Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Im with Rick in regards to my lack of sympathy. You know what you're signing up for and if you don't then you're an idiot. 

I was thinking though, WWE should essentially just be an agency. Anyone that the outside world wishes to see, can do adverts, films, whatever and Vince takes a fat cut. Anyone who isn't wanted has to wrestle on one of the 5 brands in order to pay for their headshots fronted by Vinny. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My sources tell me that Vince is getting more in tune with social media and how it modernises integration with fans. As a result, all talent have to have Vince in their top 8 on MySpace. 

someone should just fucking brain him with a folding chair while he's in gorilla, just full on steroid era Barry Bonds home run right to the old cunts head then pull his kecks off while he's crying on

The people who need to grow a set are the punters who continue to overlook absolutely everything and pump their money into his pockets. 

Posted Images

6 hours ago, RedRooster said:

While I’m sure there people who watch simply because it’s WWE, people still have their favourites. I care about and keep up with Big E, for example. Daniel Bryan, Sonya Deville, Drew McIntyre, Roman Reigns and Becky Lynch. 

Personally I have no loyalty to the brand, but I do to specific performers. I would speculate that it’s far more performer reliant than Vince himself believes. 

Do you like these performers because of what WWE have done with them, or in spite of it?

I know I like particular WWE wrestlers, but mainly after seeing them in behind the scenes vignettes or having followed them since I used to watch NXT. More often than not, I'll complain about the poor angles or crappy promo material they're given, but still want them to succeed because I like what I know if them outside the big shows. That's where the catch 22 arises - to support them properly, you have to buy their merch, which is vetted by and lines the pockets of WWE, the same people I want to protest against for treating my faves badly.

Yes, they're marks and fans, and yes, they 'know what they're getting into' in terms of working for the company hyped by itself as the 'grandest stage of all' where old heroes like Hogan and Austin have worked. But that's no excuse for the company to get away with deliberately misleading contract terminology that gives the workers the absolute worst of all worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Chasingamymatt said:

I'm sorry you can say its my dream its been all i wanted in my life since i was 5 years old ect ect  but suddenly. Vince is a b*stard.. I mean how is this a shock?

'I know they scraped Owen off the mat and carried on like nothing happened... but it's been my childhood dream, dammit!' 

Yeah, nobody these days can really say they didn't at least have an inkling of what WWE was all about before signing to be honest. 
As is the case in most walks of life - people are prepared to turn a blind eye until it directly affects them. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CavemanLynn said:

But that's no excuse for the company to get away with deliberately misleading contract terminology that gives the workers the absolute worst of all worlds.

I don't think the point was to absolve WWE of any blame, as they're clearly in the wrong. But it is true that these people have, with their eyes wide open, chosen to work for an awful company under awful terms, so not every infraction against them is going to garner unfettered sympathy.

Which ties in with...

1 hour ago, CavemanLynn said:

That's where the catch 22 arises - to support them properly, you have to buy their merch, which is vetted by and lines the pockets of WWE, the same people I want to protest against for treating my faves badly.

Another instance where they've made their choice. They're choosing to work for a company that not all of their fans may feel comfortable giving money to. They've weighed up what your support means to them and they've decided in the grand scheme of things it's not that important. They're the ones who've put a moral barrier between your pocket and theirs, so it's not down to you to hold your nose with one hand while typing in your credit card details with the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what's in their contracts. There's a lot of presumption that their contracts don't cover this, but I'm willing to bet my left nut that it does and they've only just decided to exercise their right to effect it.

At first I was a little "Vince is a bastard", but have to admit after thinking on it there is a lot of entitlement going on here. Paige can tweet "nope" as much as she wants, but the reality is that if it wasn't for WWE she wouldn't have the platform that she has now. And frankly Lana has been coasting for years so she can sod off with her cringey advert.

It is admittedly a different case for some of the lower end guys who are looking to get a little extra income. But then if you don't have a blanket rule for the company you'd be accused of favourtism. I hope they show some flexibility or a system to allow people to continue to benefit for themselves.

It's not unusual in any business that in exchange for secure income and the benefits of being associated with that company that you give up some freedoms. This is why you have contracts. Don't like it? Fine. You have the right to resign or wait for your contract to expire. 

