Why doesn't TNA brake the 90-days clause?

[Ferreira]

This is a thread I was thinking of doing long time ago but never did.

As almost everyone here knows, when somebody leaves WWE they have a non-competing 90 days clause, that means they can't compete on another wrestling organization for that period. (I'm not sure about this one, because I don't know if it is not COMPETING or actually not COMPETING ON PPV/TV SHOWS)

So my question to you is: if somehow a big name like, for example, Randy Orton, Cena, Jericho, Big Show, etc., were fired from the WWE why wouldn't TNA brake the 90-days clause? Of course they would be sued by the WWE but what if they have to pay, let's say a million dollars from a fine? Any of these big names would make it worth it.

So why TNA doesn't do it? Of course a big name like the ones I stated would make it worth it the long-run, even if they had to pay his salary for a year to the WWE or something along those lines...

Or there is something else written on those contracts?

Your toughts?

 

[Alex]

First off it's spelt 'break'

Second, you said yourself, because they'd be sued and WWE would probably try and get as much money off them as possible, plus it would be bad publicity for TNA as it shows they don't follow rules.

 

[klunderbunker]

Because as you yourself said, it's illegal. It would be a repeating fine and no matter how many times they do it, it's not worth it. Also, it may be more than just a fine. What's the point in making a one off appearance if it means a longer time between being able to appear? Also, it would be on the wrestler, not TNA, and that person would burn just about every bridge he or she would have with WWE. There's a reason Lex Luger never came back to WWE, and it's called Nitro. They don't do it because it would be a legal mess and career suicide.

 

[Dave]

Why the hell would you risk a lawsuit when you can wait just 90 days and then sign the person with no legal ramifications?

You say that it is worth the estimated $1 million but it's not. You would have to pay the fine. Then you would have to pay the fees of your lawyers and indeed the oppositions lawyers with no hope of winning. This would be a financial suicide for TNA and all over the length of 3 months!? It's ridiculous to think that they would even risk that.

What makes it all the more ridiculous is that the person who is released is not going anywhere else, are they? They are not going to go to ROH or some other organisation. The only place for them to go is TNA and they would be more than willing to wait for that to happen.

Silly, silly thread.

 

[a0161613]

Everything awesome, KB and Dave said. This should be in the simple questions thread because it is that. WWE would destroy them with a lawsuit.

There is no talent who would be worth what they would have to pay WWE for that.

And if WWE release anybody then there is normally a reason behind it. Plus the Luger, Hall, Nash situation was what made that era so special and why these clauses were introduced.

 

[TheAnimal]

Said superstar would have to make TNA significantly more then the fine they would incur. Problems are not 1 superstar can do that because everything has to work out for them and WWE would not have let them go in the first place if they had that draw power, said superstar would probably do damage to potential return and its obviously illegal.

 

[justinsayne]

Umm... two words: Career Suicide, both for the talent, and TNA, as KB said the wrestler would completely torch whatever bridges they may still have with WWE and WWE would financially tear TNA apart in lawsuits, why would you want to risk the entire company over one guy cause you simply can't wait 90 days (which really isn't that long anyway)

 

[Davi323]

It wouldn't be just on the wrestler...it would be tampering on TNA's part...WWE would rape them in court...to the point where TNA could go completely under. The WWE would go after TNA until there was no more TNA to go after. Then they would go after Spike TV and Panda Energy, TNA's source of income. It isn't worth it. At all. Stupid, idiotic, moronic idea.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I am pretty sure Dixie Carter and the rest of TNA could wait 90 days to bring in someone as publicly known as, say, anyone you just mentioned. To violate the 90-Day Clause would be like saying "We Don't Care If We Get Sued" which would make Total Nonstop Action look really really bad. It doesn't make any sense to want to violate that clause anyways' it's a small sacrifice to make if you have a really big name waiting to be viewed on your show/promotion.

Patience, above all else, is a virtue.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

You answered you own question there....

It would be illegal...and they would be sued...im sure TNA can wait 90 days to get wrestlers like cena and orton although its a long shot...

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Uh, because it's illegal and they'd be sued by the WWE in the process?

Do you think TNA is just raking in cash right now? They couldn't possibly afford to handle a class-action lawsuit by the WWE for breaching a legal contract like that. It would undoubtedly bankrupt the company.

 

[Supernova]

Can I just clear one thing up - the 90 day no compete clause is in the contract of employment between the WWE and the WRESTLERS. TNA can't get sued for anything if a wrestler decides to breach their own contract.

That being said, it would probably still look bad on TNA if they did it anyway. They should only do it if they get someone massive from WWE (and by this I mean Cena, Orton, HHH, Undertaker level) and have them debut unexpectedly like Scott Hall did in WCW. This will obviously be very unlikely to ever happen but it's the only instance in which I can imagine TNA would be willing to look bad legally.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Can I just clear one thing up - the 90 day no compete clause is in the contract of employment between the WWE and the WRESTLERS. TNA can't get sued for anything if a wrestler decides to breach their own contract.

Yes they can, because the clause exists in the wrestlers contract, which means if he's employed by the company despite the fact his contract states deliberately otherwise, they would be held liable.

The point is, even if they were legally free of charges, the very idea that the WWE would bring them to court would not bode well for TNA. They can't afford any unnecessary spending right now.

 

[Ferbian]

I really doubt that WWE would sue TNA for only "a million dollars" I think that WWE would go as far as to sue them into a point where they could possibly go out of business, simply because of Vince's brutality in negotiations.

I don't think TNA should take the chances of breaking the law of the no-compete clause, especially due to the fact that the wrestlers as well as the promotion could be sued for everything they have, the wrestlers would most likely not take that chance to continue their career.

TNA has done fine with sitting around and wait for the 90 days compete clause, and I don't see why they couldn't do it again, and I think they could very well just make an agreement without signing them before the 90 days, and then hype them heavily in that way, instead of taking the shot at breaking the rules.

 

[justinsayne]

Also, I'm not sure how the 90 day clause works exactly, but doesn't the wrestler receive some sort of compensation for being released form his contract early?, if this is the case the wrestler would also be sacrificing 90 days of pay, in which he basically doesn't have to do anything, again I'm not sure if that's the case or not as I have no idea how WWE contracts are written up

 

[TheAnimal]

They get the 90 days pay dont they, so from that point of view they get 90 days off paid, at home with family, a HUGE luxury for them because they dont get to see them much on the road and they can rest up too. From the superstars viewpoint, unless that can be greatly bettered financially, why take the TNA offer to break it? Plus its their decision to sign a 90 day no-complete cause isnt it? 90 days pay, but dont work for anyone else.

 

[That Don Guy]

Because even if they did break the 90-day clause for one night, in addition to the lawsuit, WWE would get a Cease & Desist order out against TNA to make sure the wrestler did not appear again in the 90-day period (and could probably get some law enforcement support to back it up if necessary). That is far too much for TNA to pay for one night's appearance.

-- Don

 

[Tastycles]

Because it's illegal.

Here endeth the thread.