CM Punk: Want to pay me more for doing nothing? Sure!!!

[closet_fan]

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/483...enew-cm-punks-contract-without-his-permission

According to a new report in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, there might be a way for WWE to renew CM Punk's contract with, or without his permission.

There is a clause in each Superstar's contract that states the WWE may be able to renew a deal if the wrestler has been injured for a period of time, and the company feels they owe them dates they were previously unable – or "unwilling" in Punk's case – to work. As we reported earlier, there is precedent for the idea, as Vince McMahon recently renewed Rey Mysterio's contract when it was set to expire, as Mysterio has missed most of the last year due to multiple injuries.

The plus side to this for WWE is that it keeps CM Punk from working for any other company while he is under contract to them. The downside is that they would have to continue to pay him during that period of time. It might be worth it from their end, but we should know one way or the other in July when his contract officially expires.

This is in no way a "Maybe Punk will come back" thread as I am 100% over him leaving.

But I did want to get everyone's thoughts as to how humorous it is that the WWE would pay Punk to sit at home and stop him from doing something he likely wasn't going to do anyway. Paranoia anyone?

 

[laodaron]

Well, it would all depend on how much money was guaranteed money, how much was incentive money, for instance how much each PPV he was on paid out additional, etc. In the end, I don't imagine that him working zero shows results in his paycheck being very high.

 

[closet_fan]

Well, it would all depend on how much money was guaranteed money, how much was incentive money, for instance how much each PPV he was on paid out additional, etc. In the end, I don't imagine that him working zero shows results in his paycheck being very high.

Who cares? It's still money he'll be getting for doing absolutely nothing.

 

[laodaron]

Who cares? It's still money he'll be getting for doing absolutely nothing.

And probably much less money than he would be making doing independent shows, or even returning to WWE to honor his responsibilities.

 

[nightmare]

If this ends up being the case then its crazy. Vince is so worried Punk may\may not wrestle a few indy shows that he would be willing to pay him to sit at home? The amount does not matter because Punk is content on staying out of the ring, so any money is a bonus for him. Any show Punk would wrestle for would make good money, but really wouldnt impact WWE & their numbers enough to warrant such an expense.


The real issue is this. If I just got fired as a 'cost cutting' measure & find out they are throwing money at someone who walked away- I would be furious. You show up for work, try to put on a good show if you are utilized & then get the ax regardless. In the meantime, someone who is just hanging out at home is still getting a paycheck? Wow.


Good for Punk, bad for the new F.E. club & a stupid move for Vince.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Well, it's pretty telling that CM Punk is still up on the WWE roster page. They're obviously not shutting the door, and really, it's kind of embarrassing. In some respects, it seems like they're practically drooling over the idea of Punk returning to the fold, even as they fire others, as Nightmare pointed out.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

You don't get paid unless you show up. That is written into every contract. This is just his contract being turned over meaning he owes them a certain amount of time because he walked out without injury. If they do this it just means that Punk will owe them a certain amount of time before his contract is done. He will still get royalties(he would get those even if his contract is done)but will not get paid and WWE would own his contract until he fulfills his contract or an agreement is reached between the two.

Well, it's pretty telling that CM Punk is still up on the WWE roster page. They're obviously not shutting the door, and really, it's kind of embarrassing. In some respects, it seems like they're practically drooling over the idea of Punk returning to the fold, even as they fire others, as Nightmare pointed out.

It's not embarrassing, it is good business. As long as Punk sells merchandise he will stay there. They make more money with him being there compared to taking him off.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

It's not embarrassing, it is good business. As long as Punk sells merchandise he will stay there. They make more money with him being there compared to taking him off.

Having someone on the roster page has nothing to do with whether they are still officially employed or whether you are selling their merchandise. It's not a legal roster...it's another form of advertising who is in their promotion. They are signalling that they still want Punk in the fold.

 

[Slash-LN]

You don't get paid unless you show up.

This isn't totally true. If a wrestler has a downside agreement then they get paid that regardless of if they show up or not. It's guaranteed money. So if Punk has a 500,000 dollar contract with a downside of 200,000 he's still going to get that 200,000.

 

[Messiah]

That's fine. Punk can make his little money doing nothing. WWE is still making money off CM Punk's name as well, probably a lot more than Punk is making.

 

[nightmare]

This isn't totally true. If a wrestler has a downside agreement then they get paid that regardless of if they show up or not. It's guaranteed money. So if Punk has a 500,000 dollar contract with a downside of 200,000 he's still going to get that 200,000.

Exactly. This happens especially in wrestling due to the fact that injuries are the nature of the business & inevitable. A talent isnt going to put their body on the line knowing if they get injured, that they will be out of a check while on the shelf. Vince still pays more obviously for those active on the roster, but he isnt going to make an injured talent risk losing their house\car, etc by giving them nothing. He knows they got hurt while doing their job so they are taken care of.



