Paid Members LaGoosh Posted October 20 Paid Members Share Posted October 20 https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/wwe-vince-mcmahon-writers-room-workplace-misconduct-1235138010/ Probably not hugely surprising to any of us but still grim reading and good to see the insane, toxic behaviour that's been an open secret for years get mainstream press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SuperBacon Posted October 20 Members Share Posted October 20 52 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/wwe-vince-mcmahon-writers-room-workplace-misconduct-1235138010/ Probably not hugely surprising to any of us but still grim reading and good to see the insane, toxic behaviour that's been an open secret for years get mainstream press. It asks you to subscribe to read the full article. For those of you who don't want to, here it is: https://archive.is/oYS8V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted October 20 Paid Members Share Posted October 20 Strange, it didn't ask me to but thanks for the alternate link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 22 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: Strange, it didn't ask me to but thanks for the alternate link. You get one free article a month on Rolling Stone usually, but sometimes even that can be taken away from you if you accidentally refresh the page or something. One of the bleaker things in that article is the suggestion that people didn't feel comfortable coming forward because of the horrible response they'd get from wrestling fans. Despite not being active on any wrestling forum or social media than the UKFF, that still made me feel like a real piece of shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) Apologies for the double post, but I've got some thoughts on that article that probably shouldn't go in an edit. So, as some people probably know, I've worked in sports my entire career, working closely or for lots of fairly prominent organisations; Sky Sports, DAZN, BT Sports, Bellator, UFC, with and for various boxing promoters, I've worked in cricket and football, and very soon I'm moving into rugby. That is to say, I've worked with quite a lot of senior people who's position can be attributed to something other than them having climbed the greasy corporate pole. Senior Execs, CEO's, Chairmen (and women) who have playing backgrounds, or they founded the company or whatever else it is, rather than having been promoted through the office. A lot of that article, if you discount the 'Vincey' stuff like the racism is really - and sadly - not that remarkable. The quirks like having to put your chair in when you get up, standing when someone enters the room, the weirdly strict dress codes, the awful bantering... they're all things I recognise. A lot of these people have bypassed the usual way people get promoted so haven't 'learnt' how offices typically work so become very unique leaders. And there's a balance, sometimes they are quirks you can handle and other times you have to just walk away (I've left a few jobs because I cannot handle the culture set by these types of people). For example, Ex-player CEO's tend to try and motivate employees like they were motivated by Captains in the dressing room; screaming, shouting, intensity, swearing, never being happy. Founders tend to struggle to let things go. So, I guess when I read that article I'm a little bit downbeat. As real, legal issues start to be conflated with stuff that people just don't like. And whilst I'm sure the culture will change under TKO anyway, I hope it doesn't dilute the Vince narrative and take away from the allegations of abuse and criminality. I think it was discussed at the time, but bringing in entertainment writers from proper shows and companies was always destined to have this ending as they expected a normal workplace and instead got a mad human circus. Vince was a lunatic, but I think it's better if people focus on the allegedly criminal side of his behaviour and not the quirks of his leadership style that normal people just didn't like very much. Allowing him to issue statements about whether he made people put their chair in or polish their shoes undermines the seriousness of all the allegations and stories around him, as he can point to that and say 'look how stupid this all is'. Edited October 20 by d-d-d-dAz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted October 20 Paid Members Share Posted October 20 Quote The six former writers who spoke to Rolling Stone say they have no direct knowledge of or insight into the sexual assault and trafficking allegations against McMahon, but they were not necessarily surprised to learn about Grant’s lawsuit. Not only were they aware of past allegations made against the former CEO, but the writers say rumors floated around the office about McMahon and other women who worked for WWE. “I never saw anything crazy like that,” one former writer says. “Certainly while I was there, I heard some of the other writers joking, like, ‘Yeah, there’s some women that work in this company that nobody knows what they do.’” When allegations of hush payments by McMahon emerged, the writer says they didn’t find it “off brand for the Vince that I knew.” (In response to the Wall Street Journal’s 2022 report about hush-money payments, a WWE spokesperson told the outlet that the company was “cooperating with [a] board inquiry into the matter…and taking the allegations seriously.”) This was the major point of interest for me. To this day, there's