The 90-Day No-Compete Clause

[hatehabsforever]

This is a topic that I have been discussing with a couple of guys in other threads that has generated some debate, and I just wanted to pick people's brains about it. Hopefully I have placed this thread in the right place, if not I guess it can be moved elsewhere.

I have been speculating about and predicting a return by Bryan Danielson at Summerslam, which I won't get into here. One of the big arguments people fire back at me is that he cannot return at Summerslam because his 90-day no-compete clause is still in effect and that he cannot return until it expires. I disagree.

My concept of the no-compete clase is that it is put in place to prevent guys from "jumping ship" to the "competition," specifically TNA but to a lesser degree, ROH or elsewhere in the indies. In other words, if a guy is fired or quits on his own, WWE doesn't want him showing up on TNA the next day or week. This was put in place to avoid such scenarios as Alundra Blayze/Madusa, Lex Luger, the Outsiders, Ravishing Rick Rude, etc., If a wrestler is no longer affiliated with WWE for whatever reason, they cannot go elsewhere and capitalize on their fame and name value and essentially use it to the good of the competition at the expense of the WWE.

Take Mike Knox, Shelton Benjamin, Carlito, Mickie James, or whoever else. They have 90-day no-compete clauses to keep them from going to TNA too quickly, which could benefit TNA and hurt WWE (theoretically),

As I see it, this does not apply to bringing a wrestler back into the WWE itself. If WWE fires a guy and then changes their mind, I don't think they are obligated to wait 90 days to bring them back, as the issue of them going elsewhere to hurt the WWE doesn't apply. If WWE wanted to bring Shelton Benjamin back 2 days after they released him, I think they could have done so. The only exception to this would be drug-related releases, where a Wellness Violation has occurred and for this reason, WWE has to wait to bring them back. Otherwise, I think they are free to bring him back whenever they so choose.

So in terms of Danielson, whether his firing was real or kayfabe, I don't think the 90-day no-compete clause is an issue. Certainly if it was a kayfabe firing, it doesn't apply. But even if it was legitimate, I don't think the WWE is obligated to necesssarily wait 90 days to bring him back. I contend they can bring him back whenever they want, and as such, that could be as the 7th member of Team Nexus at Summerslam this Sunday (which I predict results in a double cross and a reunion with Nexus under the direction of Michael Cole).

Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm not. Any thoughts?

 

[secret titan]

The clause, as I understand it, is exactly what you said. The WWE has the right to use any of their released wrestlers during the clause too, so that would even be able to prove your point as well. Maybe we're both wrong, but from what I know, I don't think so.

 

[Hazardous]

it's all speculation, only due to the fact WWE corporate has never said anything about it before, nor have they (as far as i know) brought anyone back within the 90 days. so we can say "yes they can" or "no they cant" but none of us know the official ruling on it so.. really dont know. but i think he is scheduled for another match in a show for another company comin up, so that might ruin the Summerslam idea.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

I'm not quite sure if this is fact or the Dirt Sheets blowing smoke out of their arses, so bare with me on this one. Typical n00b talk, I know, but let's attempt a post here. If someone could shed some light on whether this is true or not, I'll be quite thankful:

The 90 Day No-Compete Clause is a stipulation added to a wrestlers contract whilst working under the WWE. It is an optional stipulation where the wrestler agrees to not work for another televised company for a three month period. In return, the company pays them a certain amount of money (a particular percentage less than what they earned whilst being an active wrestler) for their efforts. If this is indeed true, then the wrestler would technically still be under contract with the WWE. As well, I have yet to see no mention of the televised programming laws to prohibit the WWE in any fashion. So, it is quite possible for the WWE to re-negotiate the "future endeavoured" wrestlers contract and return him to work as soon as possible. This, of course, would have to be a mutual agreement by both parties and supported by a third if needed.

