CM Punk FIRED from AEW; Returns to WWE

Ohnoits

All Star
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
4,004
Reputation
200
Daps
6,318
Reppin
NULL
So Tony is a bad manager for not forcing his employees to sit and hash things out with man that physically abused them? :why:


This wasnt an argument this was a fight. He cant force these guys to do anything nor did they owe it to Tony OR Punk. Tony's problem wasnt firing Punk after that incident.



Also as a side note, why are we acting like Tony working with talent to appease them is something only Tony does? Vince let Shawn do it for half a decade. This shyt happens so why are people being weird about it now?

"Physically abuse them?" They had a fight and all got suspended for it and then came back.
Punk was out longer only due to injury.
So in answer to your question, Yes.

He is a bad manager.

Part of management is reconciling issues and addressing problems at the root, not when you feel like it.

You can't stick your head in the stand and let your employees do whatever they want. This is wrestling -- so unlike an office environment where I am dealing with people sniping back and forth -- let's say a fight does happen. Two top tier employees, for argument sake, an executive at the company and a high ranking manager. Both got into it physically.

An investigation takes place. HR is involved, we discover that OK, both parties were at fault with this. Now we have to keep working together because every person involved is critical to several projects that are huge cash cows for the company. Both parties agree to return to work after a suspension and sign an agreement to a certain code of conduct.

I'm in charge of all of these people. They've separately been allowed back to work, but now we have to have them on a project together. I call them up, I express we're putting together a joint meeting because we are on this project together and they have certain roles they are going to take over.

One of them decides at the last minute they are going to pull out because they are upset about what happened a year ago (even though it was resolved, everyone admitted or was found at fault and has since returned to the office).

Yes, the conversation would be:

"Are you able to work here, and do the minimum that is required of you for this job, or is this something you don't think you can do?"

You notice I didn't use the word feel. I don't care about their feelings. Their feelings are their own to manage. Now they have to decide, do they want to work on this project, or is this environment too much -- even though everyone was at fault -- perhaps I don't know, they have PTSD. Fine.

But that doesn't mean my work as a business has to be encumbered or interfered with. I have a right to decide, OK, you aren't going to fulfill x work, so I'm paying you less, since I'm not getting the agreed upon output (obviously pay structure is dependent, imagine this is a job where bonuses are received for projects taken on completed).

The key here is, both were at fault - both agreed to return to work - time has passed and now you're refusing to do your job because of your feelings. Well, that's not really my problem. You can't keep managing people based on their feelings. Either they get along together, or they get out. You don't let them dictate the pace of business. We all have requirements here we have to adhere to, I'm reportable to the CEO, you're reportable to me, your colleague's reportable to me, the company is reportable to the client - so if you can't do your job, which you said you could do, then I guess we're not going to be working with you anymore.

Again - the key is that all parties were at fault, the company remediated, the company allowed all employees back in -- this is just having a conversation/meeting. We're not asking you to carry his groceries and wash the guy's car. We can have a third party there to make you more comfortable.

All we're doing is discussing roles and responsibilities and how we're going to communicate and work together going forward knowing this will be a high stress assignment. You're telling me these near 40 and 40+ year old men can't even get on the phone or sit down and talk about how they are going to work together? Get out of here~! lol

And I've managed literally millions of dollars of business per year and large teams for companies. This is exactly how it would be done (I of course would be consulting with HR, but I've dealt with and seen some shyt and I'm just giving you the high levels). You don't let employees just run this and throw your hands in the air. Bad management.
 

horizon

Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
13,577
Reputation
6,659
Daps
63,548
Additionally, it's very funny that they'll said that TK is a poor manager for not reigning in the Bucks/Elite (when that hasn't been an issue since last year) but they won't criticize the actual poor managerial skills TK showed by not reigning in CM Punk at any point before he had to fire him.
Breh prior to Collision's launch, anytime there was reported traction towards CM Punk's return it was IMMEDIATELY followed up with a smear story by known elite stooge Meltzer. The shyt got hilarious at one point because you could literally count on any positive Punk story to be followed up with a hit piece from Dave. And leaking shyt to dirtsheets like rumors about Cabana getting fired because of Punk is how everything started in the first place
 

seemorecizzy

Superstar
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
16,206
Reputation
2,271
Daps
52,070
Reppin
NULL
i don't watch Aew like that and i don't who these non wwe guys are.

Was punk in da wrong for either situation?
and why did he beat em up over a disagreement about glass :mjlol: Please tell me there's more to it then that.

Prime Vince woulda had all these guys in check a long time ago
 

OneDeep

Superstar
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
15,602
Reputation
2,387
Daps
37,044
Reppin
New Orleans
i don't watch Aew like that and i don't who these non wwe guys are.

Was punk in da wrong for either situation?
and why did he beat em up over a disagreement about glass :mjlol: Please tell me there's more to it then that.

Prime Vince woulda had all these guys in check a long time ago
Punk couldn’t take Jungle Boy Sneak dissing him:pachaha:
 

TrueEpic08

Dum Shiny
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
10,031
Reputation
870
Daps
17,181
Reppin
SoCal State Beaches
"Physically abuse them?" They had a fight and all got suspended for it and then came back.
Punk was out longer only due to injury.
So in answer to your question, Yes.

He is a bad manager.

Part of management is reconciling issues and addressing problems at the root, not when you feel like it.

