Guest ViciousFish Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 They work for Vince or they do the independant bookings which don't pay nearly as much as Vince does even when they're getting only their downside garaunatees. I think it was Raven who said he makes more money on the indies then he did in the WWE. Also, isn't Crash Holly doing bouncing as a part time job because he's not making enough money? It would completely send TNA through the roof if they did get 15-20 WWE workers who wee allowed to cut lose but it would also damage their product. It would make them seem like it was a fed of WWE rejects. I sincerely doubt it. I think everyone would know that they got fired for disagreeing rather then getting fired because they suck. Vince would just be a huge prick anyways and bring the no compete clause out from the bottom of the contract, especially if they were fired for disagreeing with him.
Guest HartFan86 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 That's true, but if they got fired wouldn't they get the rest of their contract paid off? I don't see "disagreeing with the owner" as a justifiable termination reason.
LooseCannon25 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 They work for Vince or they do the independant bookings which don't pay nearly as much as Vince does even when they're getting only their downside garaunatees. I think it was Raven who said he makes more money on the indies then he did in the WWE. Also, isn't Crash Holly doing bouncing as a part time job because he's not making enough money? It would completely send TNA through the roof if they did get 15-20 WWE workers who wee allowed to cut lose but it would also damage their product. It would make them seem like it was a fed of WWE rejects. I sincerely doubt it. I think everyone would know that they got fired for disagreeing rather then getting fired because they suck. Vince would just be a huge prick anyways and bring the no compete clause out from the bottom of the contract, especially if they were fired for disagreeing with him. Negative, if they get fired the no complete clause is terminated just like the contract. They would be free to work wherever they want. Only if they would quit would the clause take effect
Guest HartFan86 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Yeah, I was just about to reply back in the thread that I thought he was wrong because look at Raven and D-Lo.
Guest ViciousFish Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 The sad thing is Vince doesn't need to fire them. He could bury their careers. Imagine if you will Chris Benoit spending the rest of his WWE career losing to Maven, Spike Dudley and the like. For 2 or 3 months the new talent going over the old talent all of the time would give them a huge boost.
Guest Boo_Bradley Posted June 26, 2003 Report Posted June 26, 2003 This can't be a good thing. You got to be able to exchange ideas to have a good work place. Apparentally Vince and Co. doesn't like that From my experience in the "real world", if you tell your boss a certain idea or suggest a change, he'll just say "I appreciate the inititive, but we'll abide by company policy". Hmph.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now