On the subject of Bryan Danielson coming back for SummerSlam, it's a possibility. He hasn't broken any of the Wellness Policy rules, or any rules for that matter and has got a solid backing by guys within the company to bring him in again. The WWE will make a lot of money of Danielson and he won't mind doing what he loves for the company he aspired to work for. His firing has been marred in controversy and was done as a fail-safe (I think that's the word), so there is no bad blood here. I see no harm done if they decide to pick him up early... or anyone who has been recently released for that matter.

Then again, I have never seen the WWE rehire someone who has been legit released from the company with that 90-Day No-Compete Clause in tact, so something has to prevent the WWE in scrambling around to get someone like Bryan Danielson back into the company.

 

[craftyjacket]

I think you're absolutely right and anyone that's been saying in other threads "DUH! It can't be him because of the 90-day clause" is an idiot!. They even let him work for the indies.

It would make absolutely no sense if the clause prevented WWE from re-hiring him.

 

[Reddannihilation]

Well for one thing the no-compete clauses differ for each wrestler, however I'm pretty sure they only bar you from TNA, because Danielson's already worked indie matches since his firing. It isn't kayfabe for that express reason, he's working matches in the indies. With the way I believe it works, once he's been fired he has to wait out the 90 day clause, as far as I understand these clauses prevent talent from jumping but they also prevent re-signings. Simple legal matter. So I doubt you'll see Dragon at Summerslam.

 

[Supertrick]

Not sure if the 90 day no compete clause was in place in 2006 but the Boogeyman could be an example as he was fired then im sure he was brought back within a month of being let go.

 

[fenfool]

I would have to agree, the 90-day no-compete is to prevent them working for the competition within that period...obviously, they have allowed Danielson to work for a couple of independents they don't consider to be competition. I believe he does have an appearance for an indy group scheduled for September, but we've seen wrestlers get picked up by WWE before who cancel such appearances, or finish up their commitments while working for WWE. It would not be a complete shocker for me to see him appear at SS as the 7th member of WWE, or some other role.

 

[martin]

I believe Falkon is right here. I'm sure that WWE still pays workers during the 90 day period (likely their guaranteed contract worth without extras from working events, PPV etc.), I imagine it would be illegal to stop anyone earning money when they have left any kind of job. The only instance I remember of WWE using a talent under the 90 day no compete is Rhyno at One Night Stand 2005.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I'm not quite sure if this is fact or the Dirt Sheets blowing smoke out of their arses, so bare with me on this one. Typical n00b talk, I know, but let's attempt a post here. If someone could shed some light on whether this is true or not, I'll be quite thankful:

The 90 Day No-Compete Clause is a stipulation added to a wrestlers contract whilst working under the WWE. It is an optional stipulation where the wrestler agrees to not work for another televised company for a three month period. In return, the company pays them a certain amount of money (a particular percentage less than what they earned whilst being an active wrestler) for their efforts. If this is indeed true, then the wrestler would technically still be under contract with the WWE. As well, I have yet to see no mention of the televised programming laws to prohibit the WWE in any fashion. So, it is quite possible for the WWE to re-negotiate the "future endeavoured" wrestlers contract and return him to work as soon as possible. This, of course, would have to be a mutual agreement by both parties and supported by a third if needed.

On the subject of Bryan Danielson coming back for SummerSlam, it's a possibility. He hasn't broken any of the Wellness Policy rules, or any rules for that matter and has got a solid backing by guys within the company to bring him in again. The WWE will make a lot of money of Danielson and he won't mind doing what he loves for the company he aspired to work for. His firing has been marred in controversy and was done as a fail-safe (I think that's the word), so there is no bad blood here. I see no harm done if they decide to pick him up early... or anyone who has been recently released for that matter.

Then again, I have never seen the WWE rehire someone who has been legit released from the company with that 90-Day No-Compete Clause in tact, so something has to prevent the WWE in scrambling around to get someone like Bryan Danielson back into the company.

These are my points exactly. I too have never seen this scenario happen before either but just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it CAN'T happen.

