Hyde Hill Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Hyde, out of curiosity, why are you big on Anderson? Like his promo skills and think/hope has more to offer then he showed on WWE plus (,unfortunately,) overness matters. Plus I am looking at it from a free agent perspective and comparative overness/talent/star quality etc. Of the possible signings with name value I am only high on RVD but can see what Anderson could bring to the table. Personally I would much rather see Petey, Dutt, Aries return or other Indie talent. Also on that roster you can remove 3D and place in the Hooliganz (Kendrick and London) over time. Edit: don't forget those percentages where the ods I guess of them appearing not how much I want them to appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Well I'm pretty sure he might be debuting with EVOLVE wrestling on their debut show.... Yeah but recently the E has waved the no compete for the smaller competitors. ATM its just no ROH or TNA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 posting in both fed threads: Scott Hall now plays wideout for the arizona cardnials http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezA-LmQXWsM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 my 2 cents on no compete clause: im a store manager for a major wireless carrier. one of our competitors has a clause that states they cant be hired by another carrier for ONE YEAR after they leave the company. The potential exception: To be hired, the former employee must provide a letter from the companies HR department that they are released from this restriction. I actually had to turn down a potential new hire for this. INSANE! hows that for no compete cluase from the "real world"?!?!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthsiddus2 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 it sucks but its necessary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 my 2 cents on no compete clause: im a store manager for a major wireless carrier. one of our competitors has a clause that states they cant be hired by another carrier for ONE YEAR after they leave the company. The potential exception: To be hired, the former employee must provide a letter from the companies HR department that they are released from this restriction. I actually had to turn down a potential new hire for this. INSANE! hows that for no compete cluase from the "real world"?!?!! It makes sense to me. By switching jobs to the competition, you could potentially take a lot of valuable and damaging information with you. Depending on what area of the company you worked for, that could cause a ton of problems for your former employer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It makes sense to me. By switching jobs to the competition, you could potentially take a lot of valuable and damaging information with you. Depending on what area of the company you worked for, that could cause a ton of problems for your former employer. i dont disagree, it was more of a real world example to back up the stance of the wwe. a few posts back, some questioned the validity of the no compete clause. the emoticons were for effect as it cost me a potentially great employee. which in the wrestling world would be tna ect not getting a wwe talent for a period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 posting in both fed threads: Scott Hall now plays wideout for the arizona cardnials http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezA-LmQXWsM i also want to make sure the sheer awesomness of this gets its due dilligence lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristram Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It doesn't happen down here, at least not in my industry. It would be a restraint of trade. All we are required to sign upon joining our company is a conflict of interest clause and a clause agreeing that the businesses intellectual property is their's and their's alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 i also want to make sure the sheer awesomness of this gets its due dilligence lol Steve Breaston oozes machismo obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 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. He does not. I don't think he ever has. There's a reason he phased it out of his billing name. If you look at his movie credits, in every movie he's done with 'The Rock' moniker, there's a little blurb in the opening credits that says, "In Association with WWE Films". That means WWE was getting a cut (however small) for licensing the name for the use of the movie. By dropping it altogether, WWE gets nothing for 'Tooth Fairy' or 'Spy Hunter' or 'Get Smart' or 'Doom'. Think about it. The Rock name has value. Why would he stop using it altogether if he owned it? It makes sense to me. By switching jobs to the competition, you could potentially take a lot of valuable and damaging information with you. Depending on what area of the company you worked for, that could cause a ton of problems for your former employer. *shrug* It's not universal though. When I worked for American Express, I was on the team that developed the 'Blue' card (with the gimmick microchip in the center?) from conception to launch. I signed an NDA but there was no non-compete clause in it. To this day I can tell you how the Centurion card (aka "the black card") was developed since it was based largely on Blue and the Platinum card (which Blue took a lot of internal elements from). In fact, three members of that team went to Visa and helped them develop their Black card. Now, maybe I'm not seeing something here but I'm guessing internal details on credit card programs might be considered a bit more sensitive than a wireless salesperson's knowledge. Could definitely be wrong though and the two industries might have very different priorities. Non competes are often a fact of corporate life though. A friend of mine is a litigator with a top firm here and if she leaves her job (or is fired for incompetence or something), she has to cool her heels for 3 months before she can get back on the horse, with a few stated exceptions (lobbying or non-legal fields). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Thought I had read he still owned the rights, but was transitioning to Dwayne Johnson by choice, which is why he went from "The Rock" to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and now to Dwayne Johnson. Been wrong on things before. Eh. I do find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be uniform approaches even within industries. Maybe corporations that have been burned in the past are more likely to take the more severe approach...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Also one big problem for the WWE is they list their employees as independent contractors. That just doesn't fly with a no compete in my view as do a lot of other things in the contracts and how they treat talent. So depending on the court and judge they (TNA or the employee) might find a way around it. Just had a thought hasn't Edge's contract been officially expired and they have an not on paper agreement to let it run on till his injury is over? That would mean that he is without a real contract and hasn't competed for the E in over 90 days. I know this is absolute dreamland like with Rock and Lesnar but still that would be total mark out and a real blow to the E. btw cool stuff with that Cardinals vid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 He does not. I don't think he ever has. There's a reason he phased it out of his billing name. If you look at his movie credits, in every movie he's done with 'The Rock' moniker, there's a little blurb in the opening credits that says, "In Association with WWE Films". That means WWE was getting a cut (however small) for licensing the name for the use of the movie. By dropping it altogether, WWE gets nothing for 'Tooth Fairy' or 'Spy Hunter' or 'Get Smart' or 'Doom'. Think about it. The Rock name has value. Why would he stop using it altogether if he owned it? Did a lot of research before this post, huh? You're 100% wrong, Dwayne Johnson owns "The Rock" trademark. He stopped using it because he wanted to re-invent himself without the stigma the name carried over in mainstream and family friendly movies, which is what he is doing now (and is making far more money doing). Note that Vince McMahon was not an executive producer on Doom, Be Cool, the Gridiron Gang, or the Gameplan, all of which credited either "The Rock" or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Johnson bought the trademark sometime after the Rundown, which was 2003. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Research is our friend when it comes to murky things such as contracts and trademark copywrights. Nicely done on the research Beak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 The Rock is also billed as Dewayne the Rock Johnson for the Toothfairy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwt13 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Indeed although WWE's core website is way better then TNA's just compare the profiles etc. Seriously one of the points TNA should work on imho. I was just on twitter and Dixie had this posted Expect a new tnawrestling.com website this weekend. Lots of changes going on. Check it out So I guess you'll get your wish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Hmmmmm is Dixie reading these boards? Lol. If she is she is dam smart as this is the most unbiased and wrestling savy board I know of and prolly out there. Good move anyways now for them to work to that roster I had up and I am one happy camper. Not mentioning the obvious 3 hours in 2 hours adhd booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Countdown Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Generation Me? Ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoisonedSuperman Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 I have no clue who they are on the indy scene or whatever it is called but I like Generation Me!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattitudeV2 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Generation Me? Ugh. Max and Jermey Jackson nice job,TNA now they will sound like Matt and Jeff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattitudeV2 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 I have no clue who they are on the indy scene or whatever it is called but I like Generation Me!! The crowd is giving it to you "The Young Bucks". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Countdown Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Fun match, even if I hate the pointless re-branding of The Young Bucks. When they showed Hall & Waltman, I was afraid they would come down & beat all four of them down. I'm glad that didn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoisonedSuperman Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Wow I like them a lot! Sorry I had it on really low, just turned it up. I only put I don't know who they are on the indy scene because the person before put "UGH" so I thought maybe they were crappy or something. I'm not sure if the Nasty Boys can wrestle still, I"m pretty sure that they can't but this is pretty entertaining. I haven't liked the Dudley Boys in yearsss so lets see what happens in this fued.. Also glad that the "NWO" didn't come down there, I had the same bad feeling that they would. What's with Shelley and Saban now a days? When they first were together I loved them but lately I just haven't been "feeling them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattitudeV2 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Fun match, even if I hate the pointless re-branding of The Young Bucks. When they showed Hall & Waltman, I was afraid they would come down & beat all four of them down. I'm glad that didn't happen. Yeah it was a good match and I agree with the wierd rebranding as now everytime I'll hear their names I'll think off the Hardys. 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.