Don't know if this has been addressed or not before, so please bear with me. If the WWE has fired Matt Hardy, how do they still hold a 90 no compete clause with him? I can understand people who ask for releases, but, if you FIRE the guy, shouldnt he be able to go work where he wants, whenever he wants?
I think the way it works is that all WWE contracts have are up for review every 90 days. At that time, WWE reserves the right to continue with the contract or terminate it. In the event that they decide to terminate it, then the no-compete clause kicks into effect. So it isn't so much that Hardy got fired, but rather that he was released.
If the WWE had flat out fired him, I would think the no compete clause wouldn't apply.
"Now that you've built up the courage to get into the gym, let me give you five reasons why you should put in the time to train with consistency: 1. Increased strength 2. Improved self-confidence 3. Injury prevention 4. Self-discipline 5. Sex (Trust me, you'll have a better shot with the ladies if you're in shape.)" -- Making the Game, pp. 14 - 15
I was wondering the same thing. Like Packman said the only thing I can figure is that it says in the contract that regardless of what happens he can't compete for 90 days. Seems pretty unfair though since Matt can't get paid for 90 days, unless he got the remaining of his contract bought out or something. If he can't compete for 90 days and doesn't get some kind of compensation then that's pretty screwed up, on top of the screwing he already got. He seemed like he was in pretty good spirits in his between the ropes interview though, so good for him.
I think this clause was instated during the monday night wars. Because when stars such as Lex Luger and Scott Hall would get realeased and then show up on Nitro the next day it didn't look good. So if Hardy got released and then showed up on TNA the next day it wouldn't look good for WWE. I don't know about the 90-day thing because Rhyno got released fairly soon after his incident at Mania, but maybe that 90-day time was there anyway i don't know.
Iím no legal expert, but I think the 90-day no compete clause was probably written into Mattís contract at the time he signed it. Just a simple agreement that if he should leave the company under any circumstances, he cannot work for a competing promotion for 90 days.
And itís not that he canít get paid. Iím pretty sure Matt could spend those 90 days working in a non-competing industry. He just signed an agreement that he wouldnít wrestle for three months.
I've always been curious about the language of these no-compete clauses. Obviously, they became prevalent in the heyday of WCW, but the wrestling landscape is very different now. Would working for a small promotion such as say, PWG, be considered competing with WWE? Is the restriction limited to companies with TV deals (TNA, Japan)? WWE can't seriously believe that if Matt (or any of their other recently released stars) worked one little indy show in North Dakota or something, then that company would instantly become "competition" for them. Can they?
Why wouldn't it make sense for the 90-day clause to be in effect even if he was terminated? If it wasn't in effect, and Hardy (or anyone) wasn't happy with their push or whatever, would they not have some incentive to TRY to get fired without it hanging over their heads? If I was getting paid, and I knew I could go work anywhere else, I might be inclined to start showing up "in no shape to perform".
ďTo get ass, youíve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
If the WWE has fired Matt Hardy, how do they still hold a 90 no compete clause with him?
He signed the deal! "You can't jump to a competitor for x amount of days" aren't unusual with people involved in creative gigs and people in media.
Matt's still getting paid (and may still be collecting merchandising checks after - he'd be getting PPV shares too if he hadn't been hurt - because of how long that stuff takes to get done), they're just giving him notice that they won't be using his indepedent contracting skills after 90 days, and are choosing to spend the time in between also not using him.
Matt could be a free agent if he wanted to be now - all he'd after to do is give up any claim on any money owed. Since people apparently got five to six digit royalty checks from SmackDown vs RAW this past week, you could see why he or others might be willing to sit around for 90 days.
The Meltzer line is these are probably illegal and likely would've been struck down if someone in WCW fought it, given Georgia's stance on similiar contracts, so they mollify the cut people by giving the money.
I'm thinking at least some of the cut people don't mind a 90 day vacation.
This, like so many other things, is all Lex Luger's fault.
I've always been curious about the language of these no-compete clauses.
Welcome to the WWE vs Brock Lesnar.
I believe, Not To Long Ago (but maybe a year), the non-compete deal was hilariously out of date, restrticting people from working World Championship Wrestling and the sort. The Brock case seems to indicate they've updated it slightly, and Meltzer has said they've added "no Ultimate Fighting" to anyone who has a background where they might be intersted in doing it.
I don't know the language (someone got a WWE contract to share?), but the guiding principle is "don't appear on wrestling programs which might conceivable compete with us (have TV)". ROH/PWG level promotions are probably fine. TNA is not fine (and those who've been cut have been told going there at all reduces their chances of ever being brought back.) Japan is at the center of the WWE/Lesnar thing.
Plus.... you've got to think if Matt Hardy EVER wants to return one day, he would just wait the 90 days they've asked for and not take his chances. Surely working a match for JAPW or wherever isn't worth the risk of pissing someone in Vince's inner circle off...
Heck, I think there are even no-compete clauses in one's paperwork when they take a job in retail. "If you get fired from Kroger, you're not allowed to work for a competing grocery store for a year" or something like that. I know video stores do it.
Cubs has sketched it out nicely. If I were to break it down into one sentence, I would say "technically, Matt hasn't really been fired, he's been given notice that in 90 days he will no longer be employed." He still gets paid his downside guarantee over those 3 months. Rhyno, for instance, will still be within those 90 days when the ECW show rolls around, so conceivably they'd just be like 'hey how about doing this one show for $[PPV payoff]' without having to make any new arrangements.
"It's just Shock TV again, IMO. There's no longterm on RAW, it's just week by week with non-wrestlers getting heat on the wrestlers. It may pop the crowd but it's gonna be so damaging down the road." Just like Shock TV was. Oh wait....