You can speculate all you want about whether my theory has any merit, or whether it's ridiculous bullshit, that's not even the point of my thread. I just find that I have read many posts from many people speculating about the return of Danielson and almost every time, a bunch of noobs come on and discount the possibility outright, like the person who suggested it was stupid to even think of violating the clause. All I am saying is I think it can happen. Maybe it won't (in fact, I'm likely wrong about this) but all I am saying is that it is not a ludicrous comment to bring Danielson back before the 90 days expires.

 

[nightmare]

it is a preventative measure to keep guys from jumping but yes wwe can cxl their own clause. its up to them. in this case, its looking more likely if they do- danielson will be at ss. it makes sense to wait till the last second but he has been promoted else where, (evolve..). i think it would benefit wwe to use him as the last member of the team @ ss due to the segment w\ miz on raw. that would eat miz up if he was replaced by danielson & continue a good feud. thatway miz can still have the breifcase but put on a fued w him for the us title.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

These are my points exactly. I too have never seen this scenario happen before either but just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it CAN'T happen.

You can speculate all you want about whether my theory has any merit, or whether it's ridiculous bullshit, that's not even the point of my thread. I just find that I have read many posts from many people speculating about the return of Danielson and almost every time, a bunch of noobs come on and discount the possibility outright, like the person who suggested it was stupid to even think of violating the clause. All I am saying is I think it can happen. Maybe it won't (in fact, I'm likely wrong about this) but all I am saying is that it is not a ludicrous comment to bring Danielson back before the 90 days expires.

Unfortunately, we haven't got all of the information at our disposal to justify whether or not a released superstar can return within the 90 days. There have been some examples set in the thread already that have leaned towards that possibility, but we don't know which superstars have that contract until we wait out the 90 days. Maybe those guys who came back to do some work for the company didn't have the clause, maybe they did. So, all we can do is speculate from what we know.

Honestly, I don't think that the WWE doesn't have to wait for anyone to wait out there stipulation if they'd like to bring them back early. I mean, they designed the contract so shouldn't they be allowed to amend it, so long as the wrestler in question and a third party agree to the change? To answer the question, the WWE has a chance of bringing him back in time for SummerSlam. He is sort of "under contract" as he is being (allegedly) paid for that period for a stipulation set in his contract, so it's a high possibility. But again, no-one can really knows to back their opinions with concrete evidence. I say yes, but I can be wrong.

 

[Max Headroom]

You pretty much answered your own question. Yes the WWE can obviouisly use that talent still, there is no debate to be made. What, is WWE going to sue themselves for hiring back a guy that they released cause of a clause they put on him from going somewhere else? I think not. Good question, good thread, but you made the answer self-explanitory.

But, for the record, I can't see him coming back summerslam if ever. Although the WWE team is apparently down 1 member but awhwelll thats not for this thread.

 

[johnbragg]

so something has to prevent the WWE in scrambling around to get someone like Bryan Danielson back into the company.

I can't think of anyone as hot as Danielson being under a 90-day non-compete. (Angle didn't have a 90-day clause.) Other people who have been let go and rehired have been lower profile, at least by the time they were released. Guys like Goldust, Benjamin, Rhino, Matt Hardy, Jeff Hardy in 2003 didn't exactly have the IWC buzzing about their WWE returns when they were released. Danielson, on the other hand, was made/allowed to look really good for the couple of weeks before he was fired, and he was involved in the Nexus angle which is still red hot.

The only thing remotely similar would have been if the NWO 2002 angle had gotten hot and continued long enough for people to care when Kevin Nash was coming back.

 

[johnbragg]

The only instance I remember of WWE using a talent under the 90 day no compete is Rhyno at One Night Stand 2005.

Martin wins the thread. According to wikipedia, Rhino was fired April 9. One Night Stand was on June 12. That's less than 90 days. WWE can bring guys back whenever they want to.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

I think the ONLY and I repeat ONLY...way of finding out for sure, is to knock on the WWE HQ in Stamford and simply ask!! Ask them what they mean by the 90 days no-compete clause..I think we could argue or discuss here all day, week, month and year, but how will we know who is right??

