Originally Posted by whedon247:
“AJ wants to leave wwe?”
“AJ wants to leave wwe?”
Thank god!👍 ... The sooner the better! 😉
TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV (Part 2)
88 of 248
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“At the risk of taking this thread off topic, why would Punk get a payout from the WWE ?
Genuine question because I genuinely don't know. I would have thought that since he walked out on them, it would be the other way around for breach of contract.”
“At the risk of taking this thread off topic, why would Punk get a payout from the WWE ?
Genuine question because I genuinely don't know. I would have thought that since he walked out on them, it would be the other way around for breach of contract.”
It is a complex one, Basically he will still be owed royalties from his merchandise selling. And once he walked out on WWE they had to stop advertising him for events or they would be false advertising and would have to refund tickets etc, So as he was booked for no dates he could argue he wasn't in breach of his contract, No dates = No reason to show up
He may owe WWE time on a contract but they will owe him money on merch sales etc
That is my understanding of it, I am prepared to be wrong though
Originally Posted by cris182:
“It is a complex one, Basically he will still be owed royalties from his merchandise selling. And once he walked out on WWE they had to stop advertising him for events or they would be false advertising and would have to refund tickets etc, So as he was booked for no dates he could argue he wasn't in breach of his contract, No dates = No reason to show up
He may owe WWE time on a contract but they will owe him money on merch sales etc
That is my understanding of it, I am prepared to be wrong though”
“It is a complex one, Basically he will still be owed royalties from his merchandise selling. And once he walked out on WWE they had to stop advertising him for events or they would be false advertising and would have to refund tickets etc, So as he was booked for no dates he could argue he wasn't in breach of his contract, No dates = No reason to show up
He may owe WWE time on a contract but they will owe him money on merch sales etc
That is my understanding of it, I am prepared to be wrong though”
Punk walked out on wwe 1st so surely he doesn't have a leg ta stand on? ... he breached his contract?
Originally Posted by SimonB79:
“Punk walked out on wwe 1st so surely he doesn't have a leg ta stand on? ... he breached his contract?”
“Punk walked out on wwe 1st so surely he doesn't have a leg ta stand on? ... he breached his contract?
”
I agree, But the common opinion for whatever reason is that he will be getting a settlement and we will probably never know the wording/reasoning for it
Originally Posted by cris182:
“It is a complex one, Basically he will still be owed royalties from his merchandise selling. And once he walked out on WWE they had to stop advertising him for events or they would be false advertising and would have to refund tickets etc, So as he was booked for no dates he could argue he wasn't in breach of his contract, No dates = No reason to show up
He may owe WWE time on a contract but they will owe him money on merch sales etc
That is my understanding of it, I am prepared to be wrong though”
“It is a complex one, Basically he will still be owed royalties from his merchandise selling. And once he walked out on WWE they had to stop advertising him for events or they would be false advertising and would have to refund tickets etc, So as he was booked for no dates he could argue he wasn't in breach of his contract, No dates = No reason to show up
He may owe WWE time on a contract but they will owe him money on merch sales etc
That is my understanding of it, I am prepared to be wrong though”
There are people that claim Punk had worked his minimum number of dates for the year but I don't buy that but I agree with what you said, he wasn't booked for anything so he can't be in breach of contract. He was actually quite clever because he put them in the position that they couldn't advertise or book him for any shows, which when he no-showed would have classed as breach of contract, knowing he wasn't going to be there.
From what I read, Punk's letter said that he wanted money from the 2K15 royalties which at the time the letter was reported, there was no royalties because 2K15 hadn't been released so no money had been made on it. They did however continue to sell merchandise, albeit at a much much lower value than they usually would and have now removed all his merch from the website so they will owe him royalties on merchandise sales.
Originally Posted by SimonB79:
“Punk walked out on wwe 1st so surely he doesn't have a leg ta stand on? ... he breached his contract?”
“Punk walked out on wwe 1st so surely he doesn't have a leg ta stand on? ... he breached his contract?