Example? Rey Mysterio. He still got a check while on the bench this year & they renewed him because even though he got paid, he still had to fulfill an amount of dates. That money is separate from royalties\merch. Plus another example would be Evan Bourne. He has been on the shelf for a while, yet still collected a check (he sure does not have much in the way of merch, etc)- but they had to let him go because it is an unnecessary expense. The difference between the two is that Rey is still a hot commodity upon returning, while Bourne isnt as much.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

That's fine. Punk can make his little money doing nothing. WWE is still making money off CM Punk's name as well, probably a lot more than Punk is making.

Didn't realize it was a dick measuring contest.

The WWE may take their potshots at him on TV and in articles, but the one thing they can't do is force him to perform for them.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, the last line in the report, that I read about earlier today, suggests that there's a loophole. In professional boxing, if a champion is injured or is dealing with some sort of legal matter that prevents him from defending his championship the minimum amount in the minimum allotted time, he can't be stripped of his title. He has to do so, of course, once whatever this issue is that's keeping him from competing is resolved. In CM Punk's case, he isn't out with an injury, nor is he dealing with any sort of legal issue or anything else preventing him from fulfilling contractual obligations; he simply doesn't want to come back to work. As a result, there's a possibility that WWE wouldn't have to pay him his downside guarantee while keeping him from signing with another wrestling company.

The report doesn't guarantee that it's a loophole that'll stick, but it wouldn't surprise me if that turns out to be the case. If it is the case and Vince does decide to renew his contract, it comes off as quite petty and vindictive just to prevent him from possibly signing with another company. At the same time, if the various reports are correct, Punk was a bit petty himself with constant complaints about one thing or another and when he pretty much told WWE to go fuck itself by walking out with no warning or notice the night after the Royal Rumble right smack in the middle of WrestleMania season.

 

[Kidpolean]

This isn't totally true. If a wrestler has a downside agreement then they get paid that regardless of if they show up or not. It's guaranteed money. So if Punk has a 500,000 dollar contract with a downside of 200,000 he's still going to get that 200,000.

You are joking right? Why on earth would Vince give anyone that kind of deal? Do you think he is an idiot?

Contracts are made to protect your business, so why on earth would anyone put into a contract that if you walk out of my company for any reason I will still pay you?

Most contracts guarantee money, if the promotion doesnt use you or if you are injured...but walking out on your own does not get you paid in any business EVER

Punk broke his contract when he left so even if this were true, it wouldn't stand in court because Punk is in violation of his contract by not working.

 

[faltemer]

Who cares? It's still money he'll be getting for doing absolutely nothing.

They could keep him from appearing at literally anything to earn money. Talking Dead, @midnight whatever the hell else he wants. For probably like 10 grand a year. Seems like a smart move on their part if is remotely that low, and is completely justified.

 

[nightmare]

They cant keep him from appearing just anywhere. The no compete\appearance clause covers wrestling related appearances & using registered trademarks without permission (names, logos, etc). If Phil Brooks is booked & advertised on a show, Vince cannot do shit about it really.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

WWE does not have to pay him his downside guarantee as he has already breached his contract by failing to appear.

WWE is at liberty to release him due to breaching the contract, sue him, or reprimand him. Whatever they see fit.

However, it's in their interest to keep the contract and not pay him shit. He can't sue them for not paying because the fact is he isn't working.

If WWE does actually pay him his downside guarantee, that means they are keeping good will by granting him an official sabbatical, which Vince hinted at in one of the shareholder calls.

WWE will probably never release Punk until he works the 5 months that were left on his contract. Punk knows this. He will either come back at some point, ask for a release, renegotiate his contract for a part-time deal, or try to sue them which would be futile considering this is all his doing.

 

[Slash-LN]

You are joking right? Why on earth would Vince give anyone that kind of deal? Do you think he is an idiot?

Contracts are made to protect your business, so why on earth would anyone put into a contract that if you walk out of my company for any reason I will still pay you?

Most contracts guarantee money, if the promotion doesnt use you or if you are injured...but walking out on your own does not get you paid in any business EVER

Punk broke his contract when he left so even if this were true, it wouldn't stand in court because Punk is in violation of his contract by not working.

From what we know he's still a WWE employee and still under contract.

It's like when Jonathan Martin left the Dolphins because he was bullied. They still paid him his guaranteed money. They could then turn around and sue him for a portion of that money for missing time. Even though he took a leave of absence he was still technically under contract with the team.

WWE could sue Punk to regain the sum for the time he refused to work.

 

[JJ15776]

This isn't totally true. If a wrestler has a downside agreement then they get paid that regardless of if they show up or not. It's guaranteed money. So if Punk has a 500,000 dollar contract with a downside of 200,000 he's still going to get that 200,000.

