Who screwed who?

[Guest Ed_666]

Thought I'd do a poll. :-)

 

Ed

[Guest A.C.]

I voted Vince. I still can't buy the fact that Bret excercising his "creative control" on his contract would amount to him holding the belt to ransom. He made a reasonable request, Vince sh!t himself and stole the title back (all IMO, of course).

[Guest Ed_666]

So you're saying Bret *didn't* refuse to job the belt at Survivor Series?

 

Why would Vince do that if he wasn't forced to? He'd have just had Bret drop the belt.

 

Ed

[Guest A.C.]

Originally posted by Ed_666

So you're saying Bret *didn't* refuse to job the belt at Survivor Series?

 

Why would Vince do that if he wasn't forced to? He'd have just had Bret drop the belt.

 

Ed

 

No argument, he did refuse to job but he was within his rights to do so. He made a reasonable request based upon the creative control written into his contract that allowed him to make certain decisions about his character during the last 30 days of said contract.

 

Vince did ask him to drop the belt, Bret offered to do it, I think, the next night so he wasn't in his home-town/province/whatever they call it and he could go out as a hero. Vince didn't believe him (which is suprising really, Bret's rep' has always been one of complete professionalism) and the upshot was the Montreal screwjob.

[Chris2K 176]

Time taken for Ed to start an argument at TWO: 18 Minutes ;)

 

I really am undecided in this. I don't think that either guy did themselves any favours with the whole thing.

 

If I had to choose a screw victim, I'd say that Vince and Bret screwed the WWF/E fans.

[Guest Jung]

Technically Vince wanted Bret to lose the belt, and Bret refused, thus its understandable why he wanted to get it off him. However, the way he got it off him was very low, thus I'd say Vince screwed Bret.

[Guest Matt]

Originally posted by jungmuta

Technically Vince wanted Bret to lose the belt, and Bret refused, thus its understandable why he wanted to get it off him. However, the way he got it off him was very low, thus I'd say Vince screwed Bret.

 

No No No No No. Bret offered up several scenario's to drop the belt they's included dropping it to Taker, Foley or Austin but Vince went ahead and screwed him anyway.

[Guest Simon]

Yawn.

 

Bret screwed Bret. And Vince screwed Bret too. They were both at fault.

 

Bret should have dropped the belt, Vince shouldn't have screwed him the way that he did. However at the end of the day I voted Vince screwed Bret because I honestly believe he was going to screw Bret anyway... look at the fact that Bret was scheduled to see out his WWF contract jobbing constantly at PPVs before he left.

 

Can't be bothered giving my full opinion, cause it's all here in my CHEAPLY PLUGGED ARTICLE :)

[Guest Rikidozan]

Bret was going to drop the title to Austin on Raw a week later. Bret did not refuse to lose the title.

[Guest Ed_666]

Originally posted by Sharpshooter121

No No No No No. Bret offered up several scenario's to drop the belt they's included dropping it to Taker, Foley or Austin but Vince went ahead and screwed him anyway.

 

What do scenarios matter? Vince wanted Bret to drop the belt to Shawn because they'd been fueding for months.

 

Dropping the belt to anyone else would not have made sense in the storylines, and looked like they only did it to get the belt off him.

 

That would also have cheapened whoever won it.

 

Whilst what Vince did wasn't strictly right, what he did was a REACTION to what Bret did, hence Bret was in the wrong.

 

If Bret had done what he should have done, and passed the torch to Shawn, none of it would have happened.

 

That is of course assuming it wasn't all a work. :)

 

Ed

[Guest Simon]

Passed the torch? I don't think there was any passing of the torch to be done, and even if there was, Bret had supposedly done it at the Wrestlemania Iron Man match.

 

Bret was booked to see out the rest of his WWE contract with a number of PPV losses, making him look pathetic. In the end the Montreal match ended up being his last PPV one because he didn't want to stay that long.

 

I also remember reading that Shawn Michaels refused to do the job in the 'territory'.... the territory being Canada.... hardly a shining example eh.

 

Fact is Vince was an asshole and didn't want Bret getting the better of him, for whatever reasons.

 

And Singhy yeh, but in defence of McMahon he couldn't risk having Bischoff make Bret do something, and fair enough since I reckon at the time Bischoff could have talked say Hulk Hogan into eating poo live on air if he wanted it.

[Guest tazz13]

Originally posted by AC1D CHR1ST

Vince did ask him to drop the belt, Bret offered to do it. Vince didn't believe him

 

i think it had more to do with vince not trusting bischoff...and rightfully so after the alundra blayze incident, giving away the raw results, etc.

