WWE Releases Samoa Joe, Iconics, Kalisto, Mickie James, and More

[cero2k]

And with the amount of money WWE has paid these people over the years, if they were smart with their money, they'd have been fine for quite a while. For all you know, WWE did the calculations and figured that they'd be fine for a year or two. And it turns out everyone was fine, so maybe WWE deserves some credit for that.

C'mon, you now that WWE didn't make any calculations hoping people would be ok. If they had been concerned about those people (1) they would waited some time to release them, and (2) they wouldn't give them a 90 day clause given the circumstances.

There is nothing wrong with budget cuts. People used to say it was ridiculous that WWE had people under contract for years and didn't do anything with them (JTG being the premier example). In most promotions, the idea would be either use someone or cut them. If you want to criticize WWE for letting people go during an economically tumultuous time because they're a greedy corporate monster then that's fine... but then you also have to acknowledge that WWE has paid A LOT of people A LOT of money for doing very little work when the greedy corporate monster thing to do would have been to cut those people a long time ago. If you want to look at WWE through the "are they a greedy corporation" lens, you have to consider all of the evidence, both negative and positive.

As Seru said, they're keeping people because they don't want them going to AEW and NJPW, otherwise, why aren't they releasing all the people that ask to be released? Tommy End asked for his release, was denied, and weeks later, they release a lot of people that didn't want to be released. If they cared, they'd just release End and probably pay for both Iconics' contracts.
Yes, budget cuts are ok. I don't think they're moral when the 'budget' is make $500M of profit. Cutting people to make budget is and should be the last thing you do, not a yearly activity.
There are no positives in 'paying people without using them', they're not doing it out of charity or because they care for them, it's their incompetence and egoism. You're definitely thinking corpo there though, painting 'not using someone' as positive look for the company. Stephanie McMahon would love you in her team.

[Big Red Machine]

And with the amount of money WWE has paid these people over the years, if they were smart with their money, they'd have been fine for quite a while. For all you know, WWE did the calculations and figured that they'd be fine for a year or two. And it turns out everyone was fine, so maybe WWE deserves some credit for that.

C'mon, you now that WWE didn't make any calculations hoping people would be ok. If they had been concerned about those people (1) they would waited some time to release them, and (2) they wouldn't give them a 90 day clause given the circumstances.

(1) And how do you know they didn't? WWE has paid a lot of these undercard wrestlers A LOT of money to do very little. My guess is that WWE didn't do that much of a calculation, but I also think that if they thought it would leave people homeless, they wouldn't have done it.
(2) The thing that makes the 90-day no-compete clause legal is that the wrestlers still get paid during those 90 days, so lost potential income isn't a factor.

There is nothing wrong with budget cuts. People used to say it was ridiculous that WWE had people under contract for years and didn't do anything with them (JTG being the premier example). In most promotions, the idea would be either use someone or cut them. If you want to criticize WWE for letting people go during an economically tumultuous time because they're a greedy corporate monster then that's fine... but then you also have to acknowledge that WWE has paid A LOT of people A LOT of money for doing very little work when the greedy corporate monster thing to do would have been to cut those people a long time ago. If you want to look at WWE through the "are they a greedy corporation" lens, you have to consider all of the evidence, both negative and positive.

As Seru said, they're keeping people because they don't want them going to AEW and NJPW, otherwise, why aren't they releasing all the people that ask to be released? Tommy End asked for his release, was denied, and weeks later, they release a lot of people that didn't want to be released. If they cared, they'd just release End and probably pay for both Iconics' contracts.

And they're entitled to do that because all of those people signed a contract. Some of them for ridiculous amounts of money and they signed for that much knowing that the threat of them going to AEW was what was getting them paid so much relative to their positions on the card. Tommy End signed a contract. I'm sorry that he's not happy at work, but be signed a contract, and so long as WWE is honoring that contract, I had no sympathy for him. Just because a player demands a trade doesn't mean management is going to trade him.

Yes, budget cuts are ok. I don't think they're moral when the 'budget' is make $500M of profit. Cutting people to make budget is and should be the last thing you do, not a yearly activity.

You do what's best for the organization. Having a job is not a right. Having the opportunity to have a job is, but you are not entitled to keep your job forever once you get one just because you don't want to leave. If management thinks the money they're spending on your contract would be better spend on someone else, or on new equipment, to just sitting in the bank in case the company needs it, or even used for PR purposes like being able to claim record profits, then that's too bad for you.
I lost my previous job when our organization merged with another. The other company had the money to keep the few employees of our organization on, but they didn't because we'd have been redundant. I was unemployed for the next two years. It sucks, but that's the way life is. It's not immoral for a company to decide that a chunk of their budget is better spent on something that isn't people.

There are no positives in 'paying people without using them', they're not doing it out of charity or because they care for them, it's their incompetence and egoism. You're definitely thinking corpo there though, painting 'not using someone' as positive look for the company. Stephanie McMahon would love you in her team.

No positives? How about people getting paid a bunch of money without having to take any bumps?
Just because the company isn't doing it out of pure altruism doesn't mean that there aren't benefits for the worker.
It's like signing a relief pitcher when your bullpen is already awesome because you don't want someone else in the division to sign him.


Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying I would make any of these decisions. I'm just saying that I don't think the idea that there is some sort of moral outrage being perpetrated here stands up to scrutiny. Too many people are coming at this from a place of emotion rather than one of objective philosophy.