Update On Neville Following Rumored Release Request

[Lil' Kazu]

 

Because you arent running a business.

And you're not running one with independent contractors without health insurance

 

Or rather you're not working under those conditions...

 

You can have The Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels on the pre-show and convince yourself that the views on YouTube are a evidence of the lack of interest, while attributing the sold-out main card to Jinder Mahal vs. Toru Yano in the main event.

 

I'd legit rather watch Jinder vs Yano than Jinder vs Orton or Jinder vs Nakamura.

[Generations]

Would be a nice swerve if he goes to Progress, and it was some sort of working-relationship/"talent on loan" scheme. But at this point, I'm still expecting the worst.

[Lil' Kazu]

As usual there are rights and wrongs from what we've read (I stress that this is still conjecture). Neville is perfectly within his rights to seek a release if he's unhappy - I don't think anyone can dispute that. BUT at the same time, he still owed it to his "employer" (In this case, Vince) to do a professional job and what was asked of him.

 

Well he's an independent contractor so he can just leave and besides if you quit your job at McDonalds do you still owe to the boss there to keep working? As far as the rest of your post the details on this still aren't clear so it's all just assumptions.

[Creepia]

Enzo Amore didn't get more eyes on 205. WWE simply suddenly started to care about 205 Live and put the title on him.

 

You can have The Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels on the pre-show and convince yourself that the views on YouTube are a evidence of the lack of interest, while attributing the sold-out main card to Jinder Mahal vs. Toru Yano in the main event.

 

A main card match/programm, that has effort put into it, will always get more attention than a throwaway pre-show match, with an uninteresting build up.

Well actually after Enzo's win, 205Live jumped to the top 10 of most watched shows on the network.

 

So I really think he did, but I like how you say that with such confidence.

[The Nerd]

 

 

Enzo def got more eyes on 205. Or at least helped peak the interest lol How is that even questionable?

Because they booked everything around him differentley than they booked the Cruiserweight division beforehand? 205 Live basically got the Jinder Mahal treatment

Before we even get to the booking dude, Im going to speak on what Ive seen on social media. I definitely saw more people who barely watch wrestling on IG talking about Enzo. Especially because when he did that shoe shopping with Complex video, a lot of people who arent even wrestling fans starting watching for him or his segments alone. Im serious. Not even making that up. Enzo has an aura or appeal about him on and off tv. By that alone Im sure he brought in more eyes. As for booking, turning him heel and putting the belt on him with him CARRYING it around on social media everywhere(restaurants, stores etc) also made the title feel important imo.

[Lil' Kazu]

This is kinda similar to the Austin situation, when you think about it.

 

 

Double A with some thursday thoughts...

https://twitter.com/austinaries/status/918473501383778310

[M3J]

You typed all of that for me to change my mind or what? I still disagree with what you guys are saying. But there your opinions and youre owed them.

Well, our opinions are the more correct one, so.

 

Enzo Amore didn't get more eyes on 205. WWE simply suddenly started to care about 205 Live and put the title on him.

 

You can have The Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels on the pre-show and convince yourself that the views on YouTube are a evidence of the lack of interest, while attributing the sold-out main card to Jinder Mahal vs. Toru Yano in the main event.

 

A main card match/programm, that has effort put into it, will always get more attention than a throwaway pre-show match, with an uninteresting build up.

Where did you get that? I'd trust an article over a member without any source though, and WrestleInc or whatever I linked to earlier says he did get more eyes on 205. Enzo is just that big of a draw with the crowd.

 

I hope we eventually get the actual facts of what happened with Neville. Doesn't look like he no-showed if he did inform someone that he wouldn't be attending, given how they knew way before the show. But still stupid of Neville to do that, and very unprofessional.

[Beardd]

Doesnt matter what Im doing. Youre missing the point.

 

If all wrestlers decided that they wont lose to people they deem beneath them, youre going to try and argue that it helps the business? What kind of world do you people live in?

