Winston Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Understandable he's in a tough spot being the guys Son In Law but he's had time to prepare a much better response than that. There needed to be an acceptance, an accountablility and a promise that these things will be addressed and must never happen again. Cody knocked it out of the park, looking 10/20 years into the future it certainly wouldn't surprise me to see Cody in a very senior role in WWE and the business will be in very good hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westlondonmist Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 3 minutes ago, Winston said: Understandable he's in a tough spot being the guys Son In Law but he's had time to prepare a much better response than that. There needed to be an acceptance, an accountablility and a promise that these things will be addressed and must never happen again. Cody knocked it out of the park, looking 10/20 years into the future it certainly wouldn't surprise me to see Cody in a very senior role in WWE and the business will be in very good hands. He didn't even need to give a real answer, he just had to say that solicitors have said not to discuss but we will assure people any accusations of sexual assault are taken seriously. It actually worries me that people on twitter defend his answer. Even if he didn't know, he obviously doesn't give a fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 They had more than enough time to prepare something far better. It was never going to be a free for all open dialogue or anything but it needed to be better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyUK Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 He was never going to say much but saying he'd have been better off going with the not being able to comment on an ongoing investigation route rather than saying he chooses to focus on the positives as it seemed like he was just glossing over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 As has been noted, all he had to do was a “I can’t comment on an ongoing situation but”. Instead those silences spoke volumes. Rabbit in the headlights. I miss NEWM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted January 28 Paid Members Share Posted January 28 Admitting to having not read the lawsuit is an insane response when "it's an ongoing legal situation, I can't comment on it at this time but we are taking it seriously" is right there. Claiming to care about women's safety in your company, but not enough to have read a lawsuit that implicates your boss (and father-in-law), multiple colleagues and the entire corporate culture in sex trafficking and assault is a horrendous look. Yet somehow it's still the more generous reading, because the alternative is that he didn't need to read it if none of it was news to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted January 28 Paid Members Share Posted January 28 (edited) 18 minutes ago, BomberPat said: Admitting to having not read the lawsuit is an insane response when "it's an ongoing legal situation, I can't comment on it at this time but we are taking it seriously" is right there. Claiming to care about women's safety in your company, but not enough to have read a lawsuit that implicates your boss (and father-in-law), multiple colleagues and the entire corporate culture in sex trafficking and assault is a horrendous look. Yet somehow it's still the more generous reading, because the alternative is that he didn't need to read it if none of it was news to him. He should have read it because it sounds like he might have been in it. Guess who has an office suite on the executive 4th floor... And this is his FATHER IN LAW. Who the fuck wouldn't read something like that about their own father in law? Absolute bullshit. Edited January 28 by LaGoosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverYield Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 It's those sort of outrageous and blatant lies that get the blood boiling. Insulting peoples intelligence by coming out with complete nonsense like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Land Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Turns out he wasn't ready. Montreal Hunter is very disappointed in Papa H's bullshitting skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted January 28 Paid Members Share Posted January 28 26 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: He should have read it because it sounds like he might have been in it. Guess who has an office suite on the executive 4th floor... I'm not suggesting that Triple H is blameless by any stretch, but the 4th floor is where all of the executive offices are, so it's not a gotcha for him specifically. There's at least one other "executive" who has been explicitly named by Ronda Rousey in connection to Vince, and another who recently abruptly left despite being one of Vince's "job for life" guys, and plenty more who keep a much lower profile. With how this is all framed, I doubt it's Triple H being referred to specifically, because it's not short of identifying details for other people implicated. And to play Devil's Advocate, "I know exactly who you are" could just be because Vince was bragging about sleeping with a much younger employee, and while the extent he was showing that off was gross, it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone aware of that was also aware of the extent of his abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Supremo Posted January 28 Paid Members Share Posted January 28 Even by the low, low standards I have for this industry, that was unbelievably bad. You haven’t read it? Fuck off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Land Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 minute ago, BomberPat said: There's at least one other "executive" who has been explicitly named by Ronda Rousey in connection to Vince, and another who recently abruptly left despite being one of Vince's "job for life" guys, and plenty more who keep a much lower profile. With how this is all framed, I doubt it's Triple H being referred to specifically, because it's not short of identifying details for other people implicated. WWE Corporate Officer No.1 is detailed elsewhere as being a WWE Board member that kept working there through the TKO merger. Neither Kevin Dunn or Bruce Prichard were Board Members. Dunn's rumoured to be WWE Employee No. 1. One of the descrption's for them is that they had no family left which would rule out Prichard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 4 minutes ago, Infinity Land said: Dunn's rumoured to be WWE Employee No. 1. One of the descrption's for them is that they had no family left which would rule out Prichard. I don't know if any speculation like this is helpful. "Rumoured", "alleged", people sleuthing the report for things like you've mentioned about Prichard. I'm not saying these people are or aren't referred to potentially, I just personally don't find anything like that remotely helpful, and unfair also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRooster Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 I would bet money that a PR person told him not to comment on the allegations, and to just ‘focus on the positives; Rock joining the board, the Netflix deal, the attendance’ - meaning in general, not as part of the answer he ended up giving. And he either misunderstood, or utterly fucked up in the moment. There’s no way in hell he would have been prepared badly to the point he’d give that answer; I can’t see a world in which his PR team would have told him to say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 I just want Julie Hart's words to be right. 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.