a lot of "no one else knew" about the Vince allegations. I think most of the people here knew that was pretty unlikely, but it's interesting to see something on the record, as it were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted October 21 Paid Members Share Posted October 21 23 hours ago, Duke said: This was the major point of interest for me. To this day, there's a lot of "no one else knew" about the Vince allegations. I think most of the people here knew that was pretty unlikely, but it's interesting to see something on the record, as it were. A really important point to remember is that there's a big difference between "knew" and "suspected". Growing up in Yorkshire, I used to hear stories and jokes about Jimmy Savile from my Dad's dodgier mates, about how he was up to all sorts but was mobbed up and had the police in his pocket so was untouchable. Now, did I know that Savile was an almost historically unprecedented monster? Of course not, I'd just heard mad stories. Similarly, someone I used to be friends with was done for child sex offences. Found out about it in the local newspaper, and bumped into a mate who used to work with him on the bus home. I asked him how he was doing about it all, and he said that he was "surprised but not shocked". And I think that's the tone of a lot of people in WWE - surprised that it was happening, but not shocked that Vince would do that sort of thing. On 10/20/2024 at 9:46 AM, d-d-d-dAz said: Vince was a lunatic, but I think it's better if people focus on the allegedly criminal side of his behaviour and not the quirks of his leadership style that normal people just didn't like very much. Allowing him to issue statements about whether he made people put their chair in or polish their shoes undermines the seriousness of all the allegations and stories around him, as he can point to that and say 'look how stupid this all is'. I think you make a really valid argument, but the counterpoint is that this isn't about downplaying or overshadowing the illegal behaviour so much as it is providing a broader context as to what kind of working environment allows for that behaviour to go unchecked; I'd compare it to the stories coming out about Mohamed Al-Fayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 2 minutes ago, BomberPat said: I think you make a really valid argument, but the counterpoint is that this isn't about downplaying or overshadowing the illegal behaviour so much as it is providing a broader context as to what kind of working environment allows for that behaviour to go unchecked; I'd compare it to the stories coming out about Mohamed Al-Fayed. But I don't think it does. I've worked in places where you can't wear certain colours because the boss doesn't like it, or you have to wear suits, or you couldn't eat bread in the office as they were cutting out carbs and they didn't want it around. I don't think that's the context that enables sexual abuse, necessarily, and I think most people look at that stuff and see a laughable weirdo as opposed to sinister foreshadowing of criminality. I think whenever you create a cartoon character out of someone accused of serious criminality, you provide them an escape route intellectually. Its the Tiger King'ing of serious crime. Suddenly a cult of personality forms around someone who's quirky and colourful, and people flock to them, despite at the heart of it they're a cunt accused of pretty despicable things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted October 21 Paid Members Share Posted October 21 I do think they're entwined, though. A really important question in all of this, if so many people in the business knew about it (which is clear), is why didn't anyone do anything? And the answer lies in a mixture of power, intimidation and creating an environment that both protected McMahon and dissuaded those who might complain about it. Yes, some of it is bizarre and laughable, but there's a serious point in there. The power that Vince had over people, and the culture of paranoia and protection that it encouraged. If you're in a work environment where everyone thinks you screwed up if you sneeze publicly, or don't shake hands the right way, how on earth do you complain about the big stuff? It's why the stuff like Sunny getting the slop bucket thrown over her is important, because that kind of behaviour was normalised, encouraged and rewarded. You have a woman being covered, without consent or knowledge, in all kinds of bodily fluids, and it ends up on the cover of the company magazine. Yes, it's Sunny, yes, she's done awful stuff, yes, people laughed about the story for years in shoot interviews. But it's also harrassment and assault, and taking advantage of someone - and doing it because you know there won't be any consequences. That kind of corporate environment, for decades, has led to a weird cult-like behaviour - you can see it with the Mushnick reactions, and how 'pleasing Vince' has been a massive part of the company. And it's worth looking at how people gained and lost power in that organisation. Any of these things, in isolation, can be written off as weird or bizarre, but unimportant, but it's actually about power and how that unchecked power in that environment created something that was bizarre and toxic, and that didn't just protect, but also normalised a sex trafficker and abuser of women. Talking about other places and how CEOs can implement strange policies because of their backgrounds is really interesting - and it's not a case of 'these things