Mayhem
Scrapple Level: 121
Posts: 1626/3693 EXP: 19619866 For next: 436888
Since: 25.4.03 From: Nashville, TN
Since last post: 2439 days Last activity: 251 days
| #1 Posted on 3.2.05 0838.58 Reposted on: 3.2.12 0839.26 | Found this little news tidbit at PWInsider, which came from the St. Paul Pioneer Press
Originally posted by St. Paul Pioneer Press The buzz is that retired pro wrestler Brock Lesnar, who had a tryout with the Vikings, could return to the ring May 22 when World Wrestling Entertainment has a pay-per-view show at Target Center.
That would mean a return at the Smackdown brand's Judgement Day PPV from Minneapolis. Hell, I would mind seeing a Lesnar/Cena feud ... Brock owes Cena ... Promote this thread! | | Stilton
Frankfurter Level: 62
Posts: 551/793 EXP: 1915103 For next: 69594
Since: 7.2.04 From: Canada
Since last post: 6627 days Last activity: 6627 days
| #2 Posted on 3.2.05 0852.19 Reposted on: 3.2.12 0852.26 | IF this is true, then I hope Vince doesn't see this as a reason to actually drag Dave "The Next Big Thing" Batista over to SD for a program with Brock "The Last Big Thing" Lesnar.
I for one would be pleased to see Lesnar back at work, and I think SD could really use him, but I'm with Mayhem... a program with Cena would be a good place to start (maybe after letting Brock squash JBL to get his cred with the fans back). | Von Maestro
Boudin rouge Level: 51
Posts: 271/517 EXP: 1010305 For next: 3640
Since: 6.1.04 From: New York
Since last post: 2605 days Last activity: 2178 days
| #3 Posted on 3.2.05 0921.56 Reposted on: 3.2.12 0923.41 | Originally posted by Stilton (maybe after letting Brock squash JBL to get his cred with the fans back).
Actually IF he comes back at this PPV, then they could use it to close the Angle Invitational "hometown hero challenge" storyline & establish Lesnar's credibility (although, I don't think he'll need to with the average fan) at the same time.
If his mind is right & he's committed to wrestling, they'd be crazy not to bring him back... | CANADIAN BULLDOG
Andouille Level: 92
Posts: 1603/1962 EXP: 7622851 For next: 134116
Since: 5.3.03 From: TORONTO
Since last post: 3990 days Last activity: 1610 days
| ICQ: | |
| |
| #4 Posted on 3.2.05 0949.38 Reposted on: 3.2.12 0951.30 | The only thing is, they have GOT to bring Brock back as a heel. If anyone in this business has ever had built-in, Rock-style "You Sold Out" heat, it's Brock Lesnar.
A feud with Cena would be a natural, or maybe even starting something up again with Eddie (if he's still a face by then), rather than just using him to pop a hometown crowd. Sure, he'd be over in Minneapolis, but would he do from there? Be the next monster to try and topple JBL? Wrestle Angle for the zillionth time?
And looking waaaaay into the future, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have Brock-Batista as the headliner for WM22. | Mayhem
Scrapple Level: 121
Posts: 1627/3693 EXP: 19619866 For next: 436888
Since: 25.4.03 From: Nashville, TN
Since last post: 2439 days Last activity: 251 days
| #5 Posted on 3.2.05 1009.02 Reposted on: 3.2.12 1009.45 | Originally posted by CANADIAN BULLDOG And looking waaaaay into the future, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have Brock-Batista as the headliner for WM22.
We'll see what Triple H has to say about that ... :) | CHAPLOW
Morcilla Level: 55
Posts: 122/617 EXP: 1305641 For next: 8557
Since: 14.5.04 From: right behind you
Since last post: 3572 days Last activity: 2809 days
| #6 Posted on 3.2.05 1808.12 Reposted on: 3.2.12 1809.30 | If Brock Lesnar gets enough heat, maybe he can win a Royal Rumble and actually dethrone that meddling Triple H from the RAW Heavyweight Title.
Sure, Smackdown needs someone big like him- but the way this crap with JBL is going, it looks like Batista is gonna end up on Smackdown (EDIT AFTER RAW IN JAPAN: Never Mind, he's staying on RAW)- so Brock on RAW would be fine (Im just projecting into the future, this doesnt have to be the first or even second year he's back)
Also, another feud with Big Show would be cool.