”
This would be my understanding of it as well. i would have assumed that a contract of employment - any contract of employment - would have required some kind of notice period at the very least.
and even then, if you essentially just up and quit, as he did, surely you'd forefeit any monies associated with that contract ?
anyway, i was just curious i suppose. this is TNA we're supposed to be talking about
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“This would be my understanding of it as well. i would have assumed that a contract of employment - any contract of employment - would have required some kind of notice period at the very least.
and even then, if you essentially just up and quit, as he did, surely you'd forefeit any monies associated with that contract ?
anyway, i was just curious i suppose. this is TNA we're supposed to be talking about”
“This would be my understanding of it as well. i would have assumed that a contract of employment - any contract of employment - would have required some kind of notice period at the very least.
and even then, if you essentially just up and quit, as he did, surely you'd forefeit any monies associated with that contract ?
anyway, i was just curious i suppose. this is TNA we're supposed to be talking about
”
Yep! ... Mr Punk voided his contract the second he went AWOL & I'd imagine the WWE arent legally obligated to honour it! 😇 .... even someone with brains of 💩💩💩 would know that! 😉
(Anyway hope Del Boy is TNA bound I really do!) 🙏🙏🙏
Originally Posted by SimonB79:
“Yep! ... Mr Punk voided his contract the second he went AWOL & I'd imagine the WWE arent legally obligated to honour it! 😇 .... even someone with brains of 💩💩💩 would know that! 😉
(Anyway hope Del Boy is TNA bound I really do!) 🙏🙏🙏”
“Yep! ... Mr Punk voided his contract the second he went AWOL & I'd imagine the WWE arent legally obligated to honour it! 😇 .... even someone with brains of 💩💩💩 would know that! 😉
(Anyway hope Del Boy is TNA bound I really do!) 🙏🙏🙏”
I agree with this, But bottom line is WWE don't own his name and likeness and therefore they will owe him money for the game he features in. Merchandise they can argue, A game they cannot
Originally Posted by cris182:
“I agree with this, But bottom line is WWE don't own his name and likeness and therefore they will owe him money for the game he features in. Merchandise they can argue, A game they cannot”
“I agree with this, But bottom line is WWE don't own his name and likeness and therefore they will owe him money for the game he features in. Merchandise they can argue, A game they cannot”
Ah the game!
I guess it would cost more to have him removed from the latest WWE 2k15 before release so they'll pobably just give in & pay the minuscule amount he's due!
Amazing thing about TNA is that on October 26th it will have existed for longer than WCW did; 12 years 5 months & 15 days.
Originally Posted by JCR:
“Amazing thing about TNA is that on October 26th it will have existed for longer than WCW did; 12 years 5 months & 15 days.”
“Amazing thing about TNA is that on October 26th it will have existed for longer than WCW did; 12 years 5 months & 15 days.”
Well I suppose if you take WCW as a seperate entity that's true, but it's a lot longer if you consider that they essentially just renamed the NWA.
But then i guess you have to wonder where they'd be if they had a Vince McMahon-type figure behind them. I know McMahon didn't always have the money he has now, but he had enough to buy up a lot of the competition and the drive to make it all work.
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“Well I suppose if you take WCW as a seperate entity that's true, but it's a lot longer if you consider that they essentially just renamed the NWA.
But then i guess you have to wonder where they'd be if they had a Vince McMahon-type figure behind them. I know McMahon didn't always have the money he has now, but he had enough to buy up a lot of the competition and the drive to make it all work.”
“Well I suppose if you take WCW as a seperate entity that's true, but it's a lot longer if you consider that they essentially just renamed the NWA.
But then i guess you have to wonder where they'd be if they had a Vince McMahon-type figure behind them. I know McMahon didn't always have the money he has now, but he had enough to buy up a lot of the competition and the drive to make it all work.”
I think that's exactly what they need tbh. Dixie's problem is, and this is based on what I've read from people who have worked for her, is she's too easily led by others to the point that people didn't know who the boss was. Whereas with WWE, and I'm sure it will continue when Vince goes, everybody knows that Vince is #1, Triple H is #2 and that is just how it is.
I think they missed a trick by not giving Paul Heyman the full creative control he wanted, have Paul 100% responsible for creative and Dixie 100% responsible for business. People can criticise McMahon but he made a truly global business from a regional industry and I imagine a big part of that was being strong enough to say that the way he wanted it done was the way it was going to be done regardless of who disliked it.
With TNA, the younger talent they had, some of the biggest names from the Attitude Era period, they shouldn't be in this position and at least part of it (and IMO it is the biggest part) has to be mismanagement. And another part has to be the destroying of everything that made TNA stand out, younger talent, X Division, a really good women's division, six sides that happened under Bischoff and Hogan which saw them stop being TNA and start the transition into a poorly executed third WWE brand.
