Colt Cabana's Art of Wrestling Podcast

[TimLivingston]

In all seriousness, the CM Punk/Cabana friendship is truly touching.

 

"Bro, I'm angry and want to vent!"

 

"Cool. Can I make money off of it?"

 

"Of course!" 

You do know who sponsored the podcast, right?

[Cristobal]

Yeah............Punk threw a fit, took his ball and happened to tell Vince and HHH that he was leaving on the way home.

 

Even if he had fulfilled his contract to its fullest extent, it's really unprofessional to just walk off the job and not tell your employer or your co-workers what's up.

You two wanna hash this out yourselves? Cuz those two sentences are completely contradictory.

I also still want an explanation of how Punk can be "fired" if he had fulfilled the contract.

Same way you can show up for work on time and be fired because they don't like your work.

Firing someone and holding them in breach of contract are not the same thing. No one is arguing WWE didn't have the right to fire Punk. Arguing Punk must have been in breach of contract because they fired him is ridiculous, and given how things turned out, patently false.

[_MJ_]

Is Punk as huge fucking mark for himself? Hell yes. Do you think anyone who has even been worth a damn in wrestling isn't? Do you think it's fun to bump like a pinball for twenty minutes, suffer though injures on the road and pushing your bodies to the ultimate pain threshold and never see your family and friends outside of the business? Do you think these guys just do it cause they really love the company, or the sport, or even the fans? Wrestling is the ultimate haven for insecure guys who are willing to break their bodies and spirits for public adoration. Of course they're all gonna politic in Vince's little puppet show. Isn't that why we watch pro wrestling? Would you rather have a bunch of guys who don't give two shits?

This is off-topic to where this thread is going but...

 

I agree with most of this(not sure about the "isn't that why we watch pro wrestling?" part).  I understand you have to be ultimate supporter of your work to make it to a certain level in WWE.  Yet, when you hear Punk (and throw Bret in there as well) about themselves in the chronicles of wrestling lore especially without a wrestling colored prospective, it's hard not to cringe and/or joke about it.  I'm sure Rock or Cena have egos about their wrestling legacy and accomplishments too, but I don't feel same level of "C'mon man" toward them when I hear them talk about themselves,which is interesting considering their success.

[Ramsey]

On a tangential note, is there any industry where people openly and publicly shit-talk their former employer(s) and co-workers more than wrestling?

There isn't, right?

Radio...trust me.

[The Nature Boy]

 

Yeah............Punk threw a fit, took his ball and happened to tell Vince and HHH that he was leaving on the way home.

 

Even if he had fulfilled his contract to its fullest extent, it's really unprofessional to just walk off the job and not tell your employer or your co-workers what's up.

You two wanna hash this out yourselves? Cuz those two sentences are completely contradictory.

I also still want an explanation of how Punk can be "fired" if he had fulfilled the contract.

Same way you can show up for work on time and be fired because they don't like your work.

Firing someone and holding them in breach of contract are not the same thing. No one is arguing WWE didn't have the right to fire Punk. Arguing Punk must have been in breach of contract because they fired him is ridiculous, and given how things turned out, patently false.

 

 

I don't see how they are. He did throw a fit, take his ball and go home. He only really told his employer once he had left. Telling your employer that you're burned out is not the same as saying "I'm leaving." I can go to work and tell my boss that I'm burned out but it doesn't mean that I'm leaving. 

 

I'm arguing that Punk being fired proves that there had to be some kind of employment relationship there. I don't buy the whole "I was fired so I wouldn't get royalties" thing. Unless WWE contracts are total bullshit, being fired does not terminate your right to royalties. 

[evilwaldo]

 

 

If you honestly believe that Punk himself even believes that he "fulfilled" his contract then you didn't listen to the podcast at all. Punk says that he was fired on his wedding day. You don't get fired from jobs that you aren't under contract for. Even if he had fulfilled his contract to its fullest extent, it's really unprofessional to just walk off the job and not tell your employer or your co-workers what's up. Punk had better and more mature options.

Your first sentence is pure nonsense. A contract means what it says. If Punk didn't fulfill his obligations, (or his obligations violate the law,) Punk doesn't get shit from WWE. As for the rest, it's apparent you're the one who didn't listen. Punk told Vince and Hunter what was up when he left. Whether or not they believed him is on them.