Ha, funny stuff. But no, not close to true. A wrestler still has to be available to work, he still has to fulfill his part of the contract, to receive the downside. Otherwise he's in breach of the contract and all terms, including the downside, are null and void.

Exactly. This happens especially in wrestling due to the fact that injuries are the nature of the business & inevitable. A talent isnt going to put their body on the line knowing if they get injured, that they will be out of a check while on the shelf. Vince still pays more obviously for those active on the roster, but he isnt going to make an injured talent risk losing their house\car, etc by giving them nothing. He knows they got hurt while doing their job so they are taken care of. .

Because unable to work because they got hurt and refusing to work despite being healthy are apples and oranges. One is covered by the terms of the contract, the other is not. It is highly unlikely that the WWE guaranteed Punk, or anybody else, a dime if they refused to work. That only happens in corrupt upper management where guys are writing their own contracts.

WWE does not have to pay him his downside guarantee as he has already breached his contract by failing to appear.

WWE is at liberty to release him due to breaching the contract, sue him, or reprimand him. Whatever they see fit.

Not one part of this is true. He has not breached his contract and the only thing the WWE can do is wait for it to expire. Punk would sue, and win, if they tried to keep one dime from him.

Professional wrestling contracts, including CM Punk's, are not like professional sports contracts. It is not simply a period of time during which the performer must appear. Not at all. Professional wrestling contracts are dictated by dates, or appearances. There is a certain number of dates that the wrestler must be available to perform over the length of the contract. That is what the contract calls for. A number of appearances, not a period of time. The period of time simply covers when the appearances must be performed.

CM Punk appeared for the number of dates required by his contract. He fulfilled his requirements. Thus, he has and will continue to receive his pay as required by the contract.

From what we know he's still a WWE employee and still under contract.

It's like when Jonathan Martin left the Dolphins because he was bullied. They still paid him his guaranteed money. They could then turn around and sue him for a portion of that money for missing time. Even though he took a leave of absence he was still technically under contract with the team.

WWE could sue Punk to regain the sum for the time he refused to work.

Apples and oranges, my friend. Jonathan Martin had a legitimate reason to walk away. The Dolphins continued to pay him because they supported his decision, and also because they didn't want a lawsuit for allowing him to be bullied. If they didn't want to pay him for that time, they wouldn't sue, they would simply stop writing the checks.

A much better example would be Emmitt Smith. In 1993, he was guaranteed $465,000. While the Cowboys agreed he deserved more, they couldn't agree on how much. So he cleaned out his locker, went home, and didn't play. He missed the first two games of the season and while he was gone, the Cowboys paid him $0.0 of that $465,000 guaranteed. In 1999, Joey Galloway did the same thing. He had one year left on his contract, guaranteeing him $1.5mil. Both sides wanted to sign a new long term contract, but couldn't agree to terms. So Galloway refused to play for the first half of the season, before coming back. While he was gone, not only did he receive $0.0 of the guaranteed money in his contract, he was fined for every day he missed and that ended up costing him $210,000. That same year, in the NHL, there was an even more extreme example. Alexei Yashin had one year left on his contract for $3.6mil guaranteed, but wanted a long term contract. He held out, refusing to play for the entire season in an attempt to force the Ottawa Senators to negotiate a new contract. It didn't work, and he didn't play a single game the entire season. Of the $3.6mil that was guaranteed to him for that season, he received $0.0. Not a single penny. Like Smith and Galloway(and others), he wasn't fulfilling his end of the contract, which meant his team didn't have to fulfill theirs.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Am I the only one who finds the notion of maintaining CM Punk on the roster and continuing to pay him, or even worse, using shenanigans to keep him under contract against his will, is beyond ludicrous? Look, CM Punk is a reasonably talented superstar, and I'm sure WWE would love to have him back in the fold, healthy, happy, and contributing to the product in a meaningful manner. But at the end of the day, whatever the rationale behind it may be, he simply may not want to be a WWE superstar anymore. That's his prerogative, although he should have handled if in a more professional manner. And if he wants to go elsewhere, so be it and good luck to him. I can't imagine WWE being terribly worried about it.

The list is lengthy of guys who for whatever reason became disenchanted with WWE, and decided to take their skill sets elsewhere. Hulk Hogan. Ric Flair. Booker T. Mick Foley. Jeff Hardy. Kurt Angle. RVD. Christian. The list goes on and on. Did the departure of any of these guys really change the status quo of either company whatsoever? Not an iota. Quite a few of those guys left, thinking the grass was greener elsewhere and when they decided it was not, they came back. There are a few that haven't returned. Yet. But have they done anything to impact WWE negatively at all? I don't think so. So I say if CM Punk wants to add his name to the lengthy list of guys who were going to be game changers elsewhere, I say let him go and good luck to him.

