Thread: Latest on the 'Brock Lesnar vs WWE' case
View Single Post
Old 06-16-2005, 02:38 AM   #3
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corkscrewed
Both, I think. I want to say that Lesnar signed into OVW around 2001, which would make this make sense.

Anyway, 90 day no compete clauses are fine. Multi-year clauses are ridiculous, but it's your own idiotic fault for signing it. So I don't really have sympathy for Brock.

I supported him when he left, but I said that if he crawls back, then he's a laughable moron, because it would mean that he was just in it for the money.

Let him sit. Let more deserving stars take the time that he'd normally occupy.
Lesnar was probably so sure he could just walk into the NFL.

I forget; was this for the duration of his remaining contract, or is this longer? Since they were letting him out of his contract so he could play football, I can see the former. Anything else is just ridiculous...

...But so is Brock for agreeing.
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote