Something in Austin-Vince podcast didn't make sense.

[d_henderson1810]

When Vince McMahon was interviewed by "Stone Cold" on his podcast show, he mentioned that C.M. Punk got his termination papers arrive on his wedding day.

C.M. Punk also mentioned it on Colt Cabana's podcast.

What I don't get is this- why did Vince even need to send termination papers to C.M. Punk?

Punk was under contract to WWE until July 2014. He walked out early.

So, why didn't Vince just let Punk run down his contract? He didn't have to fire him. All he had to do is let the contract run out?

Once the contract runs out, neither has an obligation to the other. Also, Punk can't demand more money, and Vince is only obligated to pay him what he agreed to in his last contract, not a cent more. Punk can't complain about that, since that is the contract he agreed to.

If it is the case of Vince not wanting to pay out the remainder of Punk's contract, because he is getting no return on it, with Punk walking out early, then he could sue Punk for breach of contract. Vince could argue that Punk quit early, so breached the terms of his contract and therefore the contract, from that point on, is null and void, and Punk wouldn't get another cent. I would have done this if I were Vince, since Punk has slammed him publicly, to send the message to the rest of the locker room what happens when you pull a stunt like this.

Termination papers never needed to be sent to begin with. Once the contract is over, each party can wash their hands of the other, and never have anything to do with each other again. But there is no way Punk would have a legal leg to stand on, since he breached their contract.

 

[Navi]

No they didn't need to terminate him as I've said before. But when he walked out in January, I'm sure they expected him to come back. According to Punk himself, they even called him to which he wasn't receptive too.

When you walk off the job, and don't bother to contact your employer, then is it a surprise that he was fired. Maybe the WWE where just trying to protect themselves by doing it legally. No one knows but them.

The fact he got them on his wedding day was a douchebage move, but that's the WWE for you. After working for them for years, he shouldn't have been surprised.

 

[d_henderson1810]

No they didn't need to terminate him as I've said before. But when he walked out in January, I'm sure they expected him to come back. According to Punk himself, they even called him to which he wasn't receptive too.

When you walk off the job, and don't bother to contact your employer, then is it a surprise that he was fired. Maybe the WWE where just trying to protect themselves by doing it legally. No one knows but them.

The fact he got them on his wedding day was a douchebage move, but that's the WWE for you. After working for them for years, he shouldn't have been surprised.

If WWE wanted to protect themselves legally, they could have sued Punk for walking out.

Punk had no leg to stand on, because he breached the contract. If he stayed and served the entire contract, he could have left the day after the contract expired, and there would be nothing WWE could do legally, as Punk would have met the terms of their agreement. But he breached them by leaving early, so if Punk had sued Vince, Vince could have counter-sued, and had a good case. With Vince being a millionaire, and being able to get better lawyers, who would have won that battle.

The only reason Vince didn't sue, I believe, is so that Punk will come back at some stage. If it were me, I would say "Screw Punk" and not care if he ever came back. Even if he wanted back in, he would need to beg to be given another chance. WWE has survived without Punk in the last year, so they don't need him to survive, so they don't need him.

 

[Navi]

Yes he could have remained with the company until he contract expired but the WWE obviously wanted rid of him. He walked out in January, he was given a chance and turned it down. I don't think they had any other option but to terminate him for "job abandonment" or whatever fancy term they use.

Suing him would have got them exactly where he put them after his podcast. For sure he would have brought it up in a courtroom what he thought was shoddy medical practices at the hands of the medical staff there. I see it as the WWE cutting their losses.

I also don't ever see CM Punk coming back to a WWE ring. He has burned his bridges and he hasn't looked back and why should he. He has enough money to retire now for life and do what he wants. Which looks like getting the shit beat out of him in UFC. But that's another story.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

There's a number of reasons why WWE would choose this route. First and foremost, a court case - ANY court case - is time consuming and costly - just look at the Billy Jack Haynes suit, whilst it seems pretty cut and dried on favour of WWE, they've still been granted TWO extensions (so far) as even the most basic cases fill a lot of time.

There's also the structure or nature of the contracts WWE issue, which of course we are not party to, so can only really speculate on. But, as an example, whilst it is well known that a lot of WWE alumni enjoy their royalty cheques to keep their bank accounts ticking over, I can't imagine WWE contracts allow the same amount of royalties beyond the duration of the contract (ie, and again this is merely speculation, a contracted wrestler's cut of merch would be greater than his cut after the expiration of his contract) - I imagine there are several benefits a WWE contract allows ANY wrestler, not least a top-level performer like Punk, so terminating the contract takes away WWE's obligations to provide said benefits.

Finally, I don't know what employment law in the US is like, but I imagine there is only a finite amount of time you are legally allowed to keep someone suspended; Punk was gone 6 months before finally getting his termination papers, we know now that he was officially suspended for much of this.

Ultimately, WWE is a massive, multi-million dollar company with a huge legal department that had done wonders for it over the years. They would not have undertaken the termination of Punk if the legal department had any doubts that they were doing the right thing for the company.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The fact he got them on his wedding day was a douchebage move, but that's the WWE for you. After working for them for years, he shouldn't have been surprised.

