CM Punk Gone From WWE - Keep It All Here

[Marshyishere]

Definitely a work. WWE and CM Punk are blurring the lines between reality and kayfabe in a masterful manner, exploiting some of CM Punk's well known gripes into a storyline which may have somewhat of a factual basis, but is still ultimately a storyline. It is well known that CM Punk wants to headline a Wrestlemania. He wants to be the number one guy in the company. I have no doubt that he is hurting physically and likely somewhat burned out mentally. And he has to be jealous of Bryan blowing past him in popularity as well as the part timers such as Brock Lesnar, Dave Batista, the Undertaker, and possibly even Sting being more prominently featured at Wrestlemania than he is (potentially). So I'm sure Punk legitimately has issues. But ultimately, he and the WWE are using these issues to be incorporated into a storyline, coming to a head at WM30.

What is he going to do if this is legit? Retire? The man is 35 years old and I don't care how financially secure he may or may not be, that's pretty early to walk away from the business. Return to the indies? You have a choice between being near the top of the biggest company in the world in terms of professional wrestling, but you are going to compete in smaller venues for significantly less cash? Doesn't make sense. Pursue other ventures? Possibly, but I'm skeptical.

Who knows what WWE has planned, Wrestlemania is still 9 weeks away, and a whole lot can go down between now and then. I realize that not everything reported turns out to be a work but in today's pro wrestling world, a lot of it is. And CM Punk has a Jericho-esque tendency to work the fans in social media and the like. Let's face it, we aren't that far removed from the summer of Punk, another example of Punk and the WWE exploiting a situation whereby there were some factual issues, but they were incorporated into a well orchestrated storyline.

At the end of the day, we are days away from the launch of the WWE network, weeks away from Wrestlemania 30, and WWE is financially stronger than ever. There's no way in hell the (arguably) number two guy in the company is simply taking his ball and going home. I'm simply not buying it.

Agreed.

Since this happened, Punk has been absolutely dead on social media and there has been no comment from the WWE. The main people commenting so far have been Stone Cold & Mick Foley - both huge wrestling media personalities, who as we know still have very close ties to the WWE. I believe they are both in on it and are helping to push the storyline further.

The fact that both of them are confident that Punk hasn't wrestled his last match for the WWE seems very suss and the whole story about Foley breaking his TV over the rumble results, just stinks of a conspiracy to me.

I think Punk was legitimately injured at the Rumble, or was so worn out that he had the discussion with Vince about taking a break and from there it was turned into a storyline, which will ultimately set the match up against Triple H, give Punk a rest & put Punk over so he can catch up to Bryan slightly.

To those that do not believe the WWE creative is capable of something like this. Here's a few examples of why they can and have:

Daniel Bryan - Turning a real-life issue of him not receiving a main event push, into a storyline against the authority.

Dolph Ziggler - Pretty much the same thing. We heard about some supposed "heat" backstage about his interview the other day, now there is a video on WWE.com of him being interviewed and shooting a massive promo about being held back.

CM Punk - The whole Pipebomb and summer of punk angle.

 

[laodaron]

I love it if it's a work, and it fits into CM Punk's whiny self-absorbed real personality. However, if this is a shoot, then CM Punk doesn't even deserve a chance in the Indy feds.

 

[CyberPunk]

Everything is up in the air, isn't it? Has Punk really quit, or is this a work of epic proportions?

There are so many things to consider here. First of all, every report that has come so far has been more of a speculation than real story. All we know is Punk met Vince after the Royal Rumble and left for home. Since then, we don't know about anything. For a guy who's so vocal about everything, he's been awfully quiet on social media. We've received sporadic reports of what people think backstage and what I gather is very less number of people actually know what's going on.

That brings me to the point where I speculate whether this is a work or real. Honestly speaking, I have no idea. But let's see how it ties up with current scenario. HHH vs Punk has little to no heat at this point. Everything they could've done in this story is either already done by Punk and HHH last time, or being invested in Bryan. How do you fit Punk in the current storyline then? If this is a work, Punk's walking out gives ammunition to the writer for the story. Kayfabe, after this incident, HHH is in hot soup because one of his bigger stars just walked out for favoring his boy (yes, Batista) over Punk and Bryan. They could tie all this up in this storyline (if this is a storyline). I mean, honestly, how else do you think they could actually build this feud over next 9 weeks? Plus, HHH would've taken notes from his own last Wrestlemania fued with Lesnar, when the match was damn fine but devoid of any real heat or crowd interaction throughout.

