ryan93
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 10, 2012 23:53:23 GMT -5
Posts: 355
|
Post by ryan93 on Sept 3, 2014 21:59:50 GMT -5
I wonder if they continued to pay him after he left because I see that WWE's view is that if they paid him for not even being on TV then why should he get paid when he isn't there to promote the product. WWE owns his matches and can use anything WWE related that he has been on or apart of. Video games are prepared months in advance and they aren't using him as a main star by putting him on the cover or mention his name as a major part of the game. Who knows when the game actually comes out they may pay him for it. If he sues he will probably win if he had no knowledge of it but then the WWE could counter with a breach of contract for missing dates by no showing when under contract to make those appearances.
|
|
WWE Common Terry
Main Eventer
Joined on: Dec 17, 2003 13:48:53 GMT -5
Posts: 3,803
|
Post by WWE Common Terry on Sept 3, 2014 22:06:23 GMT -5
This may be a ploy to expose the way the Network has seriously cut into the boys' bottom lines by reducing PPV buys. I know that was one of the reasons Punk left. No one could give him a straight answer about how the Network would benefit the wrestlers.
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Sept 3, 2014 22:20:11 GMT -5
Just to added to the contracted dates theory, it would make sense since they were able to force a contract extension on Mysterio for his constant injuries. Chris Benoit was scheduled to be in SvR 2008. The Benoit incident happened in late June 2007, SvR 2008 was released early/mid November 2007. Punk was released in mid July, 2K15 is scheduled to be released in Late October. If that isn't enough, they were still scanning people into the game in August. Ask anyone who has coded in their life, it is easier to remove/void files than it is to add them. I think you missed what I said. If WWE were to bring up a counter-suit for breach of contract, it would probably be dismissed as a moot case as WWE had 6 months to sue while he was under contract but never did. Punk would be suing for a percent of the profits from 2K15,as they could have removed him but decided not to. They have plenty of time to sue. The statute of limitations for a breach of contract law suit varies between each state. It's anywhere between 3 years and 15 years. In Connecticut it's 6 years. Yes, but that is usually with the plaintiff not knowing that the defendant had breached the contract while it was still valid. WWE knew right as it happened and did nothing for the 6 months while still under contract. At the same time, WWE releasing the 11+ superstars in June while keeping Punk could also work against them. If they were looking to cut the budget, why not cut some one being paid who isn't willing to work?
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Sept 3, 2014 22:23:32 GMT -5
first off, theres no way Punk just walked out without telling anyone and refused to show up until his contract expired. if he did, the WWE would have sued HIM for breach of contract (and of course all the guys who used to love Punk, would side with the WWE because Punk is now a crybaby) secondly, if the WWE doesn't own his likeness & name, they can't use him or make money off of him without cutting hime SOMETHING so if they are putting him in a game, and not paying him at least a small percentage, it's wrong it's been known now that the WWE are complete cheapskates with this whole royalties thing....why does Mick Foley not have a legends deal anymore?? yet no one is calling him a "crybaby" people on a message board dont know what goes on behind the scenes, so everyone needs to stop judging based on whats been written on the internet and instead look at it from a LOGICAL standpoint. To be fair, Foley didn't resign because the 2K14 payout was very low for a lot of guys, but rightfully so as THQ still owed WWE a lot money and they needed to be able to afford making 2K15.
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Sept 3, 2014 22:23:50 GMT -5
This may be a ploy to expose the way the Network has seriously cut into the boys' bottom lines by reducing PPV buys. I know that was one of the reasons Punk left. No one could give him a straight answer about how the Network would benefit the wrestlers. The WWE was supposed to have a meeting with their Talent back in February about network royalties. As of this writing, that meeting hasn't taken place.
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Sept 3, 2014 22:25:28 GMT -5
Does anyone actually know the contract that Punk had with WWE? Without knowing it and it's various clauses, we cannot know what breach, if any, happened. We do know that WWE did not sue Punk when he went home, and that COULD mean that there are parts of the contract that were fulfilled prior to his "walking out". If he had a guaranteed number of dates or appearances per year, it is possible that he reached the minimum required when he appeared in the Rumble. It is possible that all of those Comic Con and other outside appearances were covered under a dates clause. Guaranteed contracts, the result of the Nash/Hall move to WCW, often include low numbers of required dates with added payments for additional days. Without knowing the specifics, a 2011 contract would most likely include something like this. It could even carry-over year to year reducing the number of dates near the end of the contract. Punk may have walked out on additional money and on royalties for NEW products (those not under development before January), but still be guaranteed the money on outside projects like video games, toys and other merchandise. We really don't know anything more than the leaks and speculation that are fuelled by the disappointment many of us have for the lack of CM Punk on our WWE TV's every day. To think that somehow this is a frivolous lawsuit by a bitter ex-employee and the WWE is the victim is wholly based on speculation and emotion and is not rooted in any facts available to any of us. Actually suits like that are public knowledge. So if you want to see if a suit was filed, all you would have to do is research it using Conn. court records.