TNA. ROH. GWA. Other Indy federations, whatever. If anyone thinks for one second that Vince McMahon is losing any sleep at the thought of CM Punk signing a contract elsewhere and causing competition for him, they must be delusional of at least have very short memories. I'm not buying for one second that WWE is too worried at all about the prospect of CM Punk ending up elsewhere. And there's no way they are going to use any smoke and mirrors to prevent this from occurring.

 

[laodaron]

It's odd how not a single person threw a fit when Rey was extended a year to give Vince his days, and he was only injured. CM Punk cried and whined and didn't get his way and walked out on the entire WWE and WWE Universe, and suddenly everyone is up in arms that Vince would want to get his money's worth out of CM Punk as well.

 

[Kizzani]

It was so funny about what fans bitch about, We know the reason your upset you have to bust your ass for 40 hours plus a week to make chump change, while cm Punk does nothing and guess what....he makes 100% more than you.

 

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan, M.D.]

It's only because they are scared of him going and wrestling for another company after July. I'd be excited if I were him. No appearances, no promoting anything, he can do just about whatever he wants and will still make a lot of money. I do however think it's shitty that guys who wrestle all the time like Jinder and Drew got fired and they are throwing money at someone who doesn't want anything to do with the WWE currently.

 

[RedRegan1005]

If Vince resigned him it would be a totally stupid move probably done as a way for Vince to stick it to him, even though it wouldn't in anyway. Punk would keep getting some kind of money, and continue not to wrestle. Also, if WWE did it to avoid him from wrestling with other companies, it would also be pointless. Because 1) there is no company around that it one big name away from scaring WWE, and 2) If we use TNA as an example, sense they are the second largest company, even if it is a far far second, no wrestler could save them right now. So if WWE did resign punk to stop him from going their it would just be a waste of their money.

 

[Slash-LN]

Ha, funny stuff. But no, not close to true. A wrestler still has to be available to work, he still has to fulfill his part of the contract, to receive the downside. Otherwise he's in breach of the contract and all terms, including the downside, are null and void.



Because unable to work because they got hurt and refusing to work despite being healthy are apples and oranges. One is covered by the terms of the contract, the other is not. It is highly unlikely that the WWE guaranteed Punk, or anybody else, a dime if they refused to work. That only happens in corrupt upper management where guys are writing their own contracts.



Not one part of this is true. He has not breached his contract and the only thing the WWE can do is wait for it to expire. Punk would sue, and win, if they tried to keep one dime from him.

Professional wrestling contracts, including CM Punk's, are not like professional sports contracts. It is not simply a period of time during which the performer must appear. Not at all. Professional wrestling contracts are dictated by dates, or appearances. There is a certain number of dates that the wrestler must be available to perform over the length of the contract. That is what the contract calls for. A number of appearances, not a period of time. The period of time simply covers when the appearances must be performed.

CM Punk appeared for the number of dates required by his contract. He fulfilled his requirements. Thus, he has and will continue to receive his pay as required by the contract.



Apples and oranges, my friend. Jonathan Martin had a legitimate reason to walk away. The Dolphins continued to pay him because they supported his decision, and also because they didn't want a lawsuit for allowing him to be bullied. If they didn't want to pay him for that time, they wouldn't sue, they would simply stop writing the checks.

A much better example would be Emmitt Smith. In 1993, he was guaranteed $465,000. While the Cowboys agreed he deserved more, they couldn't agree on how much. So he cleaned out his locker, went home, and didn't play. He missed the first two games of the season and while he was gone, the Cowboys paid him $0.0 of that $465,000 guaranteed. In 1999, Joey Galloway did the same thing. He had one year left on his contract, guaranteeing him $1.5mil. Both sides wanted to sign a new long term contract, but couldn't agree to terms. So Galloway refused to play for the first half of the season, before coming back. While he was gone, not only did he receive $0.0 of the guaranteed money in his contract, he was fined for every day he missed and that ended up costing him $210,000. That same year, in the NHL, there was an even more extreme example. Alexei Yashin had one year left on his contract for $3.6mil guaranteed, but wanted a long term contract. He held out, refusing to play for the entire season in an attempt to force the Ottawa Senators to negotiate a new contract. It didn't work, and he didn't play a single game the entire season. Of the $3.6mil that was guaranteed to him for that season, he received $0.0. Not a single penny. Like Smith and Galloway(and others), he wasn't fulfilling his end of the contract, which meant his team didn't have to fulfill theirs.

You completely contradict yourself with these replies. What side are you on because I'm incredibly confused. It some statements it seems you don't think he should get paid and then in other statements you say the WWE still has to pay him because he fulfilled his dates.

You say Jonathan Martin had a good reason to leave and the Dolphins supported him but we have no idea what's going on behind the scenes with the WWE and Punk. All we have is internet hearsay and that's not enough to base anything on. It's quite possible WWE and Punk have worked something out.