 

bret screwed bret...he was always way too big of a mark for himself...just drop the damn belt when your boss tells you too...so he doesn't like michaels, well boo hoo...i don't care if michaels was an ass, that doesn't mean bret had to be one too...he woulda looked alot classier dropping the belt in montreal to his hated rival, then how he ended up looking

 

might i add that i'm canadian and i'm saying bret screwed bret...its like against the law up here to say that

Edited August 19, 2003 by tazz13

[Guest Rikidozan]

Ed, don't talk utter nonsense. Would Micheals have jobbed for Bret and dropped the title to him?...answer: no. That's a matter of fact, see WM 13.

[Guest Peter K]

Originally posted by Rikidozan

Ed, don't talk utter nonsense. Would Micheals have jobbed for Bret and dropped the title to him?...answer: no. That's a matter of fact, see WM 13.

 

Singhy is right on this one - Michaels wouldn't job to him - watch Thursday Raw Thursday - he put it down to "losing his smile" - and today he promises to put talent over? - goodness what a pile of rubbish - I wonder if Shawn refused to put Chris Jericho over at WrestleMania XIX?

 

I dunno if this helps but - if you watch Wrestling With Shadows - prolly it could tell you some more on the sitution? :?

[Guest kessler]

nicked from the observer last month following the raw in montréal with hbk on the highlight reel cause i find it's a good definitive look at it all:

 

---------------------

 

--Speaking of Tom Prichard, I'm glad to see that everyone who talks about people moving on regarding Montreal are continuing to bring the subject up, and then distort what the story was, to make sure to keep the controversy going. Prichard brought out the original Vince McMahon excuse that he did it because he was afraid Bret Hart would show up on Nitro in Memphis with the belt the day after Montreal (remember what happened with Madusa argument) and that what choice did Vince have since Bret wasn't going to lose the title (there is documentation in the form of lawyer correspondence from that time period which specifically states Hart had agreed to lose the belt once out of Canada and his contract did give him equal creative control of his character as Vince so the boss-employee argument also doesn't fit as it was a 50-50 based on his unique contract that Vince agreed to to get him from going to WCW the previous year) . I hope to never read that again (although I'm sure I will) for the following reasons:

 

1. The Madusa incident occurred after WWF had fired Madusa. They didn't take possession of their belt before firing her. They simply didn't think about the situation and Eric Bischoff obviously did. Considering the lawsuit settlement, I'm guessing that WWF in the long run benefited far more from that than WCW did.

 

2. WWF had already filed a lawsuit regarding trademark infringement against WCW and WCW was treading very thinly on what it could and couldn't do. Since it was well established that companies title belts (in the case that WWF lost to the NWA and WCW in 1991 regarding Ric Flair's belt) were property of the company, for Hart to show up with the belt, it would have been the BEST thing possible for WWF because it would give them a slam dunk huge lawsuit settlement. It wasn't going to happen, but they should have begged that it did.

 

3. Bret Hart was under contract to WWF through November 30, 1997. His contract with WCW started on December 1. Hart would have been sued, and lost, had he showed up on Nitro while under WWF contract. It should be pointed out that AFTER Montreal happened, there actually could have been a case where he may have showed up in Montreal and claimed Montreal was a contract breach, but before Montreal, he had no such claim. Not only that, but Bischoff had given Hart permission to work an extra week while under a WCW contract for WWF, and also had agreed that Hart would lose the title to Shawn Michaels in a fatal four-way match in Springfield, MA, and the reason ultimately it didn't happen is because Michaels then refused to do a job for Hart in Montreal (as he was asked by McMahon on November 3, 1997 and turned down the next day) to set up Hart's loss to Michaels in Springfield.

 

4. Hart had a camera crew ("Wrestling with Shadows") following his every move for that weekend. They were also scheduled to go to Ottawa with Hart, the day after Montreal.

 

5. He didn't show up in Memphis for Nitro even after the incident in Montreal. If there was any chance he could have, after what happened in Montreal, he would have jumped at the chance to do so. With a contract breach, Bischoff would have loved to have had him the next day. But even then, they didn't risk it until the WWF deal was over.

 

I know Vince had to come up with a story to quell the locker room and the one he came up with was Hart was going to take the title to Nitro the next day and refused to drop it to anyone at any time, so he had no choice. Of course the wrestlers at that point that were mad at Vince, and then he gave the speech about taking the punch from Hart for them, did work with some in the locker room. It's been said so often that many take it as true, and based on if you believe that to be the case, McMahon would be justified. Ric Flair had done the same thing in reverse in 1991 and it did a major number on WCW. Others saw it as deceptive damage control, but as time went by, Hart became the "enemy of the state" to those in WWF, which made it easier to side with Vince even if they didn't believe Vince's story. Many to this day believe Hart had refused to drop the title to anyone at anytime, and it is true that the day of the show he suggested vacating the title and giving a goodbye speech rather than dropping it in the ring, which McMahon agreed to, although that was to let Hart's guard down. But the original story held no water. To use it nearly six years later is a bit much.