Punk did look worn in his recent matches. If he has walked out, fine, we'll see someone else in this Wrestlemania. But if this is a work, this is the best way they can actually build some heat for HHH vs Punk.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I think WWE should lay the ultimatium that, if you walk out while still under contract, then you are out-permanently.

That selfish bitch "Stone Cold" Steve Austin was known for his petulant walkouts. Acting more like a 6-year old than someone in their forties, he would take his ball and go home whenever he had to put someone over he didn't want to. Austin's success went to his head, and he put himself before the company. If he was disgruntled, he should have spoken to Vince personally. If he can't use his influence and stroke to get Vince to see things his way, then he hasn't got as much influence as thinks he has. Grown-ups discuss problems, children run away.

Considering the last time Austin left, his neck was stuffed anyway, and it was his third time, Vince should have cut off all negotiations with Austin, and even sued him for breach of contract. If you want out, let your contract run out, and then don't sign a new one. Then, legally, the WWE wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Now, Punk pulls the same childish bullshit. Boo hoo. Guess what, no-one owes you anything in this world. If you want something, you have to go and get it. If Punk doesn't like his lot,then leave when his contract ends in July, and go elsewhere. Punk doesn't owe WWE another contract, but he is legally obligated to fulfil this one.

If Punk left in July, I would actually have no problem with it. He is a grown-man, and can do whatever he wants in his life, as long as he meets his obligations. C.M. Punk is OBLIGATED to complete his WWE contract, just like Austin was. I just hope Punk isn't getting paid any more of his contract than the part he has already fulfilled. WWE stuck to their side of the bargain, so they shouldn't pay for time not worked.

Besides, Punk has had such a raw deal during his time in WWE. I mean, how cruel of WWE to give C.M. Punk a 14-month title reign. How dare they make Punk the sixth-longest reigning champion in history, and the longest since the Hulkamania era.

Punk had a longer continous title reign than Cena, Orton, Edge, Randy Savage, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Austin, Rock, Undertaker or even Triple H
had. What a burial! Sure, most of these guys have had more title reigns than Punk, but half of them were meaningless reigns. There are guys in the back who wish they got the TV time, title reigns, PPV matches Punk got. Punk was a cert for Wrestlemania this year, barring injury (or walkout). Dolph Ziggler and some other talent don't have the same guarantee of a Wrestlemania paycheck.

It's funny how the ones who walk out have been given more than anyone, yet are so ungrateful, that they say they are not happy and walk. They are spoiled, that's the problem. Look at Brock Lesnar. Never has a more ungrateful douche been in WWE. Brock won the IC belt, KOTR, the Royal Rumble Match, was the No. 1 guy on "Smackdown", main-evented Wrestlemania in his first year, and was given all these things in his first two years in WWE. Some take ten years to get half of that. Yet did Brock appreciate it? No! He walked out instead (however, at least his contract was up, so it isn't as bad). Now, Lesnar comes back, and yet only shows up when he feels like it. He still isn't fully committed.

WWE should not pay Punk another cent, and if he doesn't like it, he can sue WWE, because Punk would lose. WWE didn't break the contract, Punk did. Now, Punk can be a man and return. Then, come July, he can do what he likes. Or he could be the petulant crybaby Austin was, and tarnish an otherwise proud legacy.

 

[AnthonyM4]

I like and respect Punk so I hope he doesn't come back and wwe loses one less star. They deserve it. I'm sure you are going to get some hate for what you posted, but not from me. Like I said I like Punk, but I won't slam someone who does and it's ok if you don't want to see him and think he was wrong in what he did.

 

[DarksideEric]

I think WWE should lay the ultimatium that, if you walk out while still under contract, then you are out-permanently.

That selfish bitch "Stone Cold" Steve Austin was known for his petulant walkouts. Acting more like a 6-year old than someone in their forties, he would take his ball and go home whenever he had to put someone over he didn't want to. Austin's success went to his head, and he put himself before the company. If he was disgruntled, he should have spoken to Vince personally. If he can't use his influence and stroke to get Vince to see things his way, then he hasn't got as much influence as thinks he has. Grown-ups discuss problems, children run away.

Why are you ignoring some of the very important reasons attached to the "why" in regards to Austin walking out?

It would have made very little creative sense and less money to have Brock go over Austin on Raw with next to no build up. That's kinda, y'know, one of the big reasons he "didn't put Brock over."

Considering the last time Austin left, his neck was stuffed anyway, and it was his third time, Vince should have cut off all negotiations with Austin, and even sued him for breach of contract. If you want out, let your contract run out, and then don't sign a new one. Then, legally, the WWE wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

You can't sue for breach of contract if that contract includes obligations for time off, such as vacation time that can be used as the employee sees fit. If Austin had available days off to use, he's not breaking any contract obligations. Such things in contracts are there for vacations, injuries and emergencies.

Now, Punk pulls the same childish bullshit. Boo hoo. Guess what, no-one owes you anything in this world. If you want something, you have to go and get it. If Punk doesn't like his lot,then leave when his contract ends in July, and go elsewhere. Punk doesn't owe WWE another contract, but he is legally obligated to fulfil this one.

If Punk left in July, I would actually have no problem with it. He is a grown-man, and can do whatever he wants in his life, as long as he meets his obligations. C.M. Punk is OBLIGATED to complete his WWE contract, just like Austin was. I just hope Punk isn't getting paid any more of his contract than the part he has already fulfilled. WWE stuck to their side of the bargain, so they shouldn't pay for time not worked.

Besides, Punk has had such a raw deal during his time in WWE. I mean, how cruel of WWE to give C.M. Punk a 14-month title reign. How dare they make Punk the sixth-longest reigning champion in history, and the longest since the Hulkamania era.

Punk had a longer continous title reign than Cena, Orton, Edge, Randy Savage, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Austin, Rock, Undertaker or even Triple H
had. What a burial! Sure, most of these guys have had more title reigns than Punk, but half of them were meaningless reigns. There are guys in the back who wish they got the TV time, title reigns, PPV matches Punk got. Punk was a cert for Wrestlemania this year, barring injury (or walkout). Dolph Ziggler and some other talent don't have the same guarantee of a Wrestlemania paycheck.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: Relying on the ol' "oh he had the longest reign, he's been so buried!" angle to try to dispute Punk's personal feelings on how he is being handled or things in general are being handled is hardly your game winner for your stance. Being given a long title reign, or a title reign at all, doesn't mean everything is hunky dory backstage. For instance, Punk may have felt (when Rock came in) the exact same way that Hart felt when Hogan took the title off of Yoko at Mani IX. Hart felt he was making something of the title and then... bam, loses it, 5 seconds later Hogan takes it from Yoko.

It's funny how the ones who walk out have been given more than anyone, yet are so ungrateful, that they say they are not happy and walk. They are spoiled, that's the problem. Look at Brock Lesnar. Never has a more ungrateful douche been in WWE. Brock won the IC belt, KOTR, the Royal Rumble Match, was the No. 1 guy on "Smackdown", main-evented Wrestlemania in his first year, and was given all these things in his first two years in WWE. Some take ten years to get half of that. Yet did Brock appreciate it? No! He walked out instead (however, at least his contract was up, so it isn't as bad). Now, Lesnar comes back, and yet only shows up when he feels like it. He still isn't fully committed.

...when the hell did Lesnar "walk out"?

WWE should not pay Punk another cent, and if he doesn't like it, he can sue WWE, because Punk would lose. WWE didn't break the contract, Punk did. Now, Punk can be a man and return. Then, come July, he can do what he likes. Or he could be the petulant crybaby Austin was, and tarnish an otherwise proud legacy.

You apparently have no idea how contracts can work.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Austin himself has stated he regrets it in that it was unprofessional... but he didn't apologize for doing it at the time. He did what he had to do in the moment. What had led him to walk was by definition him actually doing as he felt creative and Vince were doing themselves... being short sighted. Austin believed the Brock match needed build, was worth money and was not prepared to either risk injury or take the loss for a hotshotted/ill thought out angle and that they were being short sighted.

What Steve missed and I think he now regrets is that it COULD have led somewhere from the shock of it, the money could still have been made but he didn't see what they did. When the time was right he was working with the company again, made his peace and one thing is for sure, while Vince may not have been happy it happened... he would have respected Austin's reasons for and right to do so, else he'd have sued. He just stopped paying Steve... in Punks case it's not as much of a saving but it's still 5 months of contract... that's a new talents first year basic covered or a chunk of Sting's signing bonus.