(edited by WhoTookMyHonor? on 9.2.05 1432) | Mayhem
Scrapple Level: 121
Posts: 1640/3693 EXP: 19619866 For next: 436888
Since: 25.4.03 From: Nashville, TN
Since last post: 2439 days Last activity: 251 days
| #7 Posted on 7.2.05 1906.13 Reposted on: 7.2.12 1913.11 | Looks like he may be delaying his comeback if the story at the Torch has any credibility ...
Originally posted by The Torch Brock Lesnar's lawsuit against WWE claims that they are preventing him from working in his chosen field due to a no compete clause he signed last year shortly after WrestleMania. He decided he did not want to wrestle in WWE anymore because he didn't like the travel and wanted to pursue a dream of playing in the NFL.
http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_11843.shtml
OR is it a big ol' slab of a work?
(edited by Mayhem on 7.2.05 1907) | thecubsfan
Scrapple Moderator Level: 152
Posts: 1191/6203 EXP: 44087374 For next: 214388
Since: 10.12.01 From: Aurora, IL
Since last post: 947 days Last activity: 327 days
| #8 Posted on 7.2.05 1915.07 Reposted on: 7.2.12 1915.12 | It's never a good idea to waste the time of the judicial department for a wrestling angle. | BigVitoMark
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 1415/1509 EXP: 5210519 For next: 221725
Since: 10.8.02 From: Queen's University, Canada
Since last post: 6821 days Last activity: 6731 days
| ICQ: | |
| |
| #9 Posted on 7.2.05 2308.31 Reposted on: 7.2.12 2310.41 | Bah...if you don't like a deal don't sign it. Nobody asked Brock to walk away from a top spot and six years plus worth of contracted time.
I wonder how a court of law is supposed to determine what passes as 'ridiculous' demands that Lesnar is allegedly making regarding a comeback. | The Vile1
Lap cheong Level: 87
Posts: 903/1694 EXP: 6187410 For next: 205389
Since: 4.9.02 From: California
Since last post: 5456 days Last activity: 5188 days
| #10 Posted on 8.2.05 0055.47 Reposted on: 8.2.12 0056.40 | For once I got to agree with HHH. Leaving the WWE for the NFL has got to be one of the stupidest things ever.
Though looking at it one way, given time Vince McMahon doesn't really mind bringing back people that brought about million dollar lawsuits on him (IE Sable). | sweetroll
Cotechino Level: 23
Posts: 28/82 EXP: 66586 For next: 1138
Since: 23.3.02 From: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Since last post: 3775 days Last activity: 2660 days
| #11 Posted on 8.2.05 1023.24 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1023.34 | The big lug probably has a legit claim against the WWE. It seems simple to say, "If you don't like a deal, don't sign it." Usually when negotiating out of a contract, the employer has the upper hand in negotiations. So, you can't impose a ridiculous non-compete clause out of spite. If Vince wanted to keep Lesnar off his competitor's air, he could have refused to release him.
"Restraints on postemployment competition that are so burdensome that their anticompetitive purposes and effects outweigh their justifications may be struck down under a rule of reason." That's pretty much how you sum up the rules for non-compete clauses. The judge will try to figure out if the six-year length is too long to be reasonable (maybe, maybe not), and if the international restraints are too restrictive (probably). | PerthHeat
Mettwurst Level: 32
Posts: 88/169 EXP: 185949 For next: 20495
Since: 16.8.04 From: Perth Australia
Since last post: 6468 days Last activity: 6454 days
| #12 Posted on 8.2.05 1132.30 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1132.44 | Originally posted by sweetroll "Restraints on postemployment competition that are so burdensome that their anticompetitive purposes and effects outweigh their justifications may be struck down under a rule of reason." That's pretty much how you sum up the rules for non-compete clauses. The judge will try to figure out if the six-year length is too long to be reasonable (maybe, maybe not), and if the international restraints are too restrictive (probably).
It seems my learned colleague has summed up the salient points with clarity and vision.
