PeterHilton Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I agree Lesnar is unlikly, as for the rock he is more likly than lesnar and were all probly wrong it will end up being some one like Horace Hogan, Nick Hogan, or Ed Leslie lol:eek: How??? How is he more likely? How is Lesnar's UFC career more worthwhile than The Rock's movie career where he makes 10 times the money and has almost zero chance of injury? Why in gods name would The Rock come back to TNA to work for a second rate fed with minimal mainstream coverage when coming back to the WWE (if he ever felt the need towrestle again) and working a WM would probably pop the biggest buyrate in company history. Why would The Rock ever think about considering about hoping to possibly entertain the notion of coming back to wrestling and doing it in TNA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Countdown Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 And as crazy as the Lesnar scenario sounds once you explain it, The Rock is even less likely. Absolutely. There is simply no incentive for The Rock to work with TNA in any capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Actually forget my post as I just said exactly what you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristram Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 My pick is Ken Kennedy. The simple reason is this, it seems to me that the Hulkamania tour was a big chance for him to politic many of the outsiders in the industry. Nasty Boys, Flair, Venis, Shannon Moore, Jordan, all on that tour, all part of the show now. I suspect Umaga was a great chance. To me, the best match that night by a mile was Umaga-Kennedy, so my pick off the back of that is Kennedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The Rock also stands to potentially make a lot more money off the WWE, even if he never wrestles or even really works for them again. Being one of the biggest stars ever for them, retrospective DVD sets seem inevitable (there hasn't been one yet, I don't believe). Mr. Johnson stands to make a fair amount of money off any such project, especially since I believe he still owns the name The Rock. But if he burns the WWE bridge by working for TNA, that's done. Vinny Mac holds a grudge and a serious one. The Rock may no longer "need" the WWE, but I don't think he burns them without very very very good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Kennedy has no drawing power so if TNA uses him as a big surprise they are stupid. He was a forced midcarder in WWE that people only cared about because of his stupid little microphone entrance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basmat01 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Kennedy has no drawing power so if TNA uses him as a big surprise they are stupid. He was a forced midcarder in WWE that people only cared about because of his stupid little microphone entrance. Agreed I wont be very impressed if Kennedy is the "Big Name" I do find it very funny that both The Rock and Lesnar are even being considered or even brought up at all. Jeff Hardy would of made more sense tbh lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Just wondering has anybody ever broken the 90 day compete clause (without permission) and if so what is the penalty or what would the penalty be? Maybe TNA has a current E wrestler set up and promised him to pay any fine for breaking contract etc. Highly unlikely yeah but just wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Just wondering has anybody ever broken the 90 day compete clause (without permission) and if so what is the penalty or what would the penalty be? Maybe TNA has a current E wrestler set up and promised him to pay any fine for breaking contract etc. Highly unlikely yeah but just wondering. Depending on how vindictive Vince & his lawyers wanted to be, I imagine WWE could sue them for everything they've got. It's a blatant breach of contract and the law would be on WWE's side. Not a lawyer, just my understanding of what the 90 day no compete thing is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Well to be fair, has anyone ever challenge the E on that 90 day non compete? And what state's laws would have jurisdiction? Is it Conneticut? I know in Texas the non-compete laws are not as strong as they are elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Well, Brock Lesnar signed a no-compete clause that covered through 2010 to be released by the WWE, then legally challenged it. I believe it was settled out of court, but Lesnar would have won. The WWE basically couldn't justify it. But that's a 5-plus year no-compete period. A 90-day period would be much more defensible, I believe, as you could argue that the WWE has historically had their reputation hurt by workers leaving and showing up immediately on other promotions. Could someone break the clause and show up on TNA within the 90 days? Sure. But they would definitely face some seriousl legal repercussions. The WWE contracts could specify the exact penalties - monetary, most likely. Or it could simply be that the WWE sues. Regardless, it would be a bad move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tag01 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'm thinking Kennedy. Brock will never wrestle again. Rock will probably never wrestle again, and if he does it would be in a limited capacity and for the WWE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Well, Brock Lesnar signed a no-compete clause that covered through 2010 to be released by the WWE, then legally challenged it. I believe it was settled out of court, but Lesnar would have won. The WWE basically couldn't justify it. But that's a 5-plus year no-compete period. A 90-day period would be much more defensible, I believe, as you could argue that the WWE has historically had their reputation hurt by workers leaving and showing up immediately on other promotions. Could someone break the clause and show up on TNA within the 90 days? Sure. But they would definitely face some seriousl legal repercussions. The WWE contracts could specify the exact penalties - monetary, most likely. Or it could simply be that the WWE sues. Regardless, it would be a bad move. I agree in theory, but I'd like to see somebody do it just because it's outrageous to me. Right to work all the way. As for the idea that it's Brock or Rock, both