worked all his contracted dates then him leaving is not a breach of contract. He simply refused to work more days than he was contracted for which is in his right. Yes, his contract was until July but if the number of dates in his contract were used up by the time he left he didn't have to work another day. This isn't like WWE releasing a DVD with him on it. This is them producing something new with him in it. They owe him money. The WWE doesn't owe CM Punk anything. Once you breach your contract, you are pretty much **** out of luck when it comes to getting paid. Did Steve Austin make a stink about not getting paid after he walked out in 2002? Nope, not at all. Austin swallowed his pride, went back to work and had his last ever match at WrestleMania XIX. The more CM Punk comes off like this, the more he is destroying the legacy he built upon for himself. I told my brother his a few times that years down the road, Daniel Bryan's legacy will surpass CM Punk's legacy. I can see the WWE's legal team hard at work, fighting off a lame duck suit, and becoming victorious in the end. I think it's hard to breach a contract once you've fulfilled it. Punk worked all the dates he was contracted for and didn't have to work one more. If he did have more dates then WWE should have fired him for breach of contract. They should have sued him. They've done nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Gazza on Sept 3, 2014 18:43:55 GMT -5
The WWE doesn't owe CM Punk anything. Once you breach your contract, you are pretty much **** out of luck when it comes to getting paid. Did Steve Austin make a stink about not getting paid after he walked out in 2002? Nope, not at all. Austin swallowed his pride, went back to work and had his last ever match at WrestleMania XIX. The more CM Punk comes off like this, the more he is destroying the legacy he built upon for himself. I told my brother his a few times that years down the road, Daniel Bryan's legacy will surpass CM Punk's legacy. I can see the WWE's legal team hard at work, fighting off a lame duck suit, and becoming victorious in the end. I think it's hard to breach a contract once you've fulfilled it. Punk worked all the dates he was contracted for and didn't have to work one more. If he did have more dates then WWE should have fired him for breach of contract. They should have sued him. They've done nothing. It's fully possible they didn't in hope he came back someday? since he'd still make them money maybe they looked at it that way? I find it hard to believe they'd contract him to July and not include WM in his dates.
|
|
|
Post by Jaz on Sept 3, 2014 18:44:46 GMT -5
What an ungrateful douche. I really don't understand why people keep saying that. They are using the name and likeness of someone not under contract. That person wants to be paid for it. What's wrong with that? Punk is pissed off at the company even after he walked out. The guy's never happy. Plus, if this is true he's being really selfish and putting his own wife's job on the line. Punk is one of my favorites of all time and I understand you're trying to defend him, much like I did for quite awhile, but this is getting really ridiculous. He breached the contract, they don't owe him anything.
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Sept 3, 2014 18:45:05 GMT -5
Because that person is currently in BREACH of his contract. Making any of his little whiny grievances null and void. So that gives the company the right to use his likeness and create new things without compensating him? And we do not know that he's in breach of his contract. If he worked all his contracted dates then there is no breach. Dude I have absolutely 0 clue where you got that "he fulfilled all his contracted dates " story from. But that's complete and utter BS and I don't buy it for a second. I've never even seen that reported on the least trustworthy of the dirt sheets. Give me anything any maybe I'll believe that for a second. But no chance in hell he "fulfilled all of his contracted dates " in January when his contract wasn't up until June/July. The only story out there is that he didn't like creative direction so he took his ball and went home right after the rumble. And hasn't been back since. Now he's claiming he's owed money? That's insane.
|
|
|
Post by Jaz on Sept 3, 2014 18:46:52 GMT -5
So that gives the company the right to use his likeness and create new things without compensating him? And we do not know that he's in breach of his contract. If he worked all his contracted dates then there is no breach. Dude I have absolutely 0 clue where you got that "he fulfilled all his contracted dates " story from. But that's complete and utter BS and I don't buy it for a second. I've never even seen that reported on the least trustworthy of the dirt sheets. Give me anything any maybe I'll believe that for a second. But no chance in hell he "fulfilled all of his contracted dates " in January when his contract wasn't up until June/July. The only story out there is that he didn't like creative direction so he took his ball and went home right after the rumble. And hasn't been back since. Now he's claiming he's owed money? That's insane. Yeah, the only person I think that would apply to is Brock Lesnar.
