News New clause in WWE contracts

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Crayo, Oct 17, 2013.

  1. Shame this didn't exist when they hired Kelly Kelly :pipebomb:
    • Like Like x 2
  2. There goes AR Fox going to the E
    • Like Like x 1
  3. There goes Val Venis returning.

    As for Fox: Good riddance, even as a fan of his he's not WWE material.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Why not WWE material?
  5. No ring psychology, no real mic skills. And Fox has for the longest time been working with some top talent that possess all of that and can teach it, guys like Steen, Gargano, Del Sol, Konley etc. I don't see him moving beyond being a spot monkey sadly. And he doesn't have the character or gift of the spoken word to back him up even if all he did was fall on his neck.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Would this include a HOF induction? Because if so, Chyna isn't getting in...
    • Like Like x 2
  7. where is Kelly Kelly ?
  8. "reportedly"

    So they might, but they might not.

    Talk about Meltzer.
  9. Its a good idea anyway if it is true. Keeps em with a good rep but what about HBK? Didn't he do some photoshoot for playgirl?
  10. Thats LAME, but I guess as a PG company nowadays that have to cover their ass. I missed the whole Kelly Kelly thing so that all flies right over my head.
  11. Well, it's a good decision given the direction they're taking.
  12. This also means you wont be a WWE superstar anytime soon [​IMG]
  13. I hate how PC WWE has become. Wrestling and PC should never go hand in hand. Honestly a bunch of choir boys make for a dull wrestling show.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Means Kelly Kelly will never disgrace a WWE ring again
  15. Well wouldn't this apply to Kaitlyn? Pretty sure she has near nude pics out there.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Exactly what I was saying yesterday lol.
  17. it says all NEW WWE contracts.
  18. So, what is the difference between amature nude photos, and WWE promotional Playboy divas? Hmmmm, oh well.

    I'm assuming one thing, and to quote the great Gohan

    • Like Like x 1
  19. I don't understand why anyone should give a shit about inappropriate photos or videos of someone. What someone does outside of work is their business, it should not have anything to do with their employment. This is like people getting fired because their boss saw them post drunk pictures on facebook.

    I get the whole idea that it will make the company look bad, but, that's society's fault for being ignorant shitbags and using the private things a person does to paint an entire picture of them without even knowing them. I can understand shit like kiddie porn and such, but, nudies, drunk pictures, shit like that, who cares? As long as the person shows up for work sober, clean, and does what they are supposed to do, I honestly could not give a shit if they spread their legs on the internet. They are going to possibly end up missing out on great talent because of pictures and videos that were probably taken when they were teenagers or some shit.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Crayo im surprised your being like this when you know Kelly Kelly is my favourite

    Anyways Kelly Kelly only did modelling photo shoots before WWE its not like she did something bad like porn. And since she was signed in 2006 this contract rule didnt excist so in your face

    I do think this is unfair to any new talent being signed as everyone has a past this is discrimination
Draft saved Draft deleted