The official CM Punk leaving WWE discussion thread.
- Thread starter Crayo
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 47,754
- Reaction score
- 14,050
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 34
If it winds up being a work then fine. I'll throw on the dunce cap.
But it isn't.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 47,754
- Reaction score
- 14,050
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 34
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 47,754
- Reaction score
- 14,050
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 34
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 47,754
- Reaction score
- 14,050
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 34
I would think it would depend on the reasoning behind his departure and the contract language.
If he has some sort of creative control clause, then the breach could go both ways. I doubt they do that for anyone anymore, but I guess it's a possibility.
Most likely, he has some sort of injury stip that says he can't work if he's injured and if injury is certified by a physician. He could have such a statement or letter from a physician stating that he's unable to perform. Hell, he could carry something like that around in his gym bag for all we know. Somebody just said "but WWE's doctors could clear him" and I'll tell you that such language is most likely not there (requiring WWE's doctors to declare him unfit or cleared, as the case may be) simply because nobody's signing a contract that says the company's doctors can override their personal physician, especially not if that person had the leverage Punk had in July of 2011.
Chances are, though, that WWE could sue him for breach of contract (if this is, in fact, legit), but such suits against contractors (as opposed to employees) by an employer rarely go very far, especially considering that the suit would be filed in either an Illinois (where Punk resides) court system that puts workers' rights over corporate rights every day of the week and twice on Sunday or a Connecticut (where WWE's corporate headquarters is) court system that has never been all too friendly to the WWE, despite the millions of dollars that corporation has pumped into the Connecticut economy over the years.
wk
Still clinging, baby.
:
wk
So want to wish you well in your battle with the Romulans, but surely someone would shoot that piece of nerddom down just as quickly.
So instead, I'll just wonder if Punk is still getting paid. What's the difference between him being under contract and not?
Note: the following speculation comes from reading Mick Foley's books, so take it for what you will.
Punk is still getting paid. He probably hasn't been paid off for the last couple or three months of PPV's yet. That's how it works in WWE. Money (at least for the wrestlers) is not figured on a weekly payscale or an hourly wage or something like that. It's based on a percentage of gate, PPV money, merch sales, etc. Those things take time to shake out and figure up, so right about now, they're probably getting money from December or so. Around Mania, they'll be getting their pay from Royal Rumble and maybe EC (since there's such a big break between EC and Mania). Also, remember, he'll get a cut from every CM Punk t-shirt they ever sell and he's still the number two merch guy in the company (although it's a narrower margin than it was just a few months ago between him and Bryan).
Besides, from all I've heard about Phil Brooks as a person, he's not a big spender and has taken care of his money from the last seven years. Word on the street is that he won't have to work if he doesn't want to for quite some time.
On a further note: the most realistic rumor I've heard about what started the whole Punk vs. WWE/McMahon/HHH problem in the first place is that there's no clear metric on how the talent will be paid their PPV money with the advent of the WWE Network. In the past, it was fairly simple in a formula that included $50 PPV fees per purchaser (plus public viewing licenses bought). The question is how will that money work out when there aren't as many $50 PPV fees because half of the viewing audience is paying a $10/month fee for the WWEN. And, I know, most of the people here would wrestle 300 days a year for free because they just love it that much, but they're not thinking about the fact that you can't survive on air and love, no matter what the songs say. This is a business, a near billion-dollar-per-year business, and it only makes sense (at least to the reasonable) that pro wrestlers and other talent get paid for what they do. I know that, as a public school teacher, if it came out that Texas were going to a different funding formula for paying for public education, I would be concerned with how it would affect my pay. But that's just me. I'm probably a greedy bastard.
wk
- Status