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Sept 3, 2014 18:47:56 GMT -5
It would be a lot easier to know whether or not he did fulfill his dates if one of the parties, mainly Punk, would just say so. Other wise, this is all speculation as to why he left or whether or not he breached his contract. None of us works for WWE, I doubt any of us here know CM Punk is real life to know what the case was to him walking out of WWE. I'm waiting for either Punk or Vince or someone who works in WWE that is in charge of contracts to confirm that he didn't have any more dates to work. Until then, I'm going to believe that he's in breach of contract. I don't get why WWE didn't sue Punk for that, cause I sure as hell would have if we couldn't work something out like Vince was trying to do.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Sept 3, 2014 18:48:42 GMT -5
Because that person is currently in BREACH of his contract. Making any of his little whiny grievances null and void. So that gives the company the right to use his likeness and create new things without compensating him? And we do not know that he's in breach of his contract. If he worked all his contracted dates then there is no breach. No, it doesn't give them that right, but assuming he did breach his contract, they can get away with it, because they know that if he ever does try to get those royalties, they can just sue his pants off for the breach in return. Which is what makes me believe that he did in fact breach his contract; if he didn't, do you really think they would flagrantly use his name and likeness without reimbursing him? I mean, I'm sure they have a good legal team that would advise against that.
|
|
|
Post by Jaz on Sept 3, 2014 18:49:56 GMT -5
It would be a lot easier to know whether or not he did fulfill his dates if one of the parties, mainly Punk, would just say so. Other wise, this is all speculation as to why he left or whether or not he breached his contract. None of us works for WWE, I doubt any of us here know CM Punk is real life to know what the case was to him walking out of WWE. I'm waiting for either Punk or Vince or someone who works in WWE that is in charge of contracts to confirm that he didn't have any more dates to work. Until then, I'm going to believe that he's in breach of contract. I don't get why WWE didn't sue Punk for that, cause I sure as hell would have if we couldn't work something out like Vince was trying to do. Maybe if Mr Outspoken himself would actually shed some light on the story instead of pretending like nothing happened.
|
|
|
Post by Roman Bellic on Sept 3, 2014 18:50:58 GMT -5
i kinda have to agree with CM Punk
kinda
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:52:05 GMT -5
So that gives the company the right to use his likeness and create new things without compensating him? And we do not know that he's in breach of his contract. If he worked all his contracted dates then there is no breach. Dude I have absolutely 0 clue where you got that "he fulfilled all his contracted dates " story from. But that's complete and utter BS and I don't buy it for a second. I've never even seen that reported on the least trustworthy of the dirt sheets. Give me anything any maybe I'll believe that for a second. But no chance in hell he "fulfilled all of his contracted dates " in January when his contract wasn't up until June/July. The only story out there is that he didn't like creative direction so he took his ball and went home right after the rumble. And hasn't been back since. Now he's claiming he's owed money? That's insane. As I said earlier, another place is having this discussion and they have been using the "he fulfilled his dates" thing. Many are backing that up there including listing wrestlers that have said there are such things in contracts. I just assumed their agreeing and having the wrestlers that backed it up were enough that the contracted dates thing had legs. I don't see how it's insane to want money you're owed. They are using his likeness and his property (his name) in a game that is coming out after his contract is up.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:52:38 GMT -5
I think it's hard to breach a contract once you've fulfilled it. Punk worked all the dates he was contracted for and didn't have to work one more. If he did have more dates then WWE should have fired him for breach of contract. They should have sued him. They've done nothing. It's fully possible they didn't in hope he came back someday? since he'd still make them money maybe they looked at it that way? I find it hard to believe they'd contract him to July and not include WM in his dates. I think it may have been he's contracted for X amount of dates and those dates just happened to come up when they did. I don't think they planned for them to be used up when they were. Again, I've just seen this theory elsewhere and it seemed like a good one.
