FORUM HOME > Wrestling > TNA
Austin Starr suspended again?

The EmpressPosted on 04/20/07 at 00:42:19

Meltzer is reporting that TNA has suspended Austin Starr, but there is no reasoning given.  Anyone have any idea what happened?
CarlzillaPosted on 04/20/07 at 10:48:33

Source: PWinsider.com

As we’ve previously reported, Austin Starr has been suspended for 90 days. Reports indicate the suspension was due to Starr’s bad attitude.

Starr upset management this past Sunday at Lockdown when he wore ROH shirt while representing TNA at their Fanfest. Then, this past Monday he was asked to shoot some promos and he was upset about having to do so, and the promos ended up being cancelled.

According to several superstars backstage, Starr isn’t the type to sit around and smile when he’s upset on how he’s being treated. So Starr is very outspoken and honest when it comes to certain things, which resulted in his 90 day suspension.
Zedja - TNMWA ChampionPosted on 04/20/07 at 13:50:18

Attitude??

How things change in a year. I mean the last time he was suspended he was all humble.
http://www.tnm7.de/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=indy;action=display;num=1140080073;start=60

Read the quote from Snabbits post.
pszPosted on 04/20/07 at 14:15:07

To bring back a dead cliche (or one that should be):

TNA sweats ROH.
The EmpressPosted on 04/20/07 at 23:25:41

Hmmm . . . So is TNA's story legit, or are they maybe trying to make Austin Aries look bad? Or is it possible the attitude is justified?

I just find it hard to believe that Austin Aries would be acting like this. I smell a rat.
UnrightPosted on 04/21/07 at 00:29:11

Hmm... Wearing a ROH shirt to a TNA fanfest is a pretty flauntingly disrespect stunt to pull. It's not like they didn't have TNA t-shirt there that they were giving away to fans...

I'm guessing that Zedja's right. He's probably a little ticked about his lack of push and that probably can be traced back to the blizzard incident.
phudjiePosted on 04/21/07 at 06:59:38

.....does he really have a lack of push - he had a ppv match, he get's tv time everyweek, he's winning most of his matches, where exactly is his lack of push.....

.....I think it's that some of these ROH guys are starting to believe their own press, between CM Punk, Austin Aries/Starr and Samoa Joe have all had attitude problems, perhaps they are having difficulty transitioning from being a big fish in a small pond to being just another fish in a big pond - so to speak.....
The EmpressPosted on 04/22/07 at 06:37:56

Well maybe, but then again, if they have the talent to back it up, would that not make wanting "more" so to speak somewhat justified?

I know if I had that much talent and I were being left on the back burner in favor of losers like Tomko and has-beens like Steiner, I would probably have an attitude as well.  Under no circumstance should Tomko be main eventing ahead of guys like Austin Aries.
91Posted on 04/22/07 at 12:25:09

It depends how he's handling it - if he's legitimately being a jerk to people then there's no excuse for that. There's being unhappy and then there's being unpleasant. Of course, which of the two Starr is being (if either) I don't know. I'd hope the former, but if he has been suspended...
The EmpressPosted on 04/22/07 at 22:09:08

Wish we could be there to see the specifics.

The thing that makes me question the whole thing is that I've never heard any prior reports of Austin Aries behaving badly.
The TNM Members ChampPosted on 04/22/07 at 22:32:24

I've read that Austin Aries is a rather blunt individual. But that doesn't necessarily make him a jerk. It just means he tells you how it is and I guess some people just don't like that.
pszPosted on 04/23/07 at 05:29:46

A blunt person happy with his situation tends to make less waves than a blunt person UNHappy with his situation.
PulsarPosted on 04/23/07 at 06:50:31

On 04/22/07 at 06:37:56, The Empress wrote:Well maybe, but then again, if they have the talent to back it up, would that not make wanting "more" so to speak somewhat justified?

I know if I had that much talent and I were being left on the back burner in favor of losers like Tomko and has-beens like Steiner, I would probably have an attitude as well. Under no circumstance should Tomko be main eventing ahead of guys like Austin Aries.
Fixed
The EmpressPosted on 05/23/07 at 05:57:04

Jeremy Borash finally speaks as to the reason for the suspension.  From Gerweck:

Jeremy was asked to comment on the 90 day suspension of The
Austin Starr. He said you have to go with the talent that
most wants to participate, which seemed to confirm the rumor that Starr refused to work on his day off because of birthday plans. JB said he went to bat for Starr coming into TNA and he kind of regrets that now. Borash said Starr is a great talent but wishes his head was in a different place sometimes.
So basically, it was his day off and it was his birthday.  TNA tried to call him in to work and he refused.

