Chris Jericho addresses "Brawl Out", says he saw everything

Originally published at Chris Jericho addresses "Brawl Out", says he saw everything

Chris Jericho shared details of his involvement regarding the “Brawl Out” incident from September 2022

Lawyer Stephen New had recently stated in various outlets that the parties involved have all signed non-disclosure agreements (NDA), except Lucy Guy – the wife of Chris Guy a.k.a. Ace Steel. Both New and Steel have commented publicly that she is not bound to an NDA.

Jericho responded online to an aggregation of the news noting that he never signed an NDA either and that he saw the entire thing unfold.

New responded, “It’s in your employee handbook unless you have a special one. We can figure it out.”

Jericho stated in response that he doesn’t adhere to any employee handbook nor signed a non-disclosure agreement:

Hey @StephenPNew – I don’t adhere to an employee handbook and have NEVER had one in 4 years of working for @aew. Ive also never signed an NDA in my life ….ever.  So stop trying to be a bully and making egotistical fantasy brags for your clients, and start doing some research before you make blanket statements about your buddies.  Because I saw EVERYTHING that night…including how Lucy (and her husband and best buddy) acted and what really went down…and since I was in the room and watching her and everybody else the whole time..I know exactly what really happened.  And considering you weren’t there and I was …maybe you should shut your mark ass up. Because what really went down was disgusting. ….

The incident at All Out 2022 included suspensions being levied against CM Punk, Ace Steel, The Young Bucks, and Kenny Omega. The Bucks & Omega returned in November of that year while Punk, who was injured earlier that night, returned to AEW programming this past June and was released by the company three months later.

It’s fitting that a situation between Punk and the Bucks now involves Jericho… the original “plenty of evidence that he’s an asshole, but the Internet likes his matches” guy.

If I’m Tony I quietly suspend Jericho for a few months. He’s not needed and is due a break from TV anyways

1 Like

What the fuck? Chris Jericho called a lawyer whose represented victims in environmental damages, prison welfare and veterans benefits cases a “mark”??

I tend to agree with you.

AEW has done everything they can to get away from the Brawl Out / Punk chatter. Here we are a week away from a big show, and during a pretty important week for the company (no live WWE competition on TV), ahead of a major PPV, and here is Jericho being an idiot.

Look, this lawyer seems like a bit of a jerk too. But Jericho should know better than to take the bait.

Merry Christmas everybody!

1 Like

This isn’t based on fact other than the person I was BSing with is a lawyer. But here’s the theory we cooked up over Christmas dinner and a bottle of Jameson:

It is plausible, given the nature of professional wrestling, that every employee of a company signs something that prohibits them from speaking about happenings backstage. This likely relates to sharing future storyline plans, but could be phrased in such a way that it applies to other backstage nonsense as well.

(Obviously, this is a protocol that is violated often and with no legal recourse, because even Tony Khan or VKM would go broke just in lawyer fees.)

But having said that, even if a lawyer has seen Ace Steel’s contract and the AEW employee handbook (that might exist), he likely has no idea what Chris Jericho specifically has or hasn’t signed in the last four years.

Also, a lawyer maybe should know better than to get into a Twitter spat that relates, even tangentially, to privileged documents and information that he has apparently read.

Long way of saying Jericho is a proven asshole, this lawyer is an apparent jerk, and somehow it’s only the people who aren’t Punk or The EVPs that want to keep this story alive.

3 Likes

Completely agree on this too.

Jericho is an idiot to bring this up on Christmas morning at 4am. But why is this lawyer stirring up shit in the first place?

Why is he an asshole?

Agree that this wasn’t needed on his part. He should have let the story die.

That being said this lawyer sounds like a name Vince Mcmahkn made up (Stephen P. New) and it’s impossible to take him seriously.

Also at this point can’t we just move on from this. AEW has a killer PPV coming up I would rather talk about

2 Likes

You would think so, but when their own people bring it up, fans are going to talk.

This incident, the Dairy Queen video, Backstage vs. Goldberg, Backstage vs. Brock, a few arrests, a few Twitter rants/feuds, a few podcast rants/feuds… you don’t have to agree, but I think he’s an asshole.

I genuinely can’t believe people out here defending Jericho’s behavior. The lawyer went on a podcast and was directly asked a question about Brawl Out. He said that he can’t talk about it because of NDAs. Then he was specifically asked about Ace Steel’s wife by the podcast host. To which he confirmed that Ace Steel’s wife didn’t sign an NDA.

Of course a separate wrestling tabloid reported o this on Twitter. And Jericho replied to that tweet that he didn’t sign an NDA. Finally the lawyer replied to Jericho’s tweet that it’s in the AEW Employee Handbook. And being Ace Steel’s lawyer who happens to be a former AEW employee, I would imagine the lawyer is aware of what is on the handbook more than Jericho. I don’t see how he’s the jerk here.

Why is a lawyer doing a podcast talking about this anyway? He seems like a carnie

1 Like

I need more info here. What is this?

It’s an infamous Cornette incident, but Jericho is among the voices in the background firing him up. Not like it’s a crime or anything, but a check in the asshole column in my book.

Jericho was doing his portion of the press conference when the fight broke out. He’s full of :poop:. I score this 3.5 Hogannochios out of a 5. :lying_face:

Jericho actually was the one who told Tony something happened backstage - after he was finished talking at the presser.

So yes, he was likely present.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wrasslin/s/sYAHEp6nN5

1 Like

more fantasy lawyering here, but imagine if Punk or Ace was told that “everybody is signing an NDA“ and then Jericho just goes and blows that up to win an internet pissing contest…

My feeling is that if there was some blanket “don’t talk about what happens backstage” policy, then logic would have me believe that those bound by the policy would be responsible if their guests backstage violated it, or friends and family presence would be much more strict. It’s the same logic that dictates that, for example, if stock broker leaves documents laying around their house and they would be held responsible when their child is using inside information for trading.

Which leads me to believe that there is not some blanket policy and Mr. New is using their 15 minutes to stir the pot and get public sentiment on their client’s side.

I’ll chime in here with some thing related to my own work that ma be explained I think where the issue lies.

When I sign with a Hospital I have to sign a form. That is my contract. Somewhere in the contract among things like my commitment and shifts etc is written that I’m not allowed to discuss patients specifics without their consent. This is not really an NDA, but it’s just part and parcel of being there. If I want to discuss a patient story with their identifiers, I need their permission to do it first

Now, because this is not a well laid out NDA, and there’s like literally one line in the contract, it’s open to interpretation. Do I need patient permission to discuss a case in general terms, by not using their real name or perhaps demographics? Nobody really knows. I obtain consent for everything, but I know a lot of my colleagues will talk about cases in the media and openly where they haven’t done that but they’re also not using the patient’s real name or age or something so they can’t be identified easily.

I imagine this is something similar. It’s not a well laid out NDA but it probably says a line or two about how they are not supposed to discuss internal company issues publicly. However what happens if you discuss it in general terms?

What if you don’t use specific names but you simply say you saw people doing this to somebody else? The public knows the names involved and they infer it but if you’re not using specific identifiers, is that still a violation of these terms of confidentialities?

I’ll tell you that within the Hospital system, where obviously the stakes I think are higher than a wrestling company for stuff like this, it’s not well laid out. So I’m not sure this is either.

1 Like