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Sept 3, 2014 18:52:38 GMT -5
Dude I have absolutely 0 clue where you got that "he fulfilled all his contracted dates " story from. But that's complete and utter BS and I don't buy it for a second. I've never even seen that reported on the least trustworthy of the dirt sheets. Give me anything any maybe I'll believe that for a second. But no chance in hell he "fulfilled all of his contracted dates " in January when his contract wasn't up until June/July. The only story out there is that he didn't like creative direction so he took his ball and went home right after the rumble. And hasn't been back since. Now he's claiming he's owed money? That's insane. Yeah, the only person I think that would apply to is Brock Lesnar. Even if that did only apply to Brock, I'm willing to bet once ALL of Brock's dates end, his contract ends. Let's say he's signed for two years with a certain amount of dates he has to work. Once he works his final date once the two years goes by, his contract will end after that. I find it hard to believe that Punk had a certain amount of dates he had to work, cause I doubt WWE would not include dates for Wrestlemania like someone said here.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:54:20 GMT -5
So that gives the company the right to use his likeness and create new things without compensating him? And we do not know that he's in breach of his contract. If he worked all his contracted dates then there is no breach. No, it doesn't give them that right, but assuming he did breach his contract, they can get away with it, because they know that if he ever does try to get those royalties, they can just sue his pants off for the breach in return. Which is what makes me believe that he did in fact breach his contract; if he didn't, do you really think they would flagrantly use his name and likeness without reimbursing him? I mean, I'm sure they have a good legal team that would advise against that. This is a company that thinks they can get away with anything and will do anything until they're slapped down for it. Past royalties is one thing but this will be future royalties, using his name and likeness after his contract is up. I think they will pay him something especially to avoid going to a trial.
|
|
|
Post by Jaz on Sept 3, 2014 18:55:58 GMT -5
Yeah, the only person I think that would apply to is Brock Lesnar. Even if that did only apply to Brock, I'm willing to bet once ALL of Brock's dates end, his contract ends. Let's say he's signed for two years with a certain amount of dates he has to work. Once he works his final date once the two years goes by, his contract will end after that. I find it hard to believe that Punk had a certain amount of dates he had to work, cause I doubt WWE would not include dates for Wrestlemania like someone said here. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Gazza on Sept 3, 2014 18:59:56 GMT -5
It's fully possible they didn't in hope he came back someday? since he'd still make them money maybe they looked at it that way? I find it hard to believe they'd contract him to July and not include WM in his dates. I think it may have been he's contracted for X amount of dates and those dates just happened to come up when they did. I don't think they planned for them to be used up when they were. Again, I've just seen this theory elsewhere and it seemed like a good one. It's possible that it could be that, it would explain why they just let him go with no real backlash apart from the odd shot at him on wwe.com or something. Could be anything at this point, nobody really knows the details of the contract or how he left to the full facts, the whole situation has just been dirt sheets and speculation.
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Sept 3, 2014 19:05:17 GMT -5
He walked out while under contract, his argument is invalid ,and his lawsuit is frivolous
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 19:05:33 GMT -5
I think it may have been he's contracted for X amount of dates and those dates just happened to come up when they did. I don't think they planned for them to be used up when they were. Again, I've just seen this theory elsewhere and it seemed like a good one. It's possible that it could be that, it would explain why they just let him go with no real backlash apart from the odd shot at him on wwe.com or something. Could be anything at this point, nobody really knows the details of the contract or how he left to the full facts, the whole situation has just been dirt sheets and speculation. You are right nobody knows anything. Only a few do and none of them are any of us. I do apologize to all for my posts coming off as me posting it as a fact. It's a theory and I think a good one.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 19:09:03 GMT -5
Even if he did breach his contract, they are still using his likeness and name after his contract is up.
So they might be able to get away with paying him nothing for February to July.
But I do not believe they can get away with producing something brad new using stuff Punk owns without compensating him.
I think that's something we should be focusing on, not the contract. The part about them using his property when they don't have the right to.
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Sept 3, 2014 19:14:01 GMT -5
Pretty sure WWE is in the wrong here. They use his likeness, whether he walked out or not, they owe him royalties. As a part of his WWE contract, merchandise, dvds, video games, action figures, etc. are all apart of that. He signs his licensing rights to WWE for that purpose. When you violate your contract you forfeit any monies due. WWE aint stupid and their contracts are drafted by attorneys who probably charge $3000 an hour. WWE aint gonna Punk over the few thousand he is due, if he was actually due that money. For him to sue WWE for this when they had EVERY right to sue him over breach of contract shows just how ing petty and smug this man truly is.
|
|
|
Post by tehforoh on Sept 3, 2014 19:14:40 GMT -5
Apart from figures and 2k15, where exactly did they use his likeness?
|
|