create toxic and abusive environments', but it's also worth noting that they can. Personally, I think that this is where diversity comes in. We're talking about a company that had senior roles for weirdos like Johnny Ace, Michael Hayes and Bruce Pritchard - all middle aged men who Vince thought were similar to him or at least sucked up to him. Even on a smaller level, I've worked in places that became more toxic because people hired people like themselves, and only themselves. Adding more diversity brings in more diverse viewpoints and experiences, and might help balance people with power who struggle to understand what affects people without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Chris B said: I do think they're entwined, though. A really important question in all of this, if so many people in the business knew about it (which is clear), is why didn't anyone do anything? And the answer lies in a mixture of power, intimidation and creating an environment that both protected McMahon and dissuaded those who might complain about it. Yes, some of it is bizarre and laughable, but there's a serious point in there. The power that Vince had over people, and the culture of paranoia and protection that it encouraged. If you're in a work environment where everyone thinks you screwed up if you sneeze publicly, or don't shake hands the right way, how on earth do you complain about the big stuff? It's why the stuff like Sunny getting the slop bucket thrown over her is important, because that kind of behaviour was normalised, encouraged and rewarded. You have a woman being covered, without consent or knowledge, in all kinds of bodily fluids, and it ends up on the cover of the company magazine. Yes, it's Sunny, yes, she's done awful stuff, yes, people laughed about the story for years in shoot interviews. But it's also harrassment and assault, and taking advantage of someone - and doing it because you know there won't be any consequences. That kind of corporate environment, for decades, has led to a weird cult-like behaviour - you can see it with the Mushnick reactions, and how 'pleasing Vince' has been a massive part of the company. And it's worth looking at how people gained and lost power in that organisation. Any of these things, in isolation, can be written off as weird or bizarre, but unimportant, but it's actually about power and how that unchecked power in that environment created something that was bizarre and toxic, and that didn't just protect, but also normalised a sex trafficker and abuser of women. Talking about other places and how CEOs can implement strange policies because of their backgrounds is really interesting - and it's not a case of 'these things create toxic and abusive environments', but it's also worth noting that they can. Personally, I think that this is where diversity comes in. We're talking about a company that had senior roles for weirdos like Johnny Ace, Michael Hayes and Bruce Pritchard - all middle aged men who Vince thought were similar to him or at least sucked up to him. Even on a smaller level, I've worked in places that became more toxic because people hired people like themselves, and only themselves. Adding more diversity brings in more diverse viewpoints and experiences, and might help balance people with power who struggle to understand what affects people without it. I think the difference here is whether you think these idiosyncrasies or cultures can ever really be changed. If you think they can, then I can see a point in why you'd pull the camera back and look at the whole pattern of behaviour at once. I don't think you can, though. Not really. Sport is an industry built around the maverick leader. WWE might change a bit through the TKO merger and the incorporation of some Endeavour bods, but not really... the carnys are still pulling the strings ultimately. Sport, pretty much all sport, lives in the dark ages. It lends itself to over elevations of idiosyncratic mavericks, and until it turns criminal people often celebrate it. And that's I think my main issue, by broadening the scope of attacks against McMahon, so he can have his people issue statements about chairs or shoe shining or sneezing, you both open up an audience of people who might be sympathetic to the would-be cult leader, and you also create a group of allies for him within the wider industry who know their own careers are predicated on leadership styles that wouldn't survive in the real world. Pin him to the wall on being a criminal first, then worry about the rest would be my take. Edited October 21 by d-d-d-dAz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 2 hours ago, BomberPat said: A really important point to remember is that there's a big difference between "knew" and "suspected". There’s also the “knew” that isn’t really knowing which seems lost on a lot of people. “Knowing” Vince is having an extra-marital affair and his mistress is in the office is different from knowing Vince is trafficking/abusing a woman and has such control over her she’s working in the office having to sleep with people for his enjoyment. This is where I struggle with the “well he must have known! Look how close to Vince he was” people and comments. There are stories about our own families (less sinister of course) we likely think we know because we have their interpretation of it but isn’t the full story never mind some employees that worked for the guy fully knowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 21 Paid Members Share Posted October 