Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Stopspot, Apr 14, 2015.
Credit Dave Meltzer, Wrestling Observer Newsletter.
WWE, greatest place to work ever, everybody.
For Punk I understand, but Del Rio was not in the wrong IMO.
Given both Brock Lesnar and Del Rio got their normal No-Compete Clause thrown out the window in court, why should this one be any different?
I can sort of understand the merchandise thing but the one year non work is ludicrous. As lock said doubt it will matter given it has been overturned before.
Still I would not sign a wwe contract in a hurry, grass is not always greener on the other side.
Also this probably only means they "cannot work" in the united states. Since WWE lives in a world where you can only make money in the states despite evidence of the opposite.
They may as well write in that if you leave WWE you have to commit seppuku in the Stamford parking lot because nobody is going to pay attention to their stupid shit anyway.
WWE: Hey, you can't compete
Competitor: Ehhh, sure I can.
It doesn't pass in the court, they can't forbid you to work in any industry, let alone TWO of them. Hence why Rey-Rey's and Alberto's attorneys brought them down quite easily. WWE law office = joke.
Eww, that contract...
Good luck with that, WWE.
Kind of dickish to add a clause that's only there to intimidate naive employees.
But Vince, how many times have you said your product is sports entertainment and not wrestling. Why should you care if someone went off to wrestle, since that's not what you do.
Well, this makes no sense nor I think they're allowed to do so, but if they're really as hell bent on doing this as they seem they really should try to get a good law clause or whatever because the current one is not working.
I was trying to remember something because I actually had a similar clause in a hiring agreement back when I used to work for a benefits administration firm. They had a stipulation that once I left employment I couldn't work for six months or so in any benefits call center environment. I wasn't sure of the legality of it, but I was told afterwards that in the state I lived in if the clause was an unreasonable restriction on my ability to earn a living, then it was not enforceable. It never came up after I quit, but there were plenty of people who worked there who immediately got similar employment elsewhere.
I do know that in California it would not be enforceable regardless of where it was signed. California doesn't recognize most non compete clauses and does not allow out of state non compete clauses to be enforced. So even if they signed this contract, they would immediately be able to work in California whether WWE liked it or not.
That's the thing, he doesn't want them going off entertaining elsewhere. It has nothing to do with wrestling.
That would make sense except that the clause distinctly prohibits them from working for a wrestling or MMA company. It doesn't say they can't work somewhere and not entertain.
Does WWE actually think this will hold any ground in the long run. I mean they must think it will, or else they wouldn't be doing it. What a silly move. It must be an intimidation tactic as this won't hold up in court.
Reload or listen to audio. By reCAPTCHA™
Reload or go back to text. By reCAPTCHA™