You can't stick your head in the stand and let your employees do whatever they want. This is wrestling -- so unlike an office environment where I am dealing with people sniping back and forth -- let's say a fight does happen. Two top tier employees, for argument sake, an executive at the company and a high ranking manager. Both got into it physically.

An investigation takes place. HR is involved, we discover that OK, both parties were at fault with this. Now we have to keep working together because every person involved is critical to several projects that are huge cash cows for the company. Both parties agree to return to work after a suspension and sign an agreement to a certain code of conduct.

I'm in charge of all of these people. They've separately been allowed back to work, but now we have to have them on a project together. I call them up, I express we're putting together a joint meeting because we are on this project together and they have certain roles they are going to take over.

One of them decides at the last minute they are going to pull out because they are upset about what happened a year ago (even though it was resolved, everyone admitted or was found at fault and has since returned to the office).

Yes, the conversation would be:

"Are you able to work here, and do the minimum that is required of you for this job, or is this something you don't think you can do?"

You notice I didn't use the word feel. I don't care about their feelings. Their feelings are their own to manage. Now they have to decide, do they want to work on this project, or is this environment too much -- even though everyone was at fault -- perhaps I don't know, they have PTSD. Fine.

But that doesn't mean my work as a business has to be encumbered or interfered with. I have a right to decide, OK, you aren't going to fulfill x work, so I'm paying you less, since I'm not getting the agreed upon output (obviously pay structure is dependent, imagine this is a job where bonuses are received for projects taken on completed).

The key here is, both were at fault - both agreed to return to work - time has passed and now you're refusing to do your job because of your feelings. Well, that's not really my problem. You can't keep managing people based on their feelings. Either they get along together, or they get out. You don't let them dictate the pace of business. We all have requirements here we have to adhere to, I'm reportable to the CEO, you're reportable to me, your colleague's reportable to me, the company is reportable to the client - so if you can't do your job, which you said you could do, then I guess we're not going to be working with you anymore.

Again - the key is that all parties were at fault, the company remediated, the company allowed all employees back in -- this is just having a conversation/meeting. We're not asking you to carry his groceries and wash the guy's car. We can have a third party there to make you more comfortable.

All we're doing is discussing roles and responsibilities and how we're going to communicate and work together going forward knowing this will be a high stress assignment. You're telling me these near 40 and 40+ year old men can't even get on the phone or sit down and talk about how they are going to work together? Get out of here~! lol

And I've managed literally millions of dollars of business per year and large teams for companies. This is exactly how it would be done (I of course would be consulting with HR, but I've dealt with and seen some shyt and I'm just giving you the high levels). You don't let employees just run this and throw your hands in the air. Bad management.

The bolded is where you're tripping up. They were not on a project together nor did they need to be on a project together (as proven by Collision existing as the CM Punk show since June), they just happen to be in the same company. And clearly Tony Khan, as poorly as he has handled things, did not deem it necessary that they be on the same project together and WBD (the reason Collision even exists and the reason Punk came back) was fine with this decision. If they weren't, they would have said so a long time ago. The parties in conflict remained in the same company, inhabited different wings of the company with minimal interaction with one another, and all they had to do was not interfere with one another. One party was fine with this, the second party screwed it up repeatedly and caused multiple problems unrelated to this arrangement. And when a meeting was suggested (not made mandatory), one party balked. This was the actual state of affairs and a perfectly legitimate way of handling things. Again, TK is at fault for not reigning Punk in at any point during all of this so peace could be made and a possible opportunity to work together fruitfully could manifest down the line (as I've mentioned in other posts before, reportedly Punk and Kenny were close to working together).

Just like you, I've had to manage teams and money in situations where people didn't always get along and, sometimes, the best thing to do is to just separate people so work can get done in the short term and heads can cool in the long term (AKA get this dude off of my project and reassign him somewhere else). And sometimes, people just don't get to that latter point. Yeah, you're the boss, but these are people you're dealing with, not action figures. In my experience, forcing people to work closely together when it isn't absolutely necessary, especially when tensions have heightened to the degree they they have in this Punk/Elite situation, tends to cause more problems than they solve.
 

HipHopStan

Top 113 Poster
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
16,855
Reputation
4,544
Daps
62,782
Reppin
I LIVE IN A CARDBOARD BOX!
The hardcore Cornette fans are dreadful and if an inability to grasp that physically threatening the owner of the company warrants that reaction, it doesn't matter how much of a hyperbole there is. It's just people who don't like modern wrestling romanticizing the good old days in such a way that they have no idea what those days even were. It's those a$$holes who talk about the old days and how technology ruined kids or something while also being five years younger than we are. Do they all think Vince was a coward when he fired Nailz for assaulting him? They would just die in that world. They along with whatever Russo fans that are left have been the dregs of the IWC for a long time now. But you know "lol thank you, fukk you, bye." or however that stupid fukking saying goes.

EDIT - I also laugh at the fact that many in the company have insinuated that Punk was a backstage tyrant, and that niche fanbase seem to be okay with anyone doing it as long as their name is not Shawn Michaels.
 
Last edited:

Flex Luger

Job Is Finished
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
39,216
Reputation
2,977
Daps
130,579
Some of y'all definitely gotta be White, because only CACs find that passive aggressive trolling type shyt funny and only they have a problem when they're made to stand on what they said :manny:

Everybody involved in this shyt are clowns. FromThe Elite to Punk. All of em need to grow tf up
 
Top