So with that it's harsh to tell Punk never to come back... While it is somewhat "convenient" this has happened around contract time again - this may have been brewing since that last time. We don't know the ins and outs of what was promised last time. If Vince had been promising Punk a Mania event as part of that last deal or even verbally as a "sweetner" then 3 years down the line Punk would be right to be angry if it hadn't happened for example. If it wasn't written down then sure Punk should have got it written but Vince is a "trust me" guy... I am sure the plan at the time was not Rock Cena two years in a row but thats how it ended up.

If there is even one thing Vince said he would do for Punk then he can't hold it against him for walking. This is the same man who had a "gentlemans agreement" with Flair, one of the top names in the biz of the time that if he was not main eventing he could leave no questions asked... and held that bargain up letting Flair go back to WCW.

If there is ANY legitimacy in this it will be that Punk IS banged up and arguably medically unfit. He probably has been for a long time and been "convincing" the docs to let him compete... if he's not inclined to do that any more, then he's unfit, even is it's stress related... Wellbeing comes before Mania EVERY time...

 

[laodaron]

Wait, so with Punk being the champ 434 days, the argument is that "Being the champ doesn't mean everything is ok."

With Bryan, not being champ, but being the perpetual underdog, the argument is that "If you aren't the champ, then you don't matter"

Did I get this right?

 

[FreezeIzGAWD]

I dont understand how people are being so hypocritical when it come to the CM Punk situation. I mean it is crazy. This guy quit on his job, his co workers and his fans and instead of calling him the Bytch that he is the IWC is praising him like he is Ghandi or Rosa Parks. It's amazing.

Lets just play a game here...

Here is the scenario...

There is a wrestler who is waaaaayyyyyy over with the crowd. Every night he gets an incredible pop and the crowd chants his catch phrase all through the night. He has a match against the WWE CHAMPION and instead of the CHAMP losing and letting the white hot wrestler become a star he gets "buried". That sucks right. I know Daniel Bryan deserves better. Unfortunately I was talking about Ryback vs CM Punk. Its funny how the same people who keep screaming it's Bryan's time, Punk included, were not all up in arms when Punk stopped Ryback's momentum. Its funny. Even after his losses to Punk they cheered and ultimately blamed John Cena! WOW!!!

For a guy who is the "voice of the voiceless" you really helped your fans by quitting. You guys can dis Ryback and Cena because they suck or their character gimmicks but you cannot dismiss their OVERALL CHARACTER!!!. Ryback had a major injury but could not wait to come back and just wrestle. He stinks to you guys but he constantly says he loves the business. Cena too. They love what they do and rep it to the death. Punk just quit! I do not want to hear why. He had a contract and fans and he just left. So allthe talking about wanting change was not for the business. It was as long as it was to his liking. I wonder how many of you guys would have cheered Randy Orton if he would have up and quit because he felt his boy Bastista deserved to win and instead they had let Daniel. Would you guys be praising Orton as a martyr? Why is it not "backstage politics" when Punk is saying the belt deserves to be taken off the "muscle bound freaks" and put on his friends just because they are short, fat and indy legends and when he did not get his way HE QUIT ON EVERYBODY fans included. WM will go on to make millions without Punk so do you really believe Triple H and Vince will care in the long run. Nope! Hell he was leaving anyway this just sped it up a couple months. The only people he is hurting are the fans that he is a "voice" for.

Lastly if Punk has been treated so badly why did he just quit now? Why not back when he was ECW champ and everyone hated him then. I will tell you why because he could not afford to quit!!!! For someone who is getting treated so horribly he is a MILLIONAIRE now. The E must be doing something right with him. He had the longest reign in recent history he has had high profile matches with Brock, The Rock and Cena. He has had matches with Cena and he gets on the mic at EVERY show (and I cannot believe you guys are not tired of his monotone best in the world promos yet). Yeah they are treating you like a Black Man in the South before the Civil War.

Lets keep it real. Punk is a self-centered egotistical narcisstic Punk with a little Big Man complex and he was a cancer to the locker room. Him leaving in the words of DDP...