 

------------------------------------

 

nice to see you on the board ed. :)

[Guest Matt]

Originally posted by Rikidozan

Bret was going to drop the title to Austin on Raw a week later. Bret did not refuse to lose the title. [/quote

 

Exactly

[Guest Ed_666]

Originally posted by Rikidozan

Ed, don't talk utter nonsense. Would Micheals have jobbed for Bret and dropped the title to him?...answer: no. That's a matter of fact, see WM 13.

 

It's not nonsense, Shawn jobbed to Bret on a number of occasions at different levels. Bret jobbed to Shawn once, but only after making it look like he had him beat in the Iron Man match.

 

The WM13 thing is just hearsay, and even if it's true, that just makes Shawn unprofessional AS WELL as Bret, it doesn't excuse Bret's actions.

 

The difference is Shawn has admitted he was wrong to do things like that, whereas Bret still thinks he was right.

 

Ed

[Guest Ed_666]

Originally posted by Simon

Bret was booked to see out the rest of his WWE contract with a number of PPV losses, making him look pathetic. In the end the Montreal match ended up being his last PPV one because he didn't want to stay that long.

 

That's rubbish, Survivor Series would have been his last PPV whatever happened. Bischoff would have had to allow him to stay a week longer to drop the title at some of the places he'd suggested.

 

Originally posted by Simon

I also remember reading that Shawn Michaels refused to do the job in the 'territory'.... the territory being Canada.... hardly a shining example eh.

 

You know what they say - "believe half of what you see, and none of what you read".

 

If Bret had been in his home town it might have been more understandable, but he wasn't, Bret didn't want to job in the WHOLE OF CANADA!!!

 

Imagine the uproar if HHH said he'd not job in the US!

 

Originally posted by Simon

Fact is Vince was an asshole and didn't want Bret getting the better of him, for whatever reasons.

 

What a load of rubbish. Vince didn't want his competitor to pull a HUGE publicity stunt on him by having him appear with the belt.

 

Even if he didn't appear with the title, Bischoff could STILL have claimed that he'd signed the WWF champ!!

 

Stopping that happening was far more important for the WWF than keeping Bret's ego happy.

 

Ed

[Guest Simon]

Ed, you're ignoring fact here. Survivor Series was NOT originally going to be Bret's last PPV.

 

Find more out about the incident damnit, like watch Wrestling with Shadows, or even more interesting read Meltzer's report on it, its somewhere on Rajahwwf.com (oh dear I said Meltzer, I'm a nasty smark now).

 

How you can totally stick up for Vince I don't understand, how he went about screwing Bret was clearly wrong... and HBK was an asshole about the whole thing too, another thing that can't be denied.

[Guest Ed_666]

Originally posted by Simon

Ed, you're ignoring fact here. Survivor Series was NOT originally going to be Bret's last PPV.

 

Find more out about the incident damnit, like watch Wrestling with Shadows, or even more interesting read Meltzer's report on it, its somewhere on Rajahwwf.com (oh dear I said Meltzer, I'm a nasty smark now).

 

I've not got the actual dates to hand, but I've never heard it said in any defence of Bret that he had another PPV upcoming.

 

In fact, even people defending Bret admit that some of the shows he offered to drop the belt on were AFTER his contract with WCW began, but Bischoff agreed to let him wrestle other dates.

 

I've seen Wrestling with Shadows, and all it made me think was that it was all a huge work. WWS would have been a really boring pointless film without the screwjob.

 

Originally posted by Simon

How you can totally stick up for Vince I don't understand, how he went about screwing Bret was clearly wrong... and HBK was an asshole about the whole thing too, another thing that can't be denied.

 

Yes, it was wrong, but what I'm saying is he had no choice because of Bret's actions. He couldn't allow the *possiblilty* of Bret going to WCW as champ (whether he would have is irrelevent), so he had to do it.

 

Here's an anaology - you're in a room with someone and they pull the pin from a hand grenade. So you throw it out the window, and blow some people up. Who is responsible for their deaths? You? Or the guy who pulled the pin and forced you into it?

 

And before you say that's not the same, cause you HAVE to throw it, there's always the possiblity that it wouldn't go off, or throwing to the other side of the room would result in you not being injured.

 

Just like there was the possiblity that Bret wouldn't have gone to WCW or Bischoff wouldn't have talked about signing the WWF champ.

 

Bret pulled the pin, and left Vince with a smoking hand grenade. Vince was damned either way. Let Bret have his way (don't throw) and he may well be blowing himself up. Screw Bret (throw it out the window) and he's still in the wrong.

 

Ed