My current job has a similar requirement in the contract. Even though I work within the financial industry, I cannot whilst employed present myself or take part in any kind of podcast / interview / articles within this industry. Totally understand... I could actually put my company at risk if I go on a mates podcast and go "PUT ALL YOUR MONEY INTO XYZ". Similarly, you could conceivably have a scanario where WWE is made liable by someone, like Lana, inadvertently breaking advertising laws by promoting something improperly (energy drinks are subject to various advertising laws for example).    

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
4 hours ago, rollthedice said:

For someone who doesn't really 'get' Twitch, TikTok etc. Can someone explain what it is they were doing and how it makes money? 

Is it like personal birthday video calls to fans for a fee? 

That's what Cameo is.

The rest, YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, etc, is just monetising their content from advertising, sponsorship and, sometimes, subscription. Views are crucial in those platforms and, obviously, being a "WWE Superstar" is a massive advantage in gaining followers and views.

If what they're doing is unrelated to the industry (e.g. Xavier Woods gaming stuff or Asuka's cooking and unboxing) then it's hard to see any argument for the clampdown but when you sign with WWE, they own you. They always have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
7 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

 

My current job has a similar requirement in the contract. Even though I work within the financial industry, I cannot whilst employed present myself or take part in any kind of podcast / interview / articles within this industry. Totally understand... I could actually put my company at risk if I go on a mates podcast and go "PUT ALL YOUR MONEY INTO XYZ". Similarly, you could conceivably have a scanario where WWE is made liable by someone, like Lana, inadvertently breaking advertising laws by promoting something improperly (energy drinks are subject to various advertising laws for example).    

Are you an independent contractor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

Has this independent contractor bollocks ever been tested out in court? I'm sure that US employment laws are way more heavily skewed in favour of the employer than most European countries, but still.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, garynysmon said:

Has this independent contractor bollocks ever been tested out in court? I'm sure that US employment laws are way more heavily skewed in favour of the employer than most European countries, but still.... 

some wrestlers headed by Raven tried it around 2009 but a new bill was put forward last year on California which tightens down the description of "Independant contractor"

I dont know if that's been passed but if it was it was judged to make it very hard for WWE to claim that workers were indpendant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Vince is correct in the fact that people that play characters are making money off that character which Vince 'owns'. If CJ 'Lana' Perry is making $1,000,000 (I've made that up) then why shouldn't Vince want a cut of that? He 'made' Lana. In the same way if Chris Hemsworth is promoting something as Thor then Marvel would be getting a big cut of that. If CJ Perry (not CJ 'Lana' Perry) makes $1,000,000 then I don't think he has a leg to stand on, essentially it would be the same as Chris Hemsworth having his own sponsorships.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

My current job has a similar requirement in the contract. Even though I work within the financial industry, I cannot whilst employed present myself or take part in any kind of podcast / interview / articles within this industry. 

Podcasts on the financial industry. Maybe that's what will finish 2020 off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stewdogg said:

I think Vince is correct in the fact that people that play characters are making money off that character which Vince 'owns'. If CJ 'Lana' Perry is making $1,000,000 (I've made that up) then why shouldn't Vince want a cut of that? He 'made' Lana. In the same way if Chris Hemsworth is promoting something as Thor then Marvel would be getting a big cut of that. If CJ Perry (not CJ 'Lana' Perry) makes $1,000,000 then I don't think he has a leg to stand on, essentially it would be the same as Chris Hemsworth having his own sponsorships.

That's the wrinkle in this that I was missing, so thanks for clarifying.

Obviously it's a different industry so the analogy isn't 100%, but if the company I work for invests in me by paying for qualifications, sending me on customer visits, etc., so that I build up the portfolio and contacts to start a side-hustle in my own time consulting, I don't owe a portion of that revenue back to my employer, just the extra to the tax man for having a second job.

If WWE performers are playing characters that WWE own, why aren't there credits at the end of every show?

How much money has Arnie earned from "I'll be back" or "Get to the choppah!"? Those are catchphrases inextricably linked to him, but if either were written by someone else, does he owe that person a royalty every time he uses it on Insta?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
17 minutes ago, CavemanLynn said:

If WWE performers are playing characters that WWE own, why aren't there credits at the end of every show?

And when you're doing signings and meet-and-greets, why aren't you getting it from the real person rather than the performance character? Meet-and-greets etc are a normal part of all kinds of entertainment. But part of the deal there is that you get the credit, you get to push yourself as a performer and make yourself more valuable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...