If the WWE Board, Fox, NBC Universal etc. were taking this super seriously, Vince isn’t “temporarily removed” he’s “removed” or he’s “indefinitely removed”.
The fact that he’s temporarily removed and his daughter is stepping in is exactly the kind of move that is made purely for optics as he can still do his job through her. Plus, he’s still in charge of creative, so really nothing is changing.
Then you add in the fact that he’s making an appearance of TV, if the board was seriously thinking of removing him permanently, I don’t think they let him touch TV.
100%. He’s going to come out and get a massive ovation, talk about how he’s overcome a lot in his life, and this is just another attempt to take him down, but will overcome it. I fully expect him to be teary eyed, and to get a “Thank You Vince!” chant. Not the kind of imagery a company wants if they are planning on getting rid of someone. This is the type of imagery a company wants if they plan on him coming back. I’m sure they are filming a WWE 24/7 or a WWE 360 right now as well setting up his “comeback story”.
Now of course this is a fluid situation and things can change if something new breaks, but as of right now I think they view this as a temporary black eye.
Tonight will change nothing either way. Those that loathe him will criticize the appearance, those that love him will praise him. I don’t see anyone changing their opinion unless he just says something incredibly stupid which I doubt as I’m sure his statement is being crafted by himself, a team of lawyers, and the board.
Anything is possible, but I don’t think they risk him coming out on their TV if they think he’s going to do that. Well, maybe NBC since this is happening on FOX, and maybe FOX doesnt care because its FOX, but I cant see the board being OK with that.
No, but if he comes out on TV again, he’s that much more recently a public figure synonymous with the company. If then gives them the option to make demands since he’d be doing this despite the ongoing investigation (should things get worse); I’m NOT suggesting this is likely, but you cannot rule out the motivations of some in all of this. Company is up for grabs. Every move is a chess move. Does anyone think they are all in this together? I mean they could be, but would you say it’s 50/50 they are all on the same page up and down the Management and Board and Partners?
Ya that’s a pretty standard termination clause……when it gets to that level it still can get tricky. Typically they can do it, but they usually have to offer a massive payout.
You should post Bret Harts comments about this case. What he said would not fly now a days if this was new And encapsulates why it’s been so hard for woman to speak out about this sort of thing.
Found it….not to pick on Bret, but this gives you an idea as to why woman didn’t speak out back then. True or untrue, they weren’t going to be believed.