 

 

Yeah............Punk threw a fit, took his ball and happened to tell Vince and HHH that he was leaving on the way home. That is leagues different than someone coming in, firmly saying that they're leaving and giving sufficient notice of this fact. 

 

I also still want an explanation of how Punk can be "fired" if he had fulfilled the contract. It's clear that there were still parts of the contract that he had yet to fulfill. 

 

ETA: I can't believe that people are actually saying that walking off the job is fine. He was burned out and I get that but he did not go about leaving in the most mature way. 

 

 

I answered that in my reply to you.  I used to work crafting and going through legal contracts for a business.

 

From the eyes of WWE corporate when Punk left he contractually fulfilled his obligations as an independent contractor.  How he left may or may not be up to speculation from a legal standpoint but at some point this issue was discussed in WWE corporate.

 

Punk has fulfilled his contract and left; what are our obligations regarding him walking off the job with respect to royalties and what is our risk that he shows up in TNA or another federation?

 

Vince used the word sabbatical to describe him in a conference call with investors.  That is legal language saying that he was frustrated. injured, and taking time off.  It is a word used to mend bridges.

 

There was a fear that Punk would go elsewhere and the WWE would still be liable for royalties so they exercised a clause in the contract and fired him hoping that he would not retain a lawyer and go after them for unpaid royalties and other items.

 

Punk got a good lawyer and skewered the WWE.  I am sure there is a lot more but I will just leave this here.

 

If I do not see an actual contract I cannot tell you definitively what is in the contract but from what he mentions and my work in the past that is what I can come up with regarding this issue.

[Cristobal]

On a tangential note, is there any industry where people openly and publicly shit-talk their former employer(s) and co-workers more than wrestling?

There isn't, right?

Hollywood.

Stand-up comedy.

Really any kind of performer.

[The Nature Boy]

 

 

 

If you honestly believe that Punk himself even believes that he "fulfilled" his contract then you didn't listen to the podcast at all. Punk says that he was fired on his wedding day. You don't get fired from jobs that you aren't under contract for. Even if he had fulfilled his contract to its fullest extent, it's really unprofessional to just walk off the job and not tell your employer or your co-workers what's up. Punk had better and more mature options.

Your first sentence is pure nonsense. A contract means what it says. If Punk didn't fulfill his obligations, (or his obligations violate the law,) Punk doesn't get shit from WWE. As for the rest, it's apparent you're the one who didn't listen. Punk told Vince and Hunter what was up when he left. Whether or not they believed him is on them.

 

 

Yeah............Punk threw a fit, took his ball and happened to tell Vince and HHH that he was leaving on the way home. That is leagues different than someone coming in, firmly saying that they're leaving and giving sufficient notice of this fact. 

 

I also still want an explanation of how Punk can be "fired" if he had fulfilled the contract. It's clear that there were still parts of the contract that he had yet to fulfill. 

 

ETA: I can't believe that people are actually saying that walking off the job is fine. He was burned out and I get that but he did not go about leaving in the most mature way. 

 

 

I answered that in my reply to you.  I used to work crafting and going through legal contracts for a business.

 

From the eyes of WWE corporate when Punk left he contractually fulfilled his obligations as an independent contractor.  How he left may or may not be up to speculation from a legal standpoint but at some point this issue was discussed in WWE corporate.

 

Punk has fulfilled his contract and left; what are our obligations regarding him walking off the job with respect to royalties and what is our risk that he shows up in TNA or another federation?

 

Vince used the word sabbatical to describe him in a conference call with investors.  That is legal language saying that he was frustrated. injured, and taking time off.  It is a word used to mend bridges.

 

There was a fear that Punk would go elsewhere and the WWE would still be liable for royalties so they exercised a clause in the contract and fired him hoping that he would not retain a lawyer and go after them for unpaid royalties and other items. 

 

Punk got a good lawyer and skewered the WWE.  I am sure there is a lot more but I will just leave this here.

 

 

I'll defer to your expertise on this matter then. 

 

I'll maintain that Punk could have executed his leaving in a more professional manner. 