So I was indeed right in my suspicion that Austin Aries was more or less railroaded by TNA management.  Not sure about the rest of you, but I would never work on my birthday either.
CarlzillaPosted on 05/23/07 at 07:35:26

Sometimes in life you just have to do things that you don't want to do, it's part of being an adult.
King UnrightPosted on 05/23/07 at 08:07:57

Maybe it's just me, but Austin seems to be at a point in his career where probably he should make sacrifices (like working on his birthday) in order to make nice with management and move up the card.

Still, TNA is in the wrong on this one. A day off is a day off and Austin is within his rights to refuse to work.  Although I have suspicions that there are extenuating circumstances to warrant the suspension...
pszPosted on 05/23/07 at 14:08:32

I've worked various jobs (From conveinient store, to office, to delivery, to IT) and I've been asked to work my birthday, even after I've marked it as Off.


Usually (especially higher-paying jobs) I'll do it.


Convenience store, not so much ;->

My point is, if AS is getting paid decently (And I have no clue if he is or isn't), then he should have done it to, as said above, make nice with management.

If he's low man on the totem pole payroll-wise (And we KNOW he's had to cancel his ROH and other indy stuff, meaning less income), then F-TNA.
The EmpressPosted on 05/23/07 at 21:08:28

Given what he's been doing, he's probably pissed off that TNA is acting hostile toward ROH.  I'm willing to bet he wants out of his TNA contract and that's why he isn't making nice.  I admire him a lot for his loyalty to the company that treated him best.
CarlzillaPosted on 05/23/07 at 23:29:57

On 05/23/07 at 08:07:57, King Unright wrote:Still, TNA is in the wrong on this one. A day off is a day off and Austin is within his rights to refuse to work. Although I have suspicions that there are extenuating circumstances to warrant the suspension...
Depends on the contract and on the state. Where I'm at there are no laws against manditory overtime, meaning if they ask you to come in on your day off and you refuse you are subject to the same penalties you would be if you where scheduled to work normally.
King UnrightPosted on 05/24/07 at 02:28:02

On 05/23/07 at 23:29:57, Carlzilla wrote:Depends on the contract and on the state. Where I'm at there are no laws against manditory overtime, meaning if they ask you to come in on your day off and you refuse you are subject to the same penalties you would be if you where scheduled to work normally.
Really? That seems like a really cruddy loophole that enables employers to fire anyone they want at any time by demanding they work ridiculous hours.

I guess TNA is Florida-based, but I admit I don't know my own state's work laws. I won't bother looking them up because, as you said, it also depends on Austin's contract. He may be up shit's creek if he didn't have an agent to represent him at the contract signing (probably didn't).

Still, we don't know much about the circumstances, so we're just speculating in the dark.
The EmpressPosted on 05/24/07 at 02:30:49

I could have sworn most places of work can't just call you in without prior notice and then punish you for refusing.  If I'm wrong about that, it needs to be put into law immediately.
pszPosted on 05/24/07 at 03:57:41

Depends on if it's a "Right To Work" state (aka "Right To Starve") or not.

Depending on the state's work laws, an employer has the right to end employment of any individual without previously stated reason or warning (varies from state to state, of course).

In essence the state gov't says "It's on the employer who he chooses to hire or fire, and we're not getting involved".



Now, I'm a bit confused about the whole TNA-Not-Letting-People-Wrestle-Indy thing...

Is it that TNA is saying that their guys can't wrestle in ANY Independant company, or *JUST* ROH?

The reason I ask is that Jay Lethal and Christopher Daniels are both scheduled in a few indy shows (Including MCWs Shamrock Cup '07 in July)
Team 3D are shown on the UWF/MCW poster for the Ft. Meade show, as well as scheduled to wrestle the Steiner Bros. in Philly.
King UnrightPosted on 05/24/07 at 04:48:01

Beats me. All I know about wrestler contracts is that they can range between 6 and 52 cards.

Beyond that is all Tweaked
The EmpressPosted on 05/24/07 at 05:35:18

On 05/24/07 at 03:57:41, psz wrote:Depends on if it's a "Right To Work" state (aka "Right To Starve") or not.

Depending on the state's work laws, an employer has the right to end employment of any individual without previously stated reason or warning (varies from state to state, of course).

In essence the state gov't says "It's on the employer who he chooses to hire or fire, and we're not getting involved".
That definitely needs to change ASAP.  There need to be strict laws stopping employers from just outright firing people for no reason.
CarlzillaPosted on 05/24/07 at 06:43:18

The thing with the law where I'm at is that any time over 10 hours in one day or 40 hours in one week must be paid at time and a half...so while they can fire you for refusing, they have to pay much better if they want to work you more than they ought to.