of those suggestions are absolutely ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebsplex Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 No odds for Dennis Rodman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I agree in theory, but I'd like to see somebody do it just because it's outrageous to me. Right to work all the way. As for the idea that it's Brock or Rock, both of those suggestions are absolutely ridiculous. They have the right to work. They just can't compete against them during that time. But in the meantime he can work overseas...or as something else entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 They have the right to work. They just can't compete against them during that time. But in the meantime he can work overseas...or as something else entirely. That's a very limited right to work. You can either go to another country or change careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCanada Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 They have the right to work. They just can't compete against them during that time. But in the meantime he can work overseas...or as something else entirely. No Compete clauses are different contract-to-contract. The standard 90-day no compete clause that WWE makes you sign means you cant compete for promotions in North America with national DVD distribution or national TV/PPV deal. WWE doenst care about guys going to Japan, and actually most of the time, when releasing someone they think they may re-hire or they like, try to help them get into Japan. However their are different versions of everything. Lesnar, for example, was forced to sign a 5-year no compete, no where clause, in any form of wrestling/combat (including MMA). He signed the deal to get his release and what was later argued in court was the no-compete clause was to intense and Brock signed the deal out of distress. So the deal was reverted to allow work outside of the Continental North America, and MMA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The standard 90-day no compete clause that WWE makes you sign means you cant compete for promotions in North America with national DVD distribution or national TV/PPV deal. I'd love to see this challenged in court. I'd like to see the WWE argue that they need non-competes to protect a legitimate business interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCanada Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'd love to see this challenged in court. I'd like to see the WWE argue that they need non-competes to protect a legitimate business interest. That doesnt really matter. If you sign a contract, you sign a contract. You also must remember when someone is fired, they do get the rest of their guarantee paid from the company. Thats usually a good chunk of change, and it isnt paid at once, usually paid out over some duration of time in comparison to the length of the deal. Granted in wrestling, most people the guarantee is a fairly low figure (still decent) but being on TV/PPV, merch sales, even house show's is what earns them extra green. So the 90-day makes sense so its not like the person is without income. Also this (be it no-compete or just weird contract clauses) is common practice in many lines of work, especially entertainment. Look at the Conan/Leno situation on NBC. If Conan leaves, NBC still owes him money. If he goes to another network, NBC STILL has to pay him the differance of his deal (20 million a year) and whatever he makes on a new network (say 12 million on Fox as a guess). Meaning NBC still has to pay him 8 million a year, to work on another network. Thats an example of someone who signed a deal that worked in their favour, and no one will complain about that, because this time its "the man" getting the shaft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I was taught that non-competes had to protect legitamete business interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'd love to see this challenged in court. I'd like to see the WWE argue that they need non-competes to protect a legitimate business interest. Look at the impact that having guys walk out on the WWE and show on WCW had. It was a coup for their competition. So it did hurt the WWE's business interests. If someone went to the WWE and asked to be released from their contact for personal or family reasons, then showed up on the next day on TNA, that would obviously reflect negatively on the WWE. The Lesnar situation was different, because it was an unreasonably long clause and I don't think that's defensible. But 90 days is reasonable and not causing undue hardship in terms of the worker being able to earn a living - they have options available, plus its not an extended period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Just my idea what the TNA roster should be used as and look as in the hopefully near future let me know what you guys think. It is basically using the Heyman 6 per spot rule with twice as many women and tag teams counting as one for competitive divisions. Also note that most tag teams can work as singles especially in the X-Division. Main Event: Angle Styles Joe Daniels Hardy RVD Upper Midcard: Morgan Hernandez Abyss Wolfe Lashley Anderson Midcard: Young Homicide Dinero Suicide Rhino Red Undercard / Sympathy Jobbers: Moore Shark Boy Tag Teams: 3D MCMG Beer Money British Invasion Generation Me Lethal Consequences Women: Kong Tara Hamada ODB Wilde Sarita Flash Daffney Roxxi Love Sky Rayne Occasional/Personalities: Foley Jarrett Raven Steiner Nash Flair Hogan Without RVD and Anderson move up Lashley or Wolfe and Dinero and include Stevie and Morley in the midcard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haloed Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I suppose Genesis is too soon for Tommy Dreamer to debut for TNA? I'm almost certain he will at some point, but he may have the 90 day clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Hyde, out of curiosity, why are you big on Anderson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCanada Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I suppose Genesis is too soon for Tommy Dreamer to debut for TNA? I'm almost certain he will at some point, but he may have the 90 day clause. Well I'm pretty sure he might be debuting with EVOLVE wrestling on their debut show.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.