But under what will the Judge be guided? Sports contracts or Entertainment contracts? And does the WWE then countersue for loss of earnings over the same 6 year period? Like it or not Brock WAS the WWEs number 1 ticket for 6-9 years ( injuries notwithstanding) and the WWE could have expected a reasonable return on their investment. Brock stated he had no desire to wrestle but all the desire to play football, so signing a 'no-wrestle for 6 years' deal shouldnt have concerned him. It is a minefield and one am sure will be settled , either through Brock returning or by a judge deciding the terms are restrictive but recognizing the investment the WWE stood to lose and reduce it to 3 years on all wrestling international or local. Thats my 2c | geemoney
Scrapple Level: 125
Posts: 1418/3977 EXP: 22053172 For next: 401055
Since: 26.1.03 From: Naples, FL
Since last post: 12 days Last activity: 6 min.
| #13 Posted on 8.2.05 1151.09 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1151.36 | Originally posted by sweetroll The big lug probably has a legit claim against the WWE. It seems simple to say, "If you don't like a deal, don't sign it." Usually when negotiating out of a contract, the employer has the upper hand in negotiations. So, you can't impose a ridiculous non-compete clause out of spite. If Vince wanted to keep Lesnar off his competitor's air, he could have refused to release him.
"Restraints on postemployment competition that are so burdensome that their anticompetitive purposes and effects outweigh their justifications may be struck down under a rule of reason." That's pretty much how you sum up the rules for non-compete clauses. The judge will try to figure out if the six-year length is too long to be reasonable (maybe, maybe not), and if the international restraints are too restrictive (probably).
The thing is, Brock SIGNED it knowing he couldn't wrestle for six years- why didn't he complain then? But now, since he's not good enough for the NFL and his demands are supposedly WAY too high, he wants to sue. I don't really know how this could go for Brock because, to me, it'll always come back to him signing it knowing about the no-compete clause. | wordlife
Head cheese Level: 42
Posts: 313/324 EXP: 510557 For next: 10809
Since: 4.4.03
Since last post: 6805 days Last activity: 6089 days
| #14 Posted on 8.2.05 1223.44 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1226.32 | Originally posted by sweetroll The big lug probably has a legit claim against the WWE. It seems simple to say, "If you don't like a deal, don't sign it." Usually when negotiating out of a contract, the employer has the upper hand in negotiations. So, you can't impose a ridiculous non-compete clause out of spite. If Vince wanted to keep Lesnar off his competitor's air, he could have refused to release him.
"Restraints on postemployment competition that are so burdensome that their anticompetitive purposes and effects outweigh their justifications may be struck down under a rule of reason." That's pretty much how you sum up the rules for non-compete clauses. The judge will try to figure out if the six-year length is too long to be reasonable (maybe, maybe not), and if the international restraints are too restrictive (probably).
You took the words out of my mouth.
Also, due to his "profession" and let's be honest, limited skill set (I have no clue what Brock majored in at UMinn), can't he make a claim that the WWE will not allow him to make a living? Especially given the fact that the two most important things in wrestling (youth and athletic skill) are fleeting?
From my (little) knowledge of Employment Law (and maybe one of the law students here can correct me if I am wrong), that someone cannot totally prevent you from making a living (which is what it sounds like Vince is doing)?
Gee, I am not really sure if Brock knew what he was signing. No offense to Brock but the guy doesn't seem like the sharpest tool the shed and even really intelligent people have been tricked by contracts in the past.
I agree with Sweetroll that they will probably let him wrestle internationally but not domestically (not allowing the guy to make a living is absurd) but I think they will sustain on the 6 year clause domestically. | oldschoolhero
Knackwurst Level: 112
Posts: 2017/3059 EXP: 15246670 For next: 91583
Since: 2.1.02 From: nWo Country
Since last post: 5431 days Last activity: 5365 days
| #15 Posted on 8.2.05 1253.30 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1255.59 | "Not allowing the guy to make a living"? He made enough to buy himself a frickin' private jet early last year, which is something WWE will surely point out. They made him enough cash to last him a lifetime, it's not their fault if he allowed it to flow through his fingers like water. | emma
Cherries > Peaches Level: 97
Posts: 1172/2182 EXP: 9064853 For next: 252505
Since: 1.8.02 From: Phoenix-ish
Since last post: 445 days Last activity: 167 days
| #16 Posted on 8.2.05 1300.50 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1301.48 | I don't know if it's salient legally, but it seems to me like it *should* be :-) : Brock wasn't a professional wrestler before Vince hired him. We're not talking about Vince finally hiring somebody like Chris Benoit with umpteen years experience in his chosen profession, & then trying to bar him from subsequent work. Brock acquired 100% of this "profession" on Vince's dime, then abruptly decided to walk away.