Originally Posted by Hollie_Louise:
“I think that's exactly what they need tbh. Dixie's problem is, and this is based on what I've read from people who have worked for her, is she's too easily led by others to the point that people didn't know who the boss was. Whereas with WWE, and I'm sure it will continue when Vince goes, everybody knows that Vince is #1, Triple H is #2 and that is just how it is.
I think they missed a trick by not giving Paul Heyman the full creative control he wanted, have Paul 100% responsible for creative and Dixie 100% responsible for business. People can criticise McMahon but he made a truly global business from a regional industry and I imagine a big part of that was being strong enough to say that the way he wanted it done was the way it was going to be done regardless of who disliked it.
With TNA, the younger talent they had, some of the biggest names from the Attitude Era period, they shouldn't be in this position and at least part of it (and IMO it is the biggest part) has to be mismanagement. And another part has to be the destroying of everything that made TNA stand out, younger talent, X Division, a really good women's division, six sides that happened under Bischoff and Hogan which saw them stop being TNA and start the transition into a poorly executed third WWE brand.”
“I think that's exactly what they need tbh. Dixie's problem is, and this is based on what I've read from people who have worked for her, is she's too easily led by others to the point that people didn't know who the boss was. Whereas with WWE, and I'm sure it will continue when Vince goes, everybody knows that Vince is #1, Triple H is #2 and that is just how it is.
I think they missed a trick by not giving Paul Heyman the full creative control he wanted, have Paul 100% responsible for creative and Dixie 100% responsible for business. People can criticise McMahon but he made a truly global business from a regional industry and I imagine a big part of that was being strong enough to say that the way he wanted it done was the way it was going to be done regardless of who disliked it.
With TNA, the younger talent they had, some of the biggest names from the Attitude Era period, they shouldn't be in this position and at least part of it (and IMO it is the biggest part) has to be mismanagement. And another part has to be the destroying of everything that made TNA stand out, younger talent, X Division, a really good women's division, six sides that happened under Bischoff and Hogan which saw them stop being TNA and start the transition into a poorly executed third WWE brand.”
Yep! If Paul Heyman was incharge TNA wouldn't be in the mess there in! 👍 ... the blokes a legend imo! 👍
I'm not saying Paul would have solved all the issues but it does need one head, one leader whoever it is.
They aren't going to get Heyman now but they still need one person who makes the final decision. If they get a new TV deal, they just need to reboot completely IMO.
They aren't going to get Heyman now but they still need one person who makes the final decision. If they get a new TV deal, they just need to reboot completely IMO.
Originally Posted by Hollie_Louise:
“I'm not saying Paul would have solved all the issues but it does need one head, one leader whoever it is.
They aren't going to get Heyman now but they still need one person who makes the final decision. If they get a new TV deal, they just need to reboot completely IMO.”
“I'm not saying Paul would have solved all the issues but it does need one head, one leader whoever it is.
They aren't going to get Heyman now but they still need one person who makes the final decision. If they get a new TV deal, they just need to reboot completely IMO.”
Yep! ... PH won't leave WWE he'd be insane to even consider it!
... They need a Ruport Murdoch type character who has money ta burn & a top notch network like fox otherwise there wasting their time! #sadbuttrue
Originally Posted by Grouty:
“Just started watching BFG, and wow, how small is that arena, and how many empty seats!
”
“Just started watching BFG, and wow, how small is that arena, and how many empty seats!
”
1,500 attended BFG (according to Wikipedia), which is quite good for TNA.
That Grado thing was staged, it just seemed scripted.
I really enjoyed the girls more so then the guys. Thought that drag queen persona was really unique. Felt that viper girl was really lovely. But knew she'd never get through
I really enjoyed the girls more so then the guys. Thought that drag queen persona was really unique. Felt that viper girl was really lovely. But knew she'd never get through
Yuh defs staged and id be furious if i was a contestant there cus its obviously made for grado to win it. If theres any inspiration for a pissed off promo a la austin then this it it.
Obvs who wins. Shame.
Obvs who wins. Shame.
It's about time we had a decent Scottish wrestler on American TV. I'm all for Grado to win. The rest need to look at Grado and try and emulate him, try and be a real natural star like him.
Originally Posted by Steveaustin316:
“How many more of the taped Impact episodes are still yet to air on TV?”
“How many more of the taped Impact episodes are still yet to air on TV?”
Up till November 19th (23rd UK broadcast) is taped.
Not confirmed, but as they have no shows booked except the UK tour in January, it's assumed the 5 Impacts November 26th-December 31st will be best of shows.
Presumably if they get a new TV deal they will relaunch on 7th January.
88 of 248
