WWE plan to deal with TNA

[Guest stringerbell]

Johnny Ace has been given word from the top to sign anybody TNA is interested in, even if it is guys the E just recently cut. Some office workers have been told the idea is to sign them with lengthy no-compete clauses, then bury them so that by the time they can go to TNA, they are damaged goods. Dave says management see this as a possible pivotal year for TNA, and doesn't particularly want them to become legit competition.

[Guest Coffey]

It'll backfire on WWE. They'll end up signing a bunch of slop to contracts even though TNA wasn't interested in them. Expect a lot more cases of Mark Henry.

[UZI Suicide 0]

 

HI, MY NAME IS CHARLIE HAAS.

[dubq 0]

Feh like this will matter. Why would anyone sign with WWE just to be buried again?

[World's Worst Man 0]

Plenty of guys are more interested in making big bucks than they are about actually performing well.

[Failed Bridge 0]

I hope TNA shows interest in Test, The Steiner Bros, Buff Bagwell, Brian Adams, Bryan Clark, and Brutus Beefcake if that report is true.

[dubq 0]

Plenty of guys are more interested in making big bucks than they are about actually performing well.

 

And those aren't necessarily the guys TNA would want, then.

[Guest Coffey]

This could turn out to be interesting if TNA showed interest in someone like Brock Lesnar or Goldberg, otherwise, I don't think it's going to matter.

 

If TNA showed interest in Goldberg or Brock, which I'm sure they'd take if they could get, it'd be interesting to see what WWE would throw at them. It'd be more interesting if Brock or Goldberg returned to WWE and the crowd were supposed to believe that they'd lose all the time.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

WWE don't want Goldberg and Goldberg doesn't want to go back. I think Goldberg is one of the few people WWE wouldn't want, no matter if TNA wanted him or not.

 

As for Brock, his burial would be more subtle and more in how his wins were booked than having him lose all the time.

[Silence 0]

As for Brock, his burial would be more subtle and more in how his wins were booked than having him lose all the time.

 

So he'd basically win most of his matches like Carlito (by doing a roll-up and putting his feet on the ropes)?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

As for Brock, his burial would be more subtle and more in how his wins were booked than having him lose all the time.

 

So he'd basically win most of his matches like Carlito (by doing a roll-up and putting his feet on the ropes)?

Or done like his match with Undertaker at No Mercy in 2003 where the focus is on his opponent and someone else whlie Brock plays second banana. He'll win the match but it'll be someone else getting put over.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Feh like this will matter. Why would anyone sign with WWE just to be buried again?

 

Getting paid to sit on your ass for a significant time sounds fine to me.

[dubq 0]

Feh like this will matter. Why would anyone sign with WWE just to be buried again?

 

Getting paid to sit on your ass for a significant time sounds fine to me.

 

Something tells me that that is not what wrestlers get into the business for. Well, the good ones, anyway.

[Art Sandusky 0]

[snuffbox 0]

The plan turned out well...

[Failed Bridge 0]

WWE don't want Goldberg and Goldberg doesn't want to go back. I think Goldberg is one of the few people WWE wouldn't want, no matter if TNA wanted him or not.

Goldberg's got a good gig hosting that car show on the Discovery or Travel channel (can't remember which its on). I doubt he'd even be interested in wrestling anymore.

[Guest Coffey]

I think it's on the History channel actually and I'm not even sure it's still on the air.

[Failed Bridge 0]

Could be the history channel...I watched an episode a couple weeks back about the cars they drove during the whole Prohabition era.

[SamoaRowe 0]

Johnny Ace has been given word from the top to sign anybody TNA is interested in, even if it is guys the E just recently cut. Some office workers have been told the idea is to sign them with lengthy no-compete clauses, then bury them so that by the time they can go to TNA, they are damaged goods. Dave says management see this as a possible pivotal year for TNA, and doesn't particularly want them to become legit competition.

 

I'm just curious what the source was. I can easily believe this report, but I was just wondering.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It was in this weeks Observer. It's not entirely new, as Ace was told to try and sign Punk, Danielson and Joe when TNA showed interest in them.

[SamoaRowe 0]

Ah, okay, just wondering. Are there any limits to how low the WWE will stoop?

 

I sure hope CM Punk is getting paid well for having to disapear into OVW.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Are there any limits to how low the WWE will stoop?

None at all.

[Hawk 34 0]

Ah, okay, just wondering. Are there any limits to how low the WWE will stoop?

 

I sure hope CM Punk is getting paid well for having to disapear into OVW.

 

Having the hottest angle in OVW which is getting rave reviews in addition to some of his best in-ring work of his career sided with Paul Heyman's strongest seal of approval and making a decent living off it isn't a bad place to be.

 

I'm sure he misses his 60 minute classics with Joe but I don't think he is complaining.

[Guest Thrashist]

It's stories like these that bring me back to Vince's crying on the Monday Night War DVD about how unlike the evil WCW, the angelic WWF never ever ever intended to hurt the competition and just wanted to help itself.

[Smartly Pretty 0]

In theory, a lot of indy companies could get totally fucked. Like, if TNA were to show interest in Colt Cabana, he'd be signed, get fired, and wouldn't be able to go anywhere, thanks to the long no-compete clause, and companies like IWA (who are dying anyway) and ROH lose a star for no reason.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Didn't the long-term no-compete clause in Brock's contract get thrown out as being unfair? So...who's to say that another class-action lawsuit from a worker signed to WWE with a long-term no-compete clause couldn't also show that the clause is unfair?

 

Say what you will about how fucked the legal system is, but when it comes to contracts and their stipulations, it actually punishes vague wording.

[MrRant 0]

10 years yes, but a 6 month one would be fair.

[King Cucaracha 0]

Feh like this will matter. Why would anyone sign with WWE just to be buried again?

 

Ask Brian Kendrick. Or Jamie Noble.

 

Anyway, terrible plan. Maybe it's just me, but surely signing guys with a view to making them into stars would be a better gameplan than signing guys with the intention of burying them.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Pfft, who are you to question Vince McMahon's business models? He's VINCE McMAHON, DAMMIT! Whatever he didn't invent either came to him by accident or he stole from someone else and made more money off of it than they did! HE'S A BILLIONAIRE, GOD DAMMIT!! YOU'RRRRREEE FIIIRRREEEDDDD...

[The Czech Republic 0]

I thought the no-compete clause only applies if the wrestler walks out. If you release someone from their contract, how can you tell them where they can and cannot work?