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Sept 3, 2014 22:25:54 GMT -5
I wonder if they continued to pay him after he left because I see that WWE's view is that if they paid him for not even being on TV then why should he get paid when he isn't there to promote the product. WWE owns his matches and can use anything WWE related that he has been on or apart of. Video games are prepared months in advance and they aren't using him as a main star by putting him on the cover or mention his name as a major part of the game. Who knows when the game actually comes out they may pay him for it. If he sues he will probably win if he had no knowledge of it but then the WWE could counter with a breach of contract for missing dates by no showing when under contract to make those appearances. Incorrect, he is to be one of the two announced Showcased Feuds (Punk vs Cena and Triple H vs Michaels).
|
|
fearofdread
Superstar
Joined on: Nov 18, 2010 12:40:53 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by fearofdread on Sept 3, 2014 22:33:34 GMT -5
Does anyone actually know the contract that Punk had with WWE? Without knowing it and it's various clauses, we cannot know what breach, if any, happened. We do know that WWE did not sue Punk when he went home, and that COULD mean that there are parts of the contract that were fulfilled prior to his "walking out". If he had a guaranteed number of dates or appearances per year, it is possible that he reached the minimum required when he appeared in the Rumble. It is possible that all of those Comic Con and other outside appearances were covered under a dates clause. Guaranteed contracts, the result of the Nash/Hall move to WCW, often include low numbers of required dates with added payments for additional days. Without knowing the specifics, a 2011 contract would most likely include something like this. It could even carry-over year to year reducing the number of dates near the end of the contract. Punk may have walked out on additional money and on royalties for NEW products (those not under development before January), but still be guaranteed the money on outside projects like video games, toys and other merchandise. We really don't know anything more than the leaks and speculation that are fuelled by the disappointment many of us have for the lack of CM Punk on our WWE TV's every day. To think that somehow this is a frivolous lawsuit by a bitter ex-employee and the WWE is the victim is wholly based on speculation and emotion and is not rooted in any facts available to any of us. Actually suits like that are public knowledge. So if you want to see if a suit was filed, all you would have to do is research it using Conn. court records. Hang on, are you claiming that they DID sue Punk for BOC? His contract is confidential and we don't know what is in it at all (unless he tells/told us). This suit, if filed in Connecticut, is public record, but as far as anyone can claim, WWE has not, nor plans to file a lawsuit against CM Punk for anything. Do you have evidence that would advance the discussion?
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Sept 3, 2014 22:48:02 GMT -5
Actually suits like that are public knowledge. So if you want to see if a suit was filed, all you would have to do is research it using Conn. court records. Hang on, are you claiming that they DID sue Punk for BOC? His contract is confidential and we don't know what is in it at all (unless he tells/told us). This suit, if filed in Connecticut, is public record, but as far as anyone can claim, WWE has not, nor plans to file a lawsuit against CM Punk for anything. Do you have evidence that would advance the discussion? No I am not claiming they sued Punk. If they had sued Punk, it would have been headlines on every dirt sheet site. I havent personally looked, but I trust that every dirtsheet on the net would be reporting if they had.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:20:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 22:51:37 GMT -5
Man, if this is real, Punk is in for a rude awakening. IF IT'S REAL. Because WWE will win this. It'll be interesting...is there penalty for retirement? Idk if that would count as a breach. It'd depend on how they structured his deal. It could go either way, but he probably gave up his "salary" or "financially owed" dollars for stopping performances. If the contract had guaranteed money incase of injury or whatever, then he may have breached it. I don't like Punk but I agree with him making sure he gets payed royalties for the video game. However, it will open himself up to a countersuit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:20:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 22:53:32 GMT -5
Man, if this is real, Punk is in for a rude awakening. IF IT'S REAL. Because WWE will win this. It'll be interesting...is there penalty for retirement? Idk if that would count as a breach. It'd depend on how they structured his deal. It could go either way, but he probably gave up his "salary" or "financially owed" dollars for stopping performances. If the contract had guaranteed money incase of injury or whatever, then he may have breached it. I don't like Punk but I agree with him making sure he gets payed royalties for the video game. However, it will open himself up to a countersuit. No matter what, he left without fulfilling his contract and that will come back to bite him. Punk in the video game is no concern of mine, I didn't plan on ever using him haha.
