The W
Views: 100033017
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 0749
The W - Pro Wrestling - Further Lesnar speculation ...
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.39
Pages: 1 2 Next
(5635 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
Mayhem
Scrapple








Since: 25.4.03
From: Nashville, TN

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.71

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








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3185 days
Last activity: 3185 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.63
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).



The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All if they Can't Take a Joke"
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 226 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.76
    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








Since: 5.3.03
From: TORONTO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 546 days
ICQ:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.53
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.



Find out RIGHT NOW what happens at this weekend's Royal Ramble in the latest Inside The Ropes
Check out my Year-End Awards voting!!!
The official Canadian Bulldog Blog, Website, and Merchandise Center.
Mayhem
Scrapple








Since: 25.4.03
From: Nashville, TN

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.72
    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








Since: 14.5.04
From: right behind you

Since last post: 130 days
Last activity: 130 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.39
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)


Now for a...
GREAT MOMENT IN TV VIEWING HISTORY

Amy Webber (on Smackdown): "You think everything is about you, Joy! Do you think you're special?"

My Little Cousin at home: "is she wearing a princess tiarra?"
Mayhem
Scrapple








Since: 25.4.03
From: Nashville, TN

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.72
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








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
It's never a good idea to waste the time of the judicial department for a wrestling angle.



thecubsfan.com - CMLLBlog
BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3379 days
Last activity: 3289 days
ICQ:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.12
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.



Screw Ricky
The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2014 days
Last activity: 1746 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.29
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).




"Don't compare my arm...to your cheap arm!"
-Edward Elric
sweetroll
Cotechino








Since: 23.3.02
From: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Since last post: 333 days
Last activity: 78 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.06
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








Since: 16.8.04
From: Perth Australia

Since last post: 3026 days
Last activity: 3012 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.97
    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



if you cant stand the heat...buy icecream
geemoney
Scrapple








Since: 26.1.03
From: Naples, FL

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.81
    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.



College, Sports and More!: Experience It
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3363 days
Last activity: 2647 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
    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.




"I know a great deal about the Middle East because I've been raising Arabian horses for over 20 years, I've researched the culture for most of my life."--Patrick Swayze on Iraq


oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1989 days
Last activity: 1923 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.38
"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.



"That Squirrel Can Waterski!"

emma
Cherries > Peaches








Since: 1.8.02
From: Phoenix-ish

Since last post: 38 days
Last activity: 3 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.47
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








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3379 days
Last activity: 3289 days
ICQ:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.12
    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)


Screw Ricky
CANADIAN BULLDOG
Andouille








Since: 5.3.03
From: TORONTO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 546 days
ICQ:  
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.53
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.



See some of the upcoming (nonexistent) WrestelMania XXX1 commercials in the latest Inside The Ropes
Check out my Year-End Awards voting!!!
The official Canadian Bulldog Blog, Website, and Merchandise Center.
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    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








Since: 23.3.02
From: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Since last post: 333 days
Last activity: 78 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.06
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.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.39
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: RAW is Japan - 2/7/05
Next thread: Shelton's next Challenge
Previous thread: yer WWE SMACKDOWN WORKRATE REPORT- 2/3/2005~!
(5635 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Vince sold WCW to Stephanie and now Steph gets her own company to run. She can give HHH all the titles and write herself into every angle! Way to go Steph!
- XPacArmy, Let the speculation begin!! (2003)
The W - Pro Wrestling - Further Lesnar speculation ...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.425 seconds.