"Was not a bad thing but a GOOD THING!!!!"

 

[d_henderson1810]

Why are you ignoring some of the very important reasons attached to the "why" in regards to Austin walking out?

It would have made very little creative sense and less money to have Brock go over Austin on Raw with next to no build up. That's kinda, y'know, one of the big reasons he "didn't put Brock over."



You can't sue for breach of contract if that contract includes obligations for time off, such as vacation time that can be used as the employee sees fit. If Austin had available days off to use, he's not breaking any contract obligations. Such things in contracts are there for vacations, injuries and emergencies.



I've said it once, I'll say it again: Relying on the ol' "oh he had the longest reign, he's been so buried!" angle to try to dispute Punk's personal feelings on how he is being handled or things in general are being handled is hardly your game winner for your stance. Being given a long title reign, or a title reign at all, doesn't mean everything is hunky dory backstage. For instance, Punk may have felt (when Rock came in) the exact same way that Hart felt when Hogan took the title off of Yoko at Mani IX. Hart felt he was making something of the title and then... bam, loses it, 5 seconds later Hogan takes it from Yoko.



...when the hell did Lesnar "walk out"?



You apparently have no idea how contracts can work.

1.I don't care what the reason was. I agree with the match being better suited with a build and a PPV. However, Austin had other options. He could have just said "No" . What's Vince going to do, fire him. You don't walk out of the fans who cheer them every week. They missed out because of it.

2. "Time off". Who gets time off in WWE? They work 52 weeks a year. Injuries and other things would already be available to Austin (especially because of his neck problems). But they don't get holidays. They should get time off, but short of a wrestlers' union, it won't happen.

A contract runs from one period to another. Otherwise, people can just jump to other companies whenever they wanted. Why do you think there are 90-day no-compete clauses? A court would hold that both parties need to meet their obligations for the period defined in the written contract, or else the wronged party needs to be compensated.

3.It was totally different between Punk and Hulk Hogan. Bret had just won the title at WM9, then had to lose it to Hogan. Besides, I don't remember seeing any gun pointed at Bret Hart's head at the time. Bret could have turned down the storyline, like you say that Austin was right to with Brock. But discuss it, sort it out, don't walk out.

4.I said that Brock fulfilled his contract, but was pointing out how some of the wrestlers most pushed and rewarded are also some of biggest crybabies. Their fame goes to their head, and they act like prima donnas. Austin, Bret, Hogan, Punk and Brock, amongst others, are like this. All should think where their standings in wrestling would be today, with the WWE and Vince McMahon.

5. As I showed in point 2, it seems like YOU are the one who doesn't know how contracts work.

 

[DarksideEric]

Wait, so with Punk being the champ 434 days, the argument is that "Being the champ doesn't mean everything is ok."

With Bryan, not being champ, but being the perpetual underdog, the argument is that "If you aren't the champ, then you don't matter"

Did I get this right?

You got it right for the people who can't see the difference in between the black and white.

"Being the champion doesn't mean everything is ok" is a statement suggesting that even though you have the top prize, storylines (start, middle, finish, whatever) may not be going as well as one or more people feel it should be.

As I said: Hart felt he was doing well with the title before it was taken from him, handed to Yoko for 5 seconds, then handed to Hogan. Hart most certainly felt that the situation of being on top (because Hart was still moving into being a top guy if he wasn't already) was in the end handled badly.

Benoit was given his WCW WHC because he was leaving. It wasn't given to him prior to his signing with WWF but after when they knew he was no longer going to be there. Do you think he felt that title reign was done correctly?

With Bryan, many fans feel that they aren't getting the payoff for the underdog story that's been going on for a long, long time now. He held the title in his hands for about 5 seconds before it was given over to someone else and since then he's never really held onto it in any sense of a real reign.

Understand that there are shades of grey.

 

[DarksideEric]

1.I don't care what the reason was. I agree with the match being better suited with a build and a PPV. However, Austin had other options. He could have just said "No" . What's Vince going to do, fire him. You don't walk out of the fans who cheer them every week. They missed out because of it.

And uh... where exactly would saying "no" get Austin?

2. "Time off". Who gets time off in WWE? They work 52 weeks a year. Injuries and other things would already be available to Austin (especially because of his neck problems). But they don't get holidays. They should get time off, but short of a wrestlers' union, it won't happen.