[Cristobal]

I'm arguing that Punk being fired proves that there had to be some kind of employment relationship there. I don't buy the whole "I was fired so I wouldn't get royalties" thing. Unless WWE contracts are total bullshit, being fired does not terminate your right to royalties.

Again, this is you not understanding basic legal concepts. A contract does not end when one of the parties has fulfilled the obligations of the contract. Prior to the termination, Punk was still under contract with WWE. Presumably, (I hedge because we don't know the terms of the contract, but it's a pretty safe assumption,) he was not obligated to make any more appearances for WWE, i.e. he'd fulfilled that obligation.

Firing Punk does not allow WWE to withhold royalties, that is correct, which was why they ALSO attempted to hold him in breach of contract, (again, these are TWO SEPARATE THINGS.) It was the latter effort which failed hard, (and probably cost WWE more than just paying him what he was owed.)

[TimLivingston]

For those who need the rundown on the legalities:

 

-When Punk left the company, he had approximately six months remaining on his contract

-He had worked an agreed upon amount of dates within the contract that were mandatory, as all independent contractor contracts by the WWE are stipulated

-Royalties were able to be received throughout the entirety of the contract, regardless of whether he was currently working or not

-As he said in the podcast, you can't have a retroactive breach of contract

-He was fired with 5-6 weeks left on his original contract, which meant he was privy to all royalties up until his contract was terminated

 

How is that hard to follow?

[Big Fresh]

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think if the biggest problem in your life is not getting to main event a pro wrestling pay-per-view, you really don't understand what the term "problem" means.

 

That is the most "entitled white guy" thing ever.

 

Once again, not at all what he said. Listen to the fucking thing.

 

 

It wasn't the only reason he left, but he does say a few times that he was totally obsessed with it and considered himself a failure for not doing it. 

 

Which I think is just crazy.

 

 

The guy had a goal that he wanted to accomplish. Nothing wrong with that. It obviously hasn't ruined his life and he doesn't "consider himself a failure". That was just something he tried to do. So what?

 

 

Erm, he says in the podcast "me not main eventing Mania means I'm a failure at wrestling."

 

 

No he doesn't. He says "People will say I'm a failaure at wrestling because I didn't main event Mania."

 

[The Nature Boy]

I will agree with you on one thing, we can't really argue the breach of contract point without actually knowing what Punk's contract said.

 

What was the point of the final six months of the contract if Punk wasn't obligated to appear? 

[TimLivingston]

It's incentive to make more money on gates, merchandise, PPV buys, etc.

[Personal Jesus]

 

 

Yeah............Punk threw a fit, took his ball and happened to tell Vince and HHH that he was leaving on the way home.

 

Even if he had fulfilled his contract to its fullest extent, it's really unprofessional to just walk off the job and not tell your employer or your co-workers what's up.

You two wanna hash this out yourselves? Cuz those two sentences are completely contradictory.

I also still want an explanation of how Punk can be "fired" if he had fulfilled the contract.

Same way you can show up for work on time and be fired because they don't like your work.

Firing someone and holding them in breach of contract are not the same thing. No one is arguing WWE didn't have the right to fire Punk. Arguing Punk must have been in breach of contract because they fired him is ridiculous, and given how things turned out, patently false.

 

 

I don't see how they are. He did throw a fit, take his ball and go home. He only really told his employer once he had left. Telling your employer that you're burned out is not the same as saying "I'm leaving." I can go to work and tell my boss that I'm burned out but it doesn't mean that I'm leaving. 

 

I'm arguing that Punk being fired proves that there had to be some kind of employment relationship there. I don't buy the whole "I was fired so I wouldn't get royalties" thing. Unless WWE contracts are total bullshit, being fired does not terminate your right to royalties. 

 

 

This is why you actually needed to listen to the whole thing. You need to remember the contract is in place to protect both parties, not just WWE. He fulfilled all his dates by the Rumble, so even though he was under contract, he didn't have to show up for the events, but the contract still wouldn't expire till July. But his side of the perks, i.e royalties, etc would still be owed to him. What he got send on his wedding day, was termination papers, saying that in January he breached his contract, making it null and void and entitling him to nothing related to said contract, which was total bullshit. But since there was technically no breach, WWE had to fulfill EVERYTHING in the contract, the same way Punk did. 