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, FUM said: There’s also the “knew” that isn’t really knowing which seems lost on a lot of people. “Knowing” Vince is having an extra-marital affair and his mistress is in the office is different from knowing Vince is trafficking/abusing a woman and has such control over her she’s working in the office having to sleep with people for his enjoyment. This is where I struggle with the “well he must have known! Look how close to Vince he was” people and comments. There are stories about our own families (less sinister of course) we likely think we know because we have their interpretation of it but isn’t the full story never mind some employees that worked for the guy fully knowing. All of this might be true if Vince had committed a one-off crime or had a habit you can hide. Maybe if he liked visiting prostitutes and having them shit on his face or whatever. Everyone could be very surprised when the police burst in and the cover was blown off the whole thing. That isn't the case here. Janel Grant alleges that she was offered to a top WWE talent, Brock Lesnar, and made allegations against John Laurinaitis too. The horrendous story of Ashley Massaro's indicates key people all knew of the allegations. The Rita Chatterton allegation has been public record for over 30 years. NDAs were paid with company money over many years to hide payments to women who came and went. The NDAs, the money, the women, they all had to processed by lawyers, by HR, by finances. People had to have questions, suspicions and outright knowledge of what went on. This was a culture. @BomberPatis right to equate it to the Al-Fayad story. They all knew as well. It took his death and a lot of brave people coming forward but no-one is pretending to be shocked and/or surprised. Because it was just accepted. They knew in WWE too. But they don't need to admit it because the media are only interested in Vince. He's the story. There's no wrestling journalists to look into the rest of them and the fans are more than happy to pretend it's unlikely because the Bloodline are great or whatever. They care so little about any comebacks that Triple H is happy to sit and say he didn't read the allegations, despite his responsibilities as the public face of the company and the fact it's his father-in-law and the company are happy to walk Bruce Prichard out in the main event of WrestleMania. A colleague, friend and confidante of Vince for 40 years. A literal right-hand man. They think they're above it because they probably are. It's all sickening. Edited October 21 by tiger_rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted October 21 Paid Members Share Posted October 21 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: A really important point to remember is that there's a big difference between "knew" and "suspected". Growing up in Yorkshire, I used to hear stories and jokes about Jimmy Savile from my Dad's dodgier mates, about how he was up to all sorts but was mobbed up and had the police in his pocket so was untouchable. Now, did I know that Savile was an almost historically unprecedented monster? Of course not, I'd just heard mad stories. Similarly, someone I used to be friends with was done for child sex offences. Found out about it in the local newspaper, and bumped into a mate who used to work with him on the bus home. I asked him how he was doing about it all, and he said that he was "surprised but not shocked". And I think that's the tone of a lot of people in WWE - surprised that it was happening, but not shocked that Vince would do that sort of thing. I think you make a really valid argument, but the counterpoint is that this isn't about downplaying or overshadowing the illegal behaviour so much as it is providing a broader context as to what kind of working environment allows for that behaviour to go unchecked; I'd compare it to the stories coming out about Mohamed Al-Fayed. I think there's a big difference between people down t'pub (mum's from Sheffield, I'm allowed to say it) or even friends you see occasionally vs a place that you work all day and a people you're always interacting with. I've read detail about similar scandals in different sectors and the recurring narrative is always that people knew enough to encourage an investigation, but they didn't out of fear or selfishness. I remember one example where they did an investigation into this kind of impropriety and asked for the person's work phone to investigate, and when he refused they just said "oh well, we trust him". These attractive women that suddenly get made VPs, no one knows what they do, and they suddenly disappear, everyone knew why. They might or might not have known about sending her/them off to "contract negotiations" but it's worth saying that there was literally a promo that Stephanie cut on Smackdown talking about that very thing. They can't prove it in a law court, but they don't need to. These things in the workplace don't stay hidden, unless the people around are willing participants in the hiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SuperBacon Posted October 21 Members Share Posted October 21 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: Now, did I know that Savile was an almost historically unprecedented monster? Now Then. Now Then. Forever. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 minute ago, SuperBacon said: Now Then. Now Then. Forever. Sorry. That's an absolutely exceptional piece of work 👏 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.