I think at some point you could be correct where it says they can bring someone back after 2 days of their release..but the thing is...it wouldn't make any sense..I mean you fire some one and after a few days you ask them to return, maybe it has been done before, but maybe the wrestlers don't want them to come back..

I think the contract actually gets terminated after the 90 days are over, think of the 90 days as a notice...

Again..I could be wrong..but maybe we all are!

 

[vampireblade]

I think that the wwe should be able to bring danielson back for the simple reason that its their own damn contract they can amend that contract to their liking danielson has been allowed to compete in Dragon Gate- USA during this 90 day no compete clause so if they found a way for him to compete there im sure they can allow him to compete at SS however its highly unlikely that he will be at SS as a member of Nexus or Team WWE seeing as how RAW unfolded last nite

 

[Tripleb2k1]

you are half right....yes its possible but to bring them back, they would have to negotiate a new contract with having terminated the previous onethe clause is just a stipulation on breaking the contract that was negotiated

 

[JMichaels]

I have been mostly a lurker on the forums, but I had to register and post to comment on this. As an attorney, I am familiar with no-compete clauses so I wanted to shed a little light on them.

A no compete clause is a clause in someone's employment contract that states the employee will not work for another competitor for a certain period of time after they are no longer employed. These clauses are sometimes declared legal and sometimes not, it depends on the length and the scope. Since the WWE's clauses apparently allow wrestlers to work for independents and only last 90 days, they would most likely be declared legal if ever challenged.

To clear what some people said, technically Danielson is no longer employed or under contract to WWE during the 90 days. His employment ended on the day he was fired, and while not technically under contract he is still bound by the no compete clause, because he agreed to it when he signed.

No as to the big issue as to whether WWE could rehire him before the 90 days are up, simply look at the name of the clause, no Compete clause. No compete clauses only prevent the employee from competing, they in no way prevent the original employer from rehiring him if both parties agree. Now you could argue that there is no way of knowing for sure without seeing the actual contract, but I have never heard of a no compete clause not allowing the original company to rehire, and if you think about it there would no reason to include that in the first place.

Also, if you look at how a no compete clause is enforced, you will see why it won't apply to WWE here. There are no "contract police" that will stop you from violating the no compete clause, so the only way to enforce it is by lawsuit. So if TNA were to sign Danielson, the only thing WWE could do is sue Danielson for violating the clause, and they could also sue TNA. If WWE resigns Danielson, obviously they are not going to sue themselves, and would not sue Danielson either. So, not only would the clause not be violated, but there would be no one to enforce a violation either. Hope that clears things up.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I have been mostly a lurker on the forums, but I had to register and post to comment on this. As an attorney, I am familiar with no-compete clauses so I wanted to shed a little light on them.

A no compete clause is a clause in someone's employment contract that states the employee will not work for another competitor for a certain period of time after they are no longer employed. These clauses are sometimes declared legal and sometimes not, it depends on the length and the scope. Since the WWE's clauses apparently allow wrestlers to work for independents and only last 90 days, they would most likely be declared legal if ever challenged.

To clear what some people said, technically Danielson is no longer employed or under contract to WWE during the 90 days. His employment ended on the day he was fired, and while not technically under contract he is still bound by the no compete clause, because he agreed to it when he signed.

No as to the big issue as to whether WWE could rehire him before the 90 days are up, simply look at the name of the clause, no Compete clause. No compete clauses only prevent the employee from competing, they in no way prevent the original employer from rehiring him if both parties agree. Now you could argue that there is no way of knowing for sure without seeing the actual contract, but I have never heard of a no compete clause not allowing the original company to rehire, and if you think about it there would no reason to include that in the first place.

Also, if you look at how a no compete clause is enforced, you will see why it won't apply to WWE here. There are no "contract police" that will stop you from violating the no compete clause, so the only way to enforce it is by lawsuit. So if TNA were to sign Danielson, the only thing WWE could do is sue Danielson for violating the clause, and they could also sue TNA. If WWE resigns Danielson, obviously they are not going to sue themselves, and would not sue Danielson either. So, not only would the clause not be violated, but there would be no one to enforce a violation either. Hope that clears things up.

