WWE is a publicly traded company... they would be legally obliged to announce on WWE.Com and the SECC the moment the contract was terminated or they would be in breach of the law... Punk is a "material asset" to the company, they have to announce wellness violations, sale of stock, all talent releases... no way anything is official until it's there... Sorry but either the sites are spewing garbage or it makes it sound like a work even more...
They may have agreed something in principle, but nothing will be official. Indeed they will be hoping to change his mind up until the last moment because public walkouts right at a time they are finalising TV deals and the network will damage the share price... if they withold info like that and the share price is affected, it's another criminal situation far worse than the roid scandal... so they will get this absolutely right and to the letter if he is gonna go...
It is FAR more likely that we won't see Punk until the very first TV of whatever new deal they sign to guarantee a monster rating... The photo of him and AJ (with the Walken cameo) made it look like he was certainly pretty relaxed. So it might be dealt with... or just all part of the plan to deliver a big rating for them in a few months tme.
At worst case it's good business to terminate early and save some pennies on Punk's deal... 4 months of his salary is still several hundred thousand dollars and will likely go a long way to offsetting fees for Warrior/Hogan or even Network expenses. Paying him to sit home for that time if he wants out for real is not sensible... He'd have a no compete for the 4 months plus the 90 days standard, so the earliest he can do anything would be around Summerslam time... and by then they might be ready to do business with each other again but they have the position of "we let you go, so now we have control" rather than Punk sitting out bleeding money from the company and forcing them to try and get value for it.
1) Yeah, there's definitely no laws of any kind that require them to disclose anything of that nature. They don't "have" to announce anything. They do so by choice.
1a) Yes, you're most certainly right that the sites are spewing garbage again. If you read closely, all it really says is somebody close to Punk told somebody that he is definitely done with the WWE...I have no idea how that got turned into he was granted an early release.
2) Just to reiterate, the law has nothing to do with this. If NBC (or whoever signs them to their next TV deal) feels they were mislead or outright lied to during contract negotiations, they would certainly be afforded the right to void the contract, but there would be no scandal legally speaking. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing criminal about this in any way, shape, or form.
3) The fact that he looks very relaxed probably just means he's happy being done with the WWE. He never appeared to be a guy that loved what he did, like a John Cena. He was never going to be a lifer. He had a lot of problems with the WWE, he always has, and it was just a matter of time before he left. Him being relaxed now that he's out of that situation is not surprising.
4) Yeah, they're definitely not paying him while he's gone. Definitely, definitely, definitely not. Why would they give him a dime when he leaves the company on his own and refuses to work? Not happening under any circumstances. They may have to pay him if he they sent him home, depending on the language of the contract, but there's no contract in the world that sees an employer get paid when he refuses to work. Certainly not in this country, certainly not in the WWE.
4a) No compete clauses don't apply to expiring contracts, so there wouldn't be any 90 days on top of the 4 months that he'll be sitting out for this contract. No compete clauses only apply to contracts that are being terminated early.
5) It's certainly possible that he'll decide to come back someday, maybe this summer, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was done with wrestling for good. Like I said before, while it's something he's very very good at, he doesn't really have that personality to keep getting sucked back in. When he's done, he's done, he'll move on to whatever's next in his life and not look back. That's always been clear, even before he walked out. Is he done now? Obviously, nobody knows that yet. But I wouldn't be surprised.
Now that that's out of the way, in response to the topic, I really see no reason for the WWE to address it. The Rock/Austin situation is apples and oranges. When Austin walked out, they knew he'd be back. And Rock was his rival. Having Rock come out and rip Austin made sense, storyline wise, even if it was a real life situation as well.
And while I understand the point about Daniel Bryan addressing it, because the crowd will be more hostile towards anyone else, it makes no sense for him to address it. He's never had a beef with CM Punk, he shares the same fan base as Punk, and on some level he probably agrees with what Punk did. Or, at least, he understands it. With Bryan coming out and ripping 'the machine' every week, it'd make no sense for him to come out and rip somebody else for standing up to 'the machine' like Punk did. Especially given the fact that one of the reasons given for Punk's walkout is the WWE's treatment of Daniel Bryan! IF it's going to be addressed, it'd have to be John Cena. That would be your Rock/Austin promo. But, again, why address it at all? I really see no benefit to it. Let the crowds chant, they're going to do that even if Bryan or Cena does address it, it will all die down eventually.
