Jump to content

VakAttack

Members
  • Content Count

    6,727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    66

VakAttack last won the day on June 24

VakAttack had the most liked content!

About VakAttack

  • Rank
    Gold Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Really gross by Mineo. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
  2. This "insider" is Mineo, so we're 50/50 at best on it actually happening.
  3. When I first started posting on here I was much meaner, haha. Age has mellowed me, but every now and then I'll come for headshuck's neck. That's my boy.
  4. So the board is incredibly naive, but most of our sports heroes took something, but also you believe Fix?
  5. Believable? No. Possible? Sure, i guess.
  6. Lol, yeah ok, his dad. It's like I said about Taylor, I believe almost all these guys are on the juice. I don't begrudge them, but don't insult my intelligence, lol. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
  7. I haven't watched the hearing (I have enough legal hearings in my life), but I assume that was shot down?
  8. Here's the Texas statute for those interested (I have deleted subsection b from this because it's related to medical practices only, so has no bearing here): (a) Notwithstanding Section 15.05 of this code, and subject to any applicable provision of Subsection (b), a covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made to the extent that it contains limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained that are reasonable and do not impose a greater restraint than is necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the promisee.
  9. The late senator's last post is an important one when discussing the "1 in 5" statistic. The vast majority of the workforce is not in a field that would have any need of a non-compete. Mostly you're talking about businesses with proprietary information (as Mr. Dole mentioned) or a field where you would be bringing an existing customer base (like a book of business or an audience). Think about Conan O'Brien not being on TV for awhile after he was robbed of the Tonight Show, there are countless examples in this area. I don't think there's anything nefarious, legally speaking, in having a non-compete here. It's not great for Willie himself, obviously, but as mentioned, nobody required him to work there, and there was mutual benefit to both parties. Willie provided a lot of great content (and still does), Flo dramatically increased Willie's profile and marketability. Maybe the most infamous example of something similar is Disney. If you're a Disney artist, they own everything you draw while you work for them. Everything. Even at home. Don't want to do that? Don't work at Disney. My cousin was a very talented artist and had that same thing happen to him at Disney. Either way, as previously stated, the enforcability of the agreements vary by stat but typically depend on a determination of "Reasonableness" with no real definition of the term. I don't think the 1 year is going to qualify as unreasonable. Also, he was allowed to produce content, but not videos, wasn't that the original ruling?
  10. Lawyers are just doing what they're supposed to, protect their client's interests. Flo's lawyer is protecting Flo, Rokfin's lawyer is protecting Rokfin, and Willie's lawyer is protecting him (hopefully...if Rokfin is paying for Willie's legal fees, that often creates problems. Lawyers in those situations are SUPPOSED to have only their client's best interests at heart rather than the person paying them, but....that's not always how the real world works.) As to Willie signing a non-compete, I don't think that's problematic at all, it's common practice in many places. It's enforcability will likely revolve on it's duration and geographical coverage; most places require just that both be "reasonable" but don't really define that. For Willie's situation, 1 year is eminently fair as far as duration goes, that likely won't be the difficulty in enforcing the agreement. Geographical coverage is the difficult one to define, since it's an internet company. Is it reasonable to be a nationwide restriction? Worldwide? Theoretically either COULD be enforceable, it's just up to the judge and/or jury. We hashed this around a bit a few months ago and I think somebody said Texas in particular is difficult to enforce, so that obviously could be true; I don't work in Texas. I'm sure there's some petty stuff going on behind the scenes, likely mostly between Martin and Mark Floreani; these types of situations can often get extremely ugly.
  11. And this happened on Youtube somewhere? I'm sorry, I was offline for most of the past couple of weeks.
  12. Wait, what happened? This post is very opaque.
  13. In addition to my earlier point, the periods are shortened to 30 seconds, it makes sense to shorten the amount of time until they call a stalemate. The bottom man has less time to escape. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
  14. I'm ok with it. The rules are called differently because the objective is different. Top wrestlers aren't trying to turn, they're just trying ride out, and rarely get called for stalling unless mandated, like the 5 count. So the bottom man gets a new interpretation, too. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...