 

 

As usual there are rights and wrongs from what we've read (I stress that this is still conjecture). Neville is perfectly within his rights to seek a release if he's unhappy - I don't think anyone can dispute that. BUT at the same time, he still owed it to his "employer" (In this case, Vince) to do a professional job and what was asked of him.

Well he's an independent contractor so he can just leave and besides if you quit your job at McDonalds do you still owe to the boss there to keep working? As far as the rest of your post the details on this still aren't clear so it's all just assumptions.

You do for two weeks (in Canada at least). If youre a professional. You cant just quit on the spot and expect to be respected afterwards.

[Generations]

Interesting playing field for free agents right now, tbh...wonder if Stu Bennett being GM or Defiant has anything to do with Neville leaving. Is Neville good friends with him? Not trying to make an assumption just because they're English...but, it's possible...right?

[M3J]

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

We also have two weeks notice in US as well. You work for two weeks or so before leaving, tying up any loose ends and helping the employer with getting a replacement and/or training the replacement.

[Generations]

Meh...two weeks is more of an unspoken courtesy than a required thing. Depends on the situation. You generally give your two weeks if you're planning to go work somewhere else. But there are plenty of times when you've been mistreated by your employer when walking off is perfectly reasonable. It's really not fair to say that Neville should have given his two weeks, because you don't know if he was disrespected on a close personal level. More important than giving two weeks out of courtesy, is what his contract was/is...and if he can be sued for walking out of it.

[Crowley]

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

We also have two weeks notice in US as well. You work for two weeks or so before leaving, tying up any loose ends and helping the employer with getting a replacement and/or training the replacement.

 

The WCW "old timers" were doing what was best for the company though. Hogan and Nash were a bit stingy about putting people over, but that's because those guys couldn't draw like they could. Bret is maybe the only exception, but even he wasn't quite the draw that Hogan was. And WCW going out of business had very little to do with how the shows were booked.

 

It's also worth noting that Bret was notorious for being kind of a mark for himself. There was a time when he refused to put Nash over in WWF when it was the right thing to do, so what goes around comes around.

[Lil' Kazu]

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

Lmao this has nothing to do with Neville's case at all. Your posts are usually lacking in the logic department, like you don't really think about what you're posting.

 

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

We also have two weeks notice in US as well. You work for two weeks or so before leaving, tying up any loose ends and helping the employer with getting a replacement and/or training the replacement.

 

The WCW "old timers" were doing what was best for the company though. Hogan and Nash were a bit stingy about putting people over, but that's because those guys couldn't draw like they could. Bret is maybe the only exception, but even he wasn't quite the draw that Hogan was. And WCW going out of business had very little to do with how the shows were booked.

 

Yeah, right. All they cared about was doing what was best for themselves.

[Mr.Dreadful]

Doesnt matter what Im doing. Youre missing the point.

 

If all wrestlers decided that they wont lose to people they deem beneath them, youre going to try and argue that it helps the business? What kind of world do you people live in?

 

As usual there are rights and wrongs from what we've read (I stress that this is still conjecture). Neville is perfectly within his rights to seek a release if he's unhappy - I don't think anyone can dispute that. BUT at the same time, he still owed it to his "employer" (In this case, Vince) to do a professional job and what was asked of him.

Well he's an independent contractor so he can just leave and besides if you quit your job at McDonalds do you still owe to the boss there to keep working? As far as the rest of your post the details on this still aren't clear so it's all just assumptions.

You do for two weeks (in Canada at least). If youre a professional. You cant just quit on the spot and expect to be respected afterwards.

 

yup. here in Canada you have to give your employers what's called 'two weeks notice'.

 

side note: i think MRN brought up the 'independent contractor' thing as sarcasm. cause, wwe's version of it is not what the laws are of it.

 

[Beardd]

I want to say again that of Neville left for a bunch of reasons (which is likely the case), thats cool and I have all the respect in the world for him.

