Bret hart/shawn michaels

Vince135792003

jaykhunter wrote: »

That said, what Vince did was right for his company (really kick-starting the Attitude Era with real life edge), and Bret got much more money in WCW than Vince would've given him; so the screwjob did benefit everyone. .

In hindsight he did due to WCW incompetence.

At the time it gave Bret Hart's debut in WCW the momentum Bischoff could only dream about.

jaykhunter

Vince135792003 wrote: »

In hindsight he did due to WCW incompetence.

At the time it gave Bret Hart's debut in WCW the momentum Bischoff could only dream about.

Yeah definitely. In hindsight it was a really smart move. I wonder if Vince (a few years later, after he bought WCW lol) said that "he screwed Bret because even though it was morally wrong, it was right thing to do for his company, and both Bret and the WWF/E were much better off financially for it" they might've been able to patch things up a lot sooner. As opposed to keeping the "I'm 100% right, you bastard" point of view :P

I'm sure Bret returning to WWF/E in ~2004-5 would've had much more impact than in 2010, where most of the "Universe" don't know/care who he is. That said, I'm sure Bret's much happier with the PG-Era than he would've been in the 2003-2005 bloody battle years.

weareallmarks

there was no convincing, if bret wanted to go he would have gone. you make it sound like vince used sneaky means and creative control to get him to stay.

the cc clause was just thrown in to the contract, if bret was meant to be there for 20 years (as the contract was for) then it wouldnt have been needed. it was done to APPEASE bret because he thinks he is the greatest

what is reasonable about bret saying 'i wont drop the fake belt to shawn in canada'? ... there is nothing reasonable about it. he should have done what past champs have done, flair put hart over before leaving, shawn put austin over (after being a bitch about it) before leaving, the rock put goldberg over before elaving...

bret was no better than anyone else who has done the right thing. he should have done what he was told, or had something different planned way in advance.

vince had no choice than to screw bret. if he let bret away with it he would have looked weak, and as a boss he would never let that happen.

geeky wrote: »

Again, mate, two points

- his boss convinced him to stay and take less money with a promise of 'creative control'. If that was such an unreasonable thing to look for, McMahon shouldn't have offered it.
- If McMahon felt as strongly as he claimed to subsequently, he shouldn't have deceived his employee, pretending to go along with a (fairly reasonable) solution proposed by Hart that night and then arranging something different.

Most people agree that Bret should have had a bit more perspective, but McMahon acted in a seriously duplicitous way.

geeky

weareallmarks wrote: »

there was no convincing, if bret wanted to go he would have gone. you make it sound like vince used sneaky means and creative control to get him to stay.

the cc clause was just thrown in to the contract, if bret was meant to be there for 20 years (as the contract was for) then it wouldnt have been needed. it was done to APPEASE bret because he thinks he is the greatest

what is reasonable about bret saying 'i wont drop the fake belt to shawn in canada'? ... there is nothing reasonable about it. he should have done what past champs have done, flair put hart over before leaving, shawn put austin over (after being a bitch about it) before leaving, the rock put goldberg over before elaving...

bret was no better than anyone else who has done the right thing. he should have done what he was told, or had something different planned way in advance.

vince had no choice than to screw bret. if he let bret away with it he would have looked weak, and as a boss he would never let that happen.

1 - Nobody forced Vince McMahon to offer his employee any degree of creative control. He did it because he wanted to keep Hart on and didn't have the money to match WCW, so he offered him something else. And yes, it may be stupid to do that kind of thing in the entertainment industry (WCW, I understand, did much the same with Hogan), but he signed a contract with someone and then p1ssed all over it.

2 - I accept Hart was a bit of a mark about it. I'd also say that, if Vince had acted with a bit more competence about the whole thing, the situation would have never gotten to that point. The responsibility for having "something different planned way in advance" wasn't just Bret Hart's - if you ask me, that should lie more with the creative team, and McMahon himself. Hart had proposed a compromise solution, which McMahon pretended to go along with.

3 - If being weak is such a cardinal sin, then, why didn't Vince McMahon strip him of the title (in storyline or out of it), sack him or whatever? Or say 'no, that idea isn't good enough, we need something else'? The way he handled it wasn't strong - it was cowardly and, I would argue, incompetent.

Look, I think we're never going to agree on this. In general, I think employers who break peoples' contracts are scum, and get far too easy a ride - both in the entertainment industry and the 'real world'. Vince McMahon broke his contract, and deceived his employee. For me, that's a bigger issue than Hart acting like a baby.

2nd Row Donkey

It was all Earl Hebners fault surely.

Balasubbie

It shouldn't even have gotten as far as Montreal. Bret was wrong with his idea to drop the strap by forfeit on the following Raw, as it would've only
succeeded in having the WWF/E looking absolutely weak, that the champion
not only left but wasn't beaten on his way out, even though he had just
faced one of the best the night previous and won. This too all came when indeed, the WWF/E were fighting got their very existence. Everybody involved was guilty of fault.

Butch Cassidy

Tribesmen7 wrote: »

Your boss can't just fire you at anytime. Legally anyway..

I thought WWE contracts had a bit about being "released" at a moment's notice?

Vince135792003 wrote: »

In hindsight he did due to WCW incompetence.

At the time it gave Bret Hart's debut in WCW the momentum Bischoff could only dream about.

Absolutey. Well said.

Bischoff could've built the whole WCW company around Bret and basically done with it what Vince eventually did with Steve Austin. That WCW did absolutely nothing with Bret was probably one of the biggest f'k ups any wrestling company made. It's been said by many that Starrcade 97 was the turning point and I think it was myself. A terrible botch ending to one of the biggest and best storyline buildups ever with Hart making a stupid appearance.


I'm pretty sure Vince said himself that Bret could've and should've been the centre point to WCW.

Butch Cassidy

gimmick wrote: »

Haha, this topic never fails

It is what created the internet wrestling community! I think nearly everyone tried to use the internet to find out what really happened. I remember watching the Survivor SEries 97 match on Sky Sports replay and had no clue what happened, if that finish was supposed to happen or not and didn't know why JR was talking about this being Bret's last match. I had no clue. It's a great talking point I think.

rovert

Sorry for the bump but I want to find a relevant thread. Cool feature on WWE.com: http://www.wwe.com/inside/whatif/whatifmontreal/

Check out Triple H's answer