If you think wrestlers work 52 weeks a year, you clearly haven't been watching the same product. Nor, it seems, have you ever signed a salaried contract. "They don't get holiday," that's why things like the Raw Christmas episode is taped, right?

A contract runs from one period to another. Otherwise, people can just jump to other companies whenever they wanted. Why do you think there are 90-day no-compete clauses? A court would hold that both parties need to meet their obligations for the period defined in the written contract, or else the wronged party needs to be compensated.

Contracts can include time off. You've clearly never read one or signed one.

3.It was totally different between Punk and Hulk Hogan. Bret had just won the title at WM9, then had to lose it to Hogan. Besides, I don't remember seeing any gun pointed at Bret Hart's head at the time. Bret could have turned down the storyline, like you say that Austin was right to with Brock. But discuss it, sort it out, don't walk out.

No surprise you missed the point entirely.

4.I said that Brock fulfilled his contract, but was pointing out how some of the wrestlers most pushed and rewarded are also some of biggest crybabies. Their fame goes to their head, and they act like prima donnas. Austin, Bret, Hogan, Punk and Brock, amongst others, are like this. All should think where their standings in wrestling would be today, with the WWE and Vince McMahon.

You said "Brock walked out." When exactly did he walk out?

5. As I showed in point 2, it seems like YOU are the one who doesn't know how contracts work.

Says the one who thinks all wrestlers work 52 weeks a year. Different wrestlers have different contracts. There's also a reason why wrestlers can take time off if needed for things like injuries or emergencies. Within the contract there is budgeted time off if it's wanted or needed.

 

[Rasslin_fan]

I think it's selfish and very much like Austin not being able to accept that Rock was surpassing him up and his time as #1 was over.

Punk is acting the same way with Bryan blowing up.

However, there's no way in the world Punk should be putting over HHH at WrestleMania.

 

[Staaaang]

I can't even properly respond to this troll post. Stone Cold's a "petulant bitch" with "multple walkouts"

Name more than one instance of Stone Cold walking out, buddy boy. It always amuses me to see people nowadays discussing WCW & the Attitude Era who aren't old enough to have seen it live.

 

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

Jesus, another thread about Cm Punk hating?

We get it, this is your big chance, Punk haters, to bash him. Nothing will chance the opinion of those who support his walk out (I'm one of them), same as no one will change your opinion about hating him.

Don't post this topic 1 billion times, because there is no point.

BEST IN THE WOOOOOOOOOOOORLD, BITCH!

 

[Staaaang]

Best in the world is a tag line, not a fact. The facts are that CM Punk never washed his hair or his butt hole. But that's how Traci, Lita, AJ, Maria etc like their men. With daddy issues and an unkempt butthole.

 

[Radical Canadian Goose]

Ok, I have tried to stay away from the Punk posts, because I try to see both sides but this one has caught my eye.

I am a factory worker. In my place of work it is majority males and extremely testosterone driven (much like WWE). I know it's wrong to compare a factory to WWE but guess what I just did it. There have been times where things don't go my way and I pout for a day or two and then just suck it up.

My opinion is valued by my bosses most of the time and times where it isn't. I appreciate when the authority makes changes based on my recommendations. I get extremely angry when they don't see my way, like most other hardworking bluecollared employees.

I am a strong willed, egostical employee much like Steve Austin and CM Punk are considered. On one occasion when I had had enough and felt like I was going nowhere in the company I walked out. Was I wrong? maybe, maybe not. Either way , when I came to my senses a week later I was welcomed back, because I was considered to be one of the hardest workers that the company had, much like Austin and Punk are considered to be.

The point that I am trying to make is that we can all be stubborn and egotistical at times and just need to take a breather. Is it right? probably not. Does CM Punk deserve this time off? Most definitely. Should he have walked out on the company? If he believes that he was getting screwed over, then I say well done Punk. Well done.

 

[TheDarkforce]

I think the whole CmPunk shit, is just to get people distracted from D.Bryan.
They get fans to cheer for punk, and if/when he comes back, D.Bryan will be buried, they wont chant for bryan as much ,Punk will be the People favorite again. sorry for my bad english, but i think ppl are stupid not to see this

 

[Parasrampur]

1 thing I have realised is that people are making wwe sound like the villains here(not necessarily these forums but just the net in general) when for some reason people should be blaming punk. He walked, he wasn't released or fired, he voluntarily left.