|
|
|
Post by tehforoh on Sept 3, 2014 22:54:11 GMT -5
They have plenty of time to sue. The statute of limitations for a breach of contract law suit varies between each state. It's anywhere between 3 years and 15 years. In Connecticut it's 6 years. Yes, but that is usually with the plaintiff not knowing that the defendant had breached the contract while it was still valid. WWE knew right as it happened and did nothing for the 6 months while still under contract. At the same time, WWE releasing the 11+ superstars in June while keeping Punk could also work against them. If they were looking to cut the budget, why not cut some one being paid who isn't willing to work? That might usually be the case,but for the most part it usually doesn't matter when they found out. The countdown still starts the moment the contract is breached. Still giving WWE 6 years to file a law suit. As for not releasing him, I'm sure it was incase he decided to come back. I'd be surprised if they still paid him.
|
|
fearofdread
Superstar
Joined on: Nov 18, 2010 12:40:53 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by fearofdread on Sept 3, 2014 23:02:42 GMT -5
Hang on, are you claiming that they DID sue Punk for BOC? His contract is confidential and we don't know what is in it at all (unless he tells/told us). This suit, if filed in Connecticut, is public record, but as far as anyone can claim, WWE has not, nor plans to file a lawsuit against CM Punk for anything. Do you have evidence that would advance the discussion? No I am not claiming they sued Punk. If they had sued Punk, it would have been headlines on every dirt sheet site. I havent personally looked, but I trust that every dirtsheet on the net would be reporting if they had. Exactly my point, and perhaps I misunderstood your initial post. If the WWE had believed that CM Punk was violating even a part of their contract and that they could make money off of it, you must think that they would have pushed hard to get him back to work for the last 7 months. My point is since we don't know the specific contract and WWE has not already filed suit about it, it is more than likely that the spirit of the contract, if not the letter of the contract, was fulfilled by Punk prior to Royal Rumble 2014. If WWE failed to pay due royalties during the contract and continuing afterwards, that is what is up for debate now. I believe, knowing just a smidgeon about the law, is that because Punk owns the trademark on his name and likeness, if WWE and it's contractors fail to pay for use of said likeness and names beyond the expiration of the contract connecting Punk to WWE but before the release of the game, WWE might be in breach of trademark and they probably know it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:20:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 23:08:37 GMT -5
It'll be interesting...is there penalty for retirement? Idk if that would count as a breach. It'd depend on how they structured his deal. It could go either way, but he probably gave up his "salary" or "financially owed" dollars for stopping performances. If the contract had guaranteed money incase of injury or whatever, then he may have breached it. I don't like Punk but I agree with him making sure he gets payed royalties for the video game. However, it will open himself up to a countersuit. No matter what, he left without fulfilling his contract and that will come back to bite him. Punk in the video game is no concern of mine, I didn't plan on ever using him haha. It'll only bite him if the contract was structured without space for retirement. It could very well say verbiage making retirement something that's acceptable & not a breach of contract. If Edge still had time on his deal & was still cleared to wrestle, but didn't want to risk wrestling any longer...retired before his last injury, maybe just maybe that isn't a breach (but just forfeits performance pay & not royalties).
|
|
Falconsinclair
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 24, 2012 9:16:24 GMT -5
Posts: 803
|
Post by Falconsinclair on Sept 3, 2014 23:09:54 GMT -5
So let me get this straight, CM Punk is suing over a game that hasn't even been released yet and no one honestly knows how much the game will end up making yet? This is one of stupidest things I have EVER heard of. It would make more sense for Punk to sue the WWE AFTER the game comes out and is a big success. These sport franchise games (Madden, NHL & other - WWE included) tend to fluctuate from year to year. One reason THQ went under is they weren't producing a profit (after paying WWE/Advertising etc) on the games. 2K Sports release last year was a game that THQ had basically finished before they that division was bought out by 2K. Who knows how much 2K is investing into this latest game (being released on 4 DIFFERENT platforms can't be cheap) when you factor in development, advertising and what they have to to pay the WWE for the right to even release the game in the first place.
Royalties for this game could end up being very high or almost nonexistent so at this particular time it makes zero sense for Punk to sue over the game. This is more than likely a plow by Punk to try and keep his name relevant. CM Punk is also a big reason I am no longer a fan of AJ, ever since he left all she has become is "CM Punk" chant moment and sadly she deserves way more than that.
|
|
fearofdread
Superstar
Joined on: Nov 18, 2010 12:40:53 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by fearofdread on Sept 3, 2014 23:10:04 GMT -5
It'll be interesting...is there penalty for retirement? Idk if that would count as a breach. It'd depend on how they structured his deal. It could go either way, but he probably gave up his "salary" or "financially owed" dollars for stopping performances. If the contract had guaranteed money incase of injury or whatever, then he may have breached it. I don't like Punk but I agree with him making sure he gets payed royalties for the video game. However, it will open himself up to a countersuit. No matter what, he left without fulfilling his contract and that will come back to bite him. Punk in the video game is no concern of mine, I didn't plan on ever using him haha. Do you know he left without fulfilling his contractual obligations? Do you know what his contract specified in terms of dates, events and appearances for WWE and that over the 3 years of this contract that Punk did not fulfill and probably exceed them? It is very possible that his being under contract but having fulfilled the basic tenants of his agreement was purely about making sure he did not compete elsewhere if they released him. As for the "did they pay him" question, since he had a guaranteed contract, I would assume that they paid him his base for the days after Royal Rumble. If not, they would most likely be in breach if the contract dates had already been reached or exceeded. A caveat, I am basing this concept of his contract on discussions about WWE contracts with former superstars like Stone Cold and Mick Foley who all mention minimum dates in their guaranteed contracts. It would be surprising if Punk and his lawyers in 2011 didn't mandate a minimum number of dates per year (or in total) with bonuses paid for more work beyond those dates. This is the reason Rey can be resigned for missing so many dates with injury (a comparison brought up by others in this thread). Since Rey did not meet the minimum work dates (and they paid him his minimum plus royalties regardless) his contract reportedly stipulated an additional year of employment by WWE presumably to allow Rey to make up the dates (if he wished to continue working for WWE).
|
|
|
Post by bababooey on Sept 3, 2014 23:11:23 GMT -5
When I went to JRs one man show he brought up this exact thing. He said that Punk would likely regret walking out when he realizes the amount of money he will be losing on royalties for being in breach of contract. He mentioned that Austin lost millions in royalties due to breaching his contract when he walked out, and Punk would likely be in the same boat.
As far as contract dates go, I haven't seen my understanding of the way it works yet. I'm in no way an insider, but from listening to shoot interviews the way I understand it is that a wrestler could be hired for a period of time, where they are paid per appearance. Now they can have a downside agreement where they are guaranteed to work a certain number of dates. If they haven't worked that number of dates by the end of their contract, they would still have to be paid for those dates.
I'm just making up numbers here for the sake of an example. Let's say a wrestler is signed for 1 year @ $1,000 per appearance. So that wrestler has a chance to work 365 dates and earn $365,000 in that year. Now they have a downside agreement that guarantees they will get to work a minimum of 100 dates, which guarantees that wrestler $100,000. Now if WWE only has that wrestler work 95 dates by the end of the year, WWE would still owe him $100,000.
I could be way off but I'm basing this off three interviews in particular. 1. In a shoot interview Ivory said that a lot of times WWE would use workers and then when they came close to meeting their downside, WWE would pretty much stop using them. 2. On Austin's podcast, Tommy Dreamer mentioned that there was a point where WWE was just bringing him in to lose matches so that he would work enough dates to meet his downside. 3. When Austin had Kevin Nash on, they were talking about how when they first came to WWE, Vince would only guarantee them something like 10 dates, but they could work more dates if they proved themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:20:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 23:12:39 GMT -5
No matter what, he left without fulfilling his contract and that will come back to bite him. Punk in the video game is no concern of mine, I didn't plan on ever using him haha. Do you know he left without fulfilling his contractual obligations? Do you know what his contract specified in terms of dates, events and appearances for WWE and that over the 3 years of this contract that Punk did not fulfill and probably exceed them? /quote] I don't. But the rest of this is speculation in itself. It just seems weird he would agree to go out by being chokeslammed by Kane. I dunno.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:20:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 23:37:58 GMT -5
My overall conclusion:
CM Punk does one or more of the following:
Verbally insults fans Physically assaults fans Threatens to physically assault someone for posting a wedding picture of him(he obviously can't handle being a celebrity) Complained about the company that made him rich and famous Sues or threatens to sue the company that made him rich and famous after he walks out of said company
|
|
fearofdread
Superstar
Joined on: Nov 18, 2010 12:40:53 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by fearofdread on Sept 3, 2014 23:44:24 GMT -5
[quote
But the rest of this is speculation in itself.
It just seems weird he would agree to go out by being chokeslammed by Kane. I dunno.[/quote]
It could be that he knew before Royal Rumble that he had met his requirements and when he got to work on Monday just had had enough. I know I have felt that way about a job, when it stops being fun. You get done what you needed and walk away.
|
|