CTXRussomark

I honestly think the complete opposite - the thought of Vince cancelling a show (back then anyway) due to a McMahon seems even less likely to me than any other member of the roster. I don't think it would have even crossed his mind - he'd have gone in the ambulance and left Prichard etc. in charge of running the show.

A petition to make her aware? They think she doesn't already know? I get that it's exciting whenever some new dirt comes out and people convince themselves it'll be the catalyst for bringing down the evil empire, but these guys are the masters of making sure no shit ever sticks. They already denied knowing anything about the rape so it's essentially her word vs theirs and she's not around to back her side up (and nobody will do it for her). To them she's a former drug addict who jumped at the chance to return to the company and wrote them an apology which they can (and already are) spin(ning) to show how much she loved the company, including the guy who allegedly covered up her rape. It sounds harsh but this will blow over in no time. Same way the whole independent contractor did last month and Saudi Arabia did last year, both of which had people claiming could/would/should bring the company to its knees. Fair play to those making a stand and cancelling the Network etc. though.

What was the joke even meant to be? He's said he would have used the same gag for any child including his own so it's not even some sort of commentary on the royals which was my original guess. I genuinely can't work out what he was going for.

Wasn't Foley so fucked that they had him on the "no contact" list when he was last around? I assume those medical issues would be magically resolved if the money was right though.

Stuff like this must be a major factor in Vince wanting to keep the independent contractor structure. This generation of talent in particular seem like the type who would run to HR to complain about stuff. Can you imagine the amount of headaches it would cause if these guys all had employee rights and the company had a legal obligation to treat them as such? I'm not saying they shouldn't have those rights - just saying I can completely understand why the company would be against it despite being able to afford it a hundred times over.