Imagine running a big company and one of your workers is not happy with there position in the company, what do you do? Do you bend over backwards for that person OR do you tell him if he isn't happy then he can leave?
I know what I would do.

 

[thebowtiekiller]

A lot of people are pretty annoyed with wwe at the moment and punks one of them but i still think its another one of punks stunts rather then a genuine i quit thing punk seems to think hes got wwe by the balls when he pulls stuff like this he is a big star and worth keeping but hes not quite the irreplaceble megastar he thinks he is .i think punk believes in his own hype far too much and this just seems arrogant imo.hhh apparantly doesnt want him back and i agree with him even though i do like punk i think hes just acting like a spoiled brat.

 

[SSJPhenom]

The WWE definitely has to accept a lot of the blame for this current situation.

As of right now, crowd response wise, Daniel Bryan and CM Punk are the WWE's two most over superstars, however, they have been stuck in mid-card limbo and it's been ridiculous. I've seen countless interviews with Vince Mcmahon saying that when it came to Austin and the Rock, that it wasn't creative of his idea to have those two be the next big thing but that the fans wanted it that way and that the fans couldn't be ignored. So where the hell is that philosophy today? Bryan and Punk are cheered for and their names are chanted way more than any other superstar on the WWE roster. So why isn't it the two of them facing off for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship? I've said this for months and it's finally starting to happen: Ignoring the fans is going to come back and bite the WWE in the ass. One of their top talents have walked out and now fans are completely rejecting the idea of Batista coming back and instantly being inserted into the WrestleMania main event. WWE better mend some fences before a lot of fans follow Punk's example and skip the fuck out.

Having said all of that, however, I completely think that what Punk did is completely and utterly disrespectful to the company that made him a house hold name and the fans that paid their hard earned money to see him. It was disrespectful, unprofessional, selfish, childish; damn it take your pick of negative words to describe what Punk did. IMO, Punk should've honored his contract and during the next few months, try and start a dialogue with the brass at WWE about changing things. Then, if he was still unsatisfied when it came time for him to sign a new deal, leave. That's what a professional man should've done. That's what a respectful man should've done. Those of you that say, "but you don't know the whole story". You're right, I don't know the whole story, so Punk at least owes us, his fans, an explanation.

As far as him not coming back, I'm a huge Punk fan so of course I'd want him to come back.

 

[Messiah]

Punk had every right to walk out.. since he did, he shouldn't come back. There's no need for him to come back at all, he'll just deal with the same issues.

 

[DarksideEric]

Punk at least owes us, his fans, an explanation.

As a Punk fan, he doesn't owe me any such thing. Him telling me why he did or did not leave isn't going to change the fact that I think that if he was frustrated or worn down enough to feel that walking out was his last option then it was the right thing for him personally to do.

Punk is not a personal friend of mine, he's not an acquaintance, he's not a friend of a friend of a cousin of the mailman down the block, he's a performer on TV and his personal/professional life beyond what is actually shown on TV isn't all that important to me. I don't need a "hey look guys, this is why I did this" because the situation only affects me on an entertainment level, so why am I owed an explanation?

 

[streicher187]

HE QUIT

Every minute Vince isn't out in front of the crowd pointing out Punk CHOSE to quit on them and walk out he is insane. The WWE doesn't need Punk, heck Vince should come out and tell him his contract is void if he chooses and DARE him to go to TNA

 

[lil steroid meat]

Why do you think there are 90-day no-compete clauses? A court would hold that both parties need to meet their obligations for the period defined in the written contract, or else the wronged party needs to be compensated.

I always assumed the 90-Day Thing was a thing that only WWE did, because of what happened in the 90's with WWF dudes being on a PPV one night and then showing up on Nitro the next night.

Anyways, I don't know if I'd say I don't ever want to see Punk on a WWE screen but I will say, he needs time off, not only because he looks burnt out physically PLUS his character has kind of gotten stale, but also to really mentally refresh himself and (for lack of a better term) not be so much of a dick . . .

Had the longest reign in the past two and a half decades, always prominently featured on the show, writes his own promos, etc.

I honestly, out of curiosity, want to know what the hell he wanted (assuming he just wasn't physically tired).