Much of it reiterates what AEW owner Tony Khan said in his statements about the move while announcing it yesterday, and/or has been covered in previous reports from others. Barrasso does simply state what to this point had only be alluded to, though — namely that Punk’s pre-All In incident with Khan had more to do with his firing than the much discussed altercation with Jack Perry:
Punk was not dismissed solely because of his backstage altercation with Jack Perry last week in London at All In, though that did not help his cause. His firing came after Khan felt physically threatened by Punk at All In during his attempt to get Punk refocused on the match. Unlike prior occasions, Khan was not able to effectively communicate or reason with Punk–and eyewitness accounts supporting Khan’s claim further ended any chance that Punk would return to AEW.
Other reports indicated it was Samoa Joe who was able to get Punk re-focused and willing to wrestle in All In’s opening match.
SI’s report also makes is sound like no one expects Punk to quietly ride off into the sunset:
This is by no means the end of Phil Brooks as CM Punk. Sources close to both sides expect a response from Punk, which holds the potential to be explosive. It is disappointing that, after so much promise just two years ago, the relationship ends in such a disjointed manner.
After walking out of and later being fired by WWE in 2014, Punk famously documented many of his issues with that company in an appearance on Colt Cabana’s podcast, which itself led to lawsuits and the disintegration of Punk & Cabana’s friendship... which would play a role in the start of Punk’s issues backstage at AEW.
Lawyers are already involved in Punk’s AEW exit — they were frequently referenced in reports about his dispute with The Elite after last year’s All Out, ones on negotiations for his return to the company earlier this summer, and Barrasso’s mentions that Khan’s legal team unanimously recommended his firing. Will that tamp down the explosiveness of his response?
We shall see.