 

All Im saying is that refusing to lose in a fake sport because you think youre better is lame as shit and super unprofessional. If everybody did that, there would be a serious problem.

 

@Gen You wont be getting a recommendation if you do leave within those two weeks. It looks terrible on you.

[Crowley]

 

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

Lmao this has nothing to do with Neville's case at all. Your posts are usually lacking in the logic department, like you don't really think about what you're posting.

 

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

We also have two weeks notice in US as well. You work for two weeks or so before leaving, tying up any loose ends and helping the employer with getting a replacement and/or training the replacement.

 

The WCW "old timers" were doing what was best for the company though. Hogan and Nash were a bit stingy about putting people over, but that's because those guys couldn't draw like they could. Bret is maybe the only exception, but even he wasn't quite the draw that Hogan was. And WCW going out of business had very little to do with how the shows were booked.

 

Yeah, right. All they cared about was doing what was best for themselves.

 

 

WWE's revisionist history. It's easy to talk about how they held back guys like Guerrero and Jericho now, but back then they weren't the stars that they would later become. I'd rather watch Benoit vs. Guerrero than Nash vs. Goldberg too, but the fact is that people weren't paying to see good technical wrestling. Nash was a crappy booker, but he was a ten times the star that any of The Radicalz were. Putting himself over was one of the few things that made sense.

[Lil' Kazu]

All Im saying is that refusing to lose in a fake sport because you think youre better is lame as shit and super unprofessional. If everybody did that, there would be a serious problem.

 

It's hardly a novelty in wrestling. Hell, Cena declined putting Nexus over, didn't he? And worse, he didn't say I'm not doing it, he said I'm not losing to them, I am winning. And so he did.

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

We also have two weeks notice in US as well. You work for two weeks or so before leaving, tying up any loose ends and helping the employer with getting a replacement and/or training the replacement.

 

The WCW "old timers" were doing what was best for the company though. Hogan and Nash were a bit stingy about putting people over, but that's because those guys couldn't draw like they could. Bret is maybe the only exception, but even he wasn't quite the draw that Hogan was. And WCW going out of business had very little to do with how the shows were booked.

 

Yeah, right. All they cared about was doing what was best for themselves.

 

 

WWE's revisionist history. It's easy to talk about how they held back guys like Guerrero and Jericho now, but back then they weren't the stars that they would later become. I'd rather watch Benoit vs. Guerrero than Nash vs. Goldberg too, but the fact is that people weren't paying to see good technical wrestling. Nash was a crappy booker, but he was a ten times the star that any of The Radicalz were. Putting himself over was one of the few things that made sense.

 

No it's not WWE revisionist history, give me a break. Show me where WWE has said that Hogan and Nash were out for eachother? Don't bring up a couple of cases and make it seem like they were justified every time they pulled out the creative control card. Was it the best thing for WCW to have Nash beat Goldberg? Oh and btw, this isn't just Hogan and Nash. Shawn was at fault for this too. I've never heard the Bret/Diesel story before, when was that?

[MikeM]

Interesting playing field for free agents right now, tbh...wonder if Stu Bennett being GM or Defiant has anything to do with Neville leaving. Is Neville good friends with him? Not trying to make an assumption just because they're English...but, it's possible...right?

 

I mentioned the Defiant thing because it would pretty much be a homecoming for Neville (It's based in Newcastle for those who didn't know), he could be with his family a lot more - and still work other dates.

 

Not sure if him and Stu are friends, did Stu work the indies before NXT?

[Beardd]

@MRN

 

Im not defending them either. For example, Cena was just as guilty for that Nexus bs.

[Lil' Kazu]

I'm with Neville on this one. It's his career. He was told to do something he didn't think was good for his character or whatever his reasoning was and he decided to walk. Much better than those guys who whine on Twitter that they're not pushed and don't do anything about it. The Ryders and Zigglers of the world.

[MikeM]

 

side note: i think MRN brought up the 'independent contractor' thing as sarcasm. cause, wwe's version of it is not what the laws are of it.