And I'm certain he wasn't surprised. In fact, what's the difference when the papers arrived? It was his choice to leave and his decision to rebuff the company's efforts to get him back, so who cares when the papers arrive?

My employer, when an employee is either fired or quits, has the policy of "processing them out" of the company's system, which means removing their name from the payroll and other employment records. The terminated employee gets a copy of any paper that is generated. It's not a show of disrespect or sign of corporate anger; it's simply their way of taking you off their books once you no longer work for them.

After walking out on his contract and refusing to address the situation to the many fans who supported him, it's ironic, to say the least, that Punk claims the company "terminated" him....as if it was something unexpected and unfair.

 

[fouldsy91]

Wrestlers have a certain amount of dates they work per year, they don't have to continue going to work after them dates. Look at Brock Lesnar, but they know as Punk said on his podcast that if they didn't work they would be pushed back down the card and they wouldn't get paid for appearances. He is still entitled to royalties since he owns the name CM Punk, not WWE.

 

[Papa Pillman]

If it is the case of Vince not wanting to pay out the remainder of Punk's contract, because he is getting no return on it, with Punk walking out early, then he could sue Punk for breach of contract. Vince could argue that Punk quit early, so breached the terms of his contract and therefore the contract, from that point on, is null and void, and Punk wouldn't get another cent. I would have done this if I were Vince, since Punk has slammed him publicly, to send the message to the rest of the locker room what happens when you pull a stunt like this.

Termination papers never needed to be sent to begin with. Once the contract is over, each party can wash their hands of the other, and never have anything to do with each other again. But there is no way Punk would have a legal leg to stand on, since he breached their contract.

Your understanding of Breach of Contract is flawed.

Punk addressed this exact issue on the Art of Wrestling podcast.

At the time that the WWE issued Punk his termination papers, they also attempted to inform him that he was not receiving the royalties due to him for the reason that he was in breach of his contract from the day after his walkout.

That is not how breach works. If WWE had considered Punk to be breaching his contract as of the time that he walked out(Jan. 27) then they needed to inform him that he was in breach on Jan. 28. They did not do that, and instead chose to suspend him. It was only later down the line that they chose to attempt to claim breach. This is not how contracts are handled, Breach is not something that can be claimed retroactively.

So in the case of WWE attempting to hold Punk in breach as of his walkout date, the company was actually the ones who did not "have a legal leg to stand on". Which is why Punk got every penny that was owed to him by the word of his contract when the mattered was settled.



Also, slightly on topic, the Vince/Stone Cold podcast was nothing more than a meticulously crafted propaganda stunt. Nothing that Vince said about any issue he addressed(concerning CM Punk or otherwise) should be taken as anything more than spin and bullshit.

 

[rmp0012002]

As above, Punk was in breach of his contract on January 27th but I think he "suspension" was kind of a legal sham as they figured being suspended would scare Punk into returning, they were wrong. The sending of the termination papers on their wedding day was all Vince as he knew Punk was out and AJ was off for her wedding so why not get a little rub in before the contract does run out. I don't know If Vince And HHH were being their own lawyers or the WWE lawyers are that bad.

 

[Really?]

The reason for the termination papers is similar to what is going on with Rey. When Punk walked, the WWE suspended his contract. Everything that remained on it was put in a holding pattern until he came back or was terminated. The WWE concluded that he was not going to return, therefore they terminated him. With Rey, the WWE is refusing to terminate the contract because Rey would go elsewhere.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Maybe because the WWE wanted to feel like they were in control or maybe they just wanted to get back at Punk and took pleasure firing him who knows he clearly wasn't going back anyway I get that feeling even if Mcmahon had begged him it would of made no difference.
I can't see how anyone can seriously walk out of their job and ignore any attempted contacts from employer with months gone by can really be surprised when the outcome is termination of their employment with that company.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

What I don't get is this- why did Vince even need to send termination papers to C.M. Punk?

Pillman allready explained perfectly. They suspended him and when they saw that he didnt want to come back at all, fired him. So if they choose to fire him right away for breach of contract and go down that route they should off done it more better. So thats why he lawyered up and took money they owned him even if he wasnt wrestling.

As for why they did it in a way they did, my guess is that WWE(Vince and co) and Punk were just like two petty and egotistical brats after break up of their relationship. It was his choice to walk away from job he didnt want to do from whatever reason he didnt but he didnt have to leave in a way he did and he could try to solve problems he had otherwise and their choice to handle it poorly because they were acting like dumped girlfriend who wanted to get back to former boyfriend in any way possible so they fired him on his wedding day and didnt want to pay him back his royalties. In terms of law he was right and thats why he got them to pay, so in a way in the end he outsmarted them, but both sides were just petty and egotistical brats who were acting in their own way because of innability to handle things otherwise then just their way. And both sides did it because they thought they could get away with it. Punk just had luck and more smarts to handle his way little better in way of law.