[The Nature Boy]

It's incentive to make more money on gates, merchandise, PPV buys, etc.

 

I admit to not being too privy to the nuances of whatever employment law WWE happens to fall under so I admit that I am likely wrong in this case. 

 

Carry on gentlemen. I have learned something tonight.

[Cristobal]

How is that hard to follow?

I have no effing clue.

[TimLivingston]

 

It's incentive to make more money on gates, merchandise, PPV buys, etc.

 

I admit to not being too privy to the nuances of whatever employment law WWE happens to fall under so I admit that I am likely wrong in this case. 

 

Carry on gentlemen. I have learned something tonight.

 

I know because I've been a contractor before. You have a rate, you agree to pre-set terms, but it's open to add more if the necessity arises. I think WWE uses a number like 150-200 dates a year in most cases. I think Punk/Cena might get 250. No worries, man.

[Reed]

Him shit-talking Triple H was great because you just KNOW no one has spoken like that to Triple H in years.

 

It may also guarantee he truly is never coming back.

 

Triple H is petty. We know this. He will be 90 and still pissed at CM Punk for suggesting he was too lowly for him to wrestle at WM. Vince can forget a slight for the sake of business; he can't.

[jstout]

The OBVIOUS reason why Punk didn't get to have sponsors on his gear and Lesnar did is because they were going with a "former MMA badass" thing for Lesnar and MMA guys have sponsors on their gear. Punk, as much as he'd like to think he is, isn't a MMA badass like Lesnar. Lettting Lesnar wear the sponsorships makes sense given his background, while it makes no sense if Punk does it.

[Big Fresh]

2K Games usually uses Colt Cabana to do mo-cap on their games. That's probably done with now. Whoops.

[Big Fresh]

The OBVIOUS reason why Punk didn't get to have sponsors on his gear and Lesnar did is because they were going with a "former MMA badass" thing for Lesnar and MMA guys have sponsors on their gear. Punk, as much as he'd like to think he is, isn't a MMA badass like Lesnar. Lettting Lesnar wear the sponsorships makes sense given his background, while it makes no sense if Punk does it.

 

You mean to say Punk wanted to try something new in pro wrestling that's different from what other pro wrestlers do? Why is that a bad thing?

[Reed]

"They think I'm not a draw! Let me prove I am."

 

Merchandise is one thing. But we know from ratings and pay-per-view in late 2012, he really, really wasn't.

 

Not sure how he did as champion on house shows but I never heard of the gates being anything spectacular.

[The Nature Boy]

Him shit-talking Triple H was great because you just KNOW no one has spoken like that to Triple H in years.

 

It may also guarantee he truly is never coming back.

 

Triple H is petty. We know this. He will be 90 and still pissed at CM Punk for suggesting he was too lowly for him to wrestle at WM. Vince can forget a slight for the sake of business; he can't.

 

I don't buy that anyone burns bridges with WWE. Sable sued Vince for $10 million and was back 3 years later. Bruno went on every media outlet possible and bad mouthed WWE and Triple H practically begged him to return. 

[Cristobal]

The OBVIOUS reason why Punk didn't get to have sponsors on his gear and Lesnar did is because they were going with a "former MMA badass" thing for Lesnar and MMA guys have sponsors on their gear. Punk, as much as he'd like to think he is, isn't a MMA badass like Lesnar. Lettting Lesnar wear the sponsorships makes sense given his background, while it makes no sense if Punk does it.

...yeah, that's definitely more obvious than "Lesnar had the leverage to demand it, Punk didn't."

[Niners Fan in CT]

I think a few people misunderstood what I was saying in relation to Punk wanting to obtain and then wear sponsors on his tights. Sure, it was pretty shitty for him to not be able to do so and then watch as Lesnar is allowed. But this goes back to Punk believing his own hype. Lesnar was a guy who just sold between 800K-1M+ PPVs in the UFC. Clearly WWE saw that and felt it would be worthwhile to sign him and give him whatever the hell he wanted. Punk compared himself to Lesnar which..if he believes it's the same thing, fine but it's not. He's never been as popular as Lesnar nor was he in the same position to make those demands.