 

 

 

Yeah WWE apparently has a flexible idea on "independent contractors" depending on whether it's a benefit to them or not. I read in a couple of books of wrestlers that from the standpoint of rules and being given specific times and places to be, what to wear and how to behave - that it's very much an "employer" but not so when it pertains to health, insurance, unions etc.

[LEGION]

Plot twist: This is just a angle and Neville gets resigned under a similar deal as the UK guys

[Mr.Dreadful]

 

 

side note: i think MRN brought up the 'independent contractor' thing as sarcasm. cause, wwe's version of it is not what the laws are of it.

 

 

 

Yeah WWE apparently has a flexible idea on "independent contractors" depending on whether it's a benefit to them or not. I read in a couple of books of wrestlers that from the standpoint of rules and being given specific times and places to be, what to wear and how to behave - that it's very much an "employer" but not so when it pertains to health, insurance, unions etc.

 

and to my understanding, independent contractors are not supposed to be subjected to 'no compete clauses'

[Crowley]

 

All Im saying is that refusing to lose in a fake sport because you think youre better is lame as shit and super unprofessional. If everybody did that, there would be a serious problem.

 

It's hardly a novelty in wrestling. Hell, Cena declined putting Nexus over, didn't he? And worse, he didn't say I'm not doing it, he said I'm not losing to them, I am winning. And so he did.

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Again, WCW old timers refused to lose to the people they saw was below them and look at what happened to the company. Imagine how Bret Hart could have been catapulted if Hogan lost to him cleanly instead of losing to Yokozuna dirty and having Yokozuna lose to Bret. The wrestlers have to do what's good for the company, and while I disagree with what Austin did, he at least didn't agree with how they were planning on having the next big thing vs. one of the biggest stars on a normal show without any buildup.

 

We also have two weeks notice in US as well. You work for two weeks or so before leaving, tying up any loose ends and helping the employer with getting a replacement and/or training the replacement.

 

The WCW "old timers" were doing what was best for the company though. Hogan and Nash were a bit stingy about putting people over, but that's because those guys couldn't draw like they could. Bret is maybe the only exception, but even he wasn't quite the draw that Hogan was. And WCW going out of business had very little to do with how the shows were booked.

 

Yeah, right. All they cared about was doing what was best for themselves.

 

 

WWE's revisionist history. It's easy to talk about how they held back guys like Guerrero and Jericho now, but back then they weren't the stars that they would later become. I'd rather watch Benoit vs. Guerrero than Nash vs. Goldberg too, but the fact is that people weren't paying to see good technical wrestling. Nash was a crappy booker, but he was a ten times the star that any of The Radicalz were. Putting himself over was one of the few things that made sense.

 

No it's not WWE revisionist history, give me a break. Show me where WWE has said that Hogan and Nash were out for eachother? Don't bring up a couple of cases and make it seem like they were justified every time they pulled out the creative control card. Was it the best thing for WCW to have Nash beat Goldberg? Oh and btw, this isn't just Hogan and Nash. Shawn was at fault for this too. I've never heard the Bret/Diesel story before, when was that?

 

 

They were justified more often than not. Who was supposed to go over them? No one was ready. And who else should have beaten Goldberg? DDP was literally the only other half decent choice. There was nothing wrong with it being Nash. Considering what they had to work with, it was fine. Not great, but fine.

 

There was a match where Bret didn't even want to take Diesel's finisher, let alone put him over because according to him, the fans would "have the feeling that he was beat" even if he wasn't.

[Lil' Kazu]

No one should've beat Goldberg at that stage! Especially not in the retarded way they did it. How in the hell was that fine??

 

When was that match? Because I recently watched KoTR 94 and Diesel did hit Bret with his finish and the match ended by dq giving the idea that Diesel had Bret beat. So...

Can you imagine if out of the blue they decided on NXT, let's have Peyton Royce beat Asuka after BIllie Kay tazes her. Eh, who else is there to beat her? It's not great but it's fine.