Thank you for the clarification, that all makes perfect sense to me and jives with what I have been saying all along. Danielson could not go to TNA, but he could return to WWE if everyone agrees. And of course it makes perfect sense, the WWE cannot sue itself.

So, to all of you skeptics who argued with myself and others about Danielson appearing at Summerslam, set your PVR's for this Sunday. Welcome back Bryan Danielson. Not Daniel Bryan, Bryan Danielson.

 

[MizMark]

The 90 day non compete clause is what it is. The OP is correct in that WWE can bring Danielson back if they want to before the 90 days.

BUT, I don't think this is the issue. Danielson was released for breaking strict rules, and he was fired because WWE had to do it, I doubt that before the incident they had any thoughts of doing so. So, if you're following this, and WWE wants to rehire him, I'd imagine they would wait out the 90 days, so it's more like a suspension, and then rehire him. Otherwise, what was the point in firing him? Albeit a token firing, they may aswell have suspended him for 60 days.

I hope Danielson does come back at SS by the way.

 

[Slack]

The 90 days clause really only applies to TNA, so that a Rick Rude type of situation wouldn't happen. For example Danielson wrestling in Rampage Pro Wrestling for a match taped for DVD which saw Danielson defeat Jimmy Rave, Kyle Matthews and J-Rod in a 4 way elimination.

The also wrestled this past weekend at the NWA Legends Fanfest where he lost to Adam Pearce in the NWA title match the first night and defeated Zach Salvation on the 2nd match.

Also the 90 day no compete clause doesn't really apply to the WWE. I mean why would they say oh this guy can't wrestle in a WWE event for 90 days after we fired him.

 

[Remix]

I can't think of anyone as hot as Danielson being under a 90-day non-compete.

Believe it. It's mandatory.

(Angle didn't have a 90-day clause.)

Yes he did.

Other people who have been let go and rehired have been lower profile, at least by the time they were released. Guys like Goldust, Benjamin, Rhino, Matt Hardy, Jeff Hardy in 2003 didn't exactly have the IWC buzzing about their WWE returns when they were released.

That's because WWE doesn't normally fire important people. Hence nobody cares when they're released.

Danielson, on the other hand, was made/allowed to look really good for the couple of weeks before he was fired, and he was involved in the Nexus angle which is still red hot.

And also because he got unexpectedly released with the rumours at the time being that he'd be bought back on the 91st day.

As for Danielson, he can work wherever he likes as long as it isn't on TV or PPV and WWE management says yes. Technically he could wrestle on the Indies whilst on the active roster if he wanted to and could get management to play ball, but why would he want to?

 

[FightOwensFight]

I believe Falkon is right here. I'm sure that WWE still pays workers during the 90 day period (likely their guaranteed contract worth without extras from working events, PPV etc.), I imagine it would be illegal to stop anyone earning money when they have left any kind of job. The only instance I remember of WWE using a talent under the 90 day no compete is Rhyno at One Night Stand 2005.

The company I work for has a non-compete as part of it's standard contract. We do not pay people after they leave (fire or quit) other than 2 weeks in lieu of notice but it prevents them from working in areas that are in direct competition with us.

If we learn someone that left the company has gone on to work with another company within the same industry that competes in our markets for 1 YEAR (makes the 90 days seem nice, doesn't it) we have every right to go after them.

It is more in place to prevent people from taking cllients and contracts with them to other companies but can be enforced either way (though it rarely is).

As far as the WWE/Danielson situation, I have a very hard time believing WWE Legal would add language to a contract that would prohibit them from re-hiring someone they let go within those 90 days. It doesn't make sense. As other people have stated, it only makes sense to prohibit them from going to the direct competition where they would then be competing against WWE.

 

[pachargers]

I would think it could be lifted i just made a post an daniel being the 7th member and so far ive heard the same thing that the 90 days can be lifted any time by wwe