What would Brock be doing for a living if Vince had never hired him? I'm sure Brockie can get a gig as a wrestling coach somewhere. Won't be able to get the $$$ to keep his bride Sable in the manner to which she's become accustomed, but maybe Vince will hire *her* back again. (Hmm, there's that Sable connection again.)
I'd also think that it's an additional complexity that he was an independent contractor learning 100% of the "profession" while under contract. In normal independent contractor situations, one generally assumes that the contractor already knows what the hell they're doing when they'e hired.
Brock definitely isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Burning bridges the way he has is a good indicator of that. But I'm pretty sure his lawyer would have noticed the details of the no-compete agreement. He was so adamant about running off to join the circus ... uh, NFL that he didn't care. That's Brock's problem, not Vince's. | BigVitoMark
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 1419/1509 EXP: 5210519 For next: 221725
Since: 10.8.02 From: Queen's University, Canada
Since last post: 6821 days Last activity: 6731 days
| ICQ: | |
| |
| #17 Posted on 8.2.05 1315.40 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1316.42 | Originally posted by wordlife Gee, I am not really sure if Brock knew what he was signing. No offense to Brock but the guy doesn't seem like the sharpest tool the shed and even really intelligent people have been tricked by contracts in the past.
Brock had (has?) an agent named Ed Hitchcock. Regardless of how smart you think Brock might be, it's on the agent to be on guard for this stuff.
Maybe Vince should have just sued Brock for breach of contract rather than cutting the guy a break and letting him go.
(edited by BigVitoMark on 8.2.05 1115) | CANADIAN BULLDOG
Andouille Level: 92
Posts: 1609/1962 EXP: 7622851 For next: 134116
Since: 5.3.03 From: TORONTO
Since last post: 3990 days Last activity: 1610 days
| ICQ: | |
| |
| #18 Posted on 8.2.05 1424.25 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1424.30 | The thing is, WWE is NOT preventing him from making a living. They let him out of his contract specificially so he could try out for the NFL. Plus (I'm sure they will argue if pressed), they tried to negotiate with him to return to WWE once the football thing didn't work out.
So right there, those are two opportunities that Brock could have pursued. Plus, I'm sure if he wanted to, say, wait tables, Vince McMahon wouldn't be on him with a cease and desist order.
WWE, presumably, doesn't want him to compete in wrestling or MMA, which is the terms of a contract that HE (and his agent) agreed to. Personally, I say (not knowing ANYTHING about labor laws, mind you) he should have to sit the rest of his contract out...
Vince didn't screw Brock. Brock screwed Brock. | Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst Level: 110
Posts: 1815/2942 EXP: 14379947 For next: 28985
Since: 2.1.02 From: Philly Suburbs
Since last post: 1336 days Last activity: 1 day
| #19 Posted on 8.2.05 1439.00 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1439.59 | Originally posted by oldschoolhero "Not allowing the guy to make a living"? He made enough to buy himself a frickin' private jet early last year, which is something WWE will surely point out. They made him enough cash to last him a lifetime, it's not their fault if he allowed it to flow through his fingers like water.
Minor quibble - he leased the plane, he didn't buy it. | sweetroll
Cotechino Level: 23
Posts: 29/82 EXP: 66586 For next: 1138
Since: 23.3.02 From: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Since last post: 3775 days Last activity: 2660 days
| #20 Posted on 8.2.05 1943.48 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1944.35 | Connecticut law may be different, but here's how the situation could have played out.
Lesnar wants out of his contract. Vince can either A) release him outright, with a reasonable non-compete clause, B) refuse to release him, then sue Lesnar for non-performance, or C) refuse to release him, using common sense to figure out that a guy who hasn't played competitive football since high school won't make the NFL.
The WWE probably should have picked choice B. If Vince had held Lesnar to the contract, Lesnar would probably have to pay Vince whatever lost business the company could prove from his departure, AND be subject a reasonable non-compete order.
Both Vince's and Brock's lawyers look like they cut some serious corners in the settlement. I'm obviously not privy to the original contract or subsequent non-compete agreement, so there may be much more to this issue.
Again, saying Brock shouldn't have signed the agreement seems like a common sense response, but the law doesn't always operate under common sense. The law recognizes the employer as having significantly stronger bargaining power than an employee, and I would think courts would favor "independent contractors" even more (though I'm not sure).
Of course, all of this goes out the window if Connecticut law is markedly different than anything I've studied, or there's some labor law theory I'm unaware of. Or, I might be completely full of shit and not realize it. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |