Bret Hart was in the wrong during the screwjob

[HereticBD]

Because Montreal was one of the biggest markets for Bret. Its about smart business, not being a mark.

No, it's about being a mark. How does him losing in Montreal hurt his value over there? Are people going to stop watching him or buying his merch, because he lost a fake wrestling match there? It was only significant in Bret's mind.

 

[GSPSAKU]

Bret never won a title, so he doesn't really get to decide when and where and to who he "loses" the title. The company gave him the belt and they reserve the right to take it back and give it to whoever the hell they want. Can you imagine if the actor playing Ramsay Bolton told the producers of GoT "ok I know the story calls for me to be defeated here, but Kit Harrington has been a prick to me so no way in hell am I gonna lose a battle to Jon Snow".

Ummm, you left out a very important detail

Imagine the producers and director of GoT gave Ramsay Bolton the okay power to veto anything he didn't like and he didn't have to do anything he didn't want to? The fans would be more like "Why the FUCK did the producers and directors give Bolton that kind of power? That's their fault for giving him that power" but lets just leave that little part out.

Look, there are opinions, we all face them. Should he have lost to Shawn on the way out? Not knowing anything, of course he should have. Knowing their backstory and the fact that Shawn has vacated more belts than anyone in the history of pro wrestling and said it to Bret's face that he would never do the job to Bret? Knowing that, of course not.

Opinions out of the way, let's look at facts and at least acknowledge which are opinions and which are facts.. Unlike other wrestlers, Vince gave Bret reasonable creative control, the same thing WCW gave to Hall, Nash, Hogan and a select few meaning if they didn't want to do something, they didn't have to. That's a FACT. Bret is still the only wrestler in WWE history that has the reasonable creative control clause actually written into his contract.

We can go around in circles for days the FACT is Bret wasn't obligated to, HAVE to lose to Shawn Michaels.

Fact. Bret was willing to lose to Shawn as JR mentioned during the Greatest Rivalries DVD right in front of both Shawn and Bret. What Bret wanted was for Shawn to show Bret he was willing to do the same. If Shawn lost clean to Bret, Bret was willing to return the favor to Shawn, EVEN AT MONTREAL. Jim Ross stated this much, being in all the prior meetings as head of talent relations. He did not sit in the last meeting where the screwjob was laid out but he was at all the other big meetings. Shawn would not do business with Bret (which he had absolutely no right to) so Bret decided not to do business with Shawn...which he had every logical reason not to as well as the legal right.

Much like Ric Flair showing up in the WWF with the NWA/WCW title. Some didn't care for it, most of the guys who stayed at WCW certainly hated Ric for it and did not believe Ric should've done what he did. That's fine, those are opinions. The fact is, though, Flair paid for the belt (in essence) and since WCW never paid him his deposit, the belt was still his and he had every right to walk around with that belt until he was repaid.

 

[RaskeDanzig]

No, it's about being a mark. How does him losing in Montreal hurt his value over there? Are people going to stop watching him or buying his merch, because he lost a fake wrestling match there? It was only significant in Bret's mind.

It was 1997, wins and losses absolutely mattered back then. If everyone in the wrestling business thought that way, nobody would make money. Bret was on his way out and wasn't going to get a rebuttal, made zero sense business wise to lose in Montreal in his last ppv match.

By that logic, Vince shouldn't have cared if Bret lost or not because its just a fake wrestling match

 

[HereticBD]

It was 1997, wins and losses absolutely mattered back then. If everyone in the wrestling business thought that way, nobody would make money. Bret was on his way out and wasn't going to get a rebuttal, made zero sense business wise to lose in Montreal in his last ppv match.

By that logic, Vince shouldn't have cared if Bret lost or not because its just a fake wrestling match

At the end of the day, here is what it comes down to. Vince was protecting his business empire. Bret was trying to protect himself. Regardless of whether you think Bret was justified in his behavior, Vince had way more at stake, and his concerns over his business, were always going to outweigh Bret's concerns over himself. Sorry he didn't risk the WWE's credibility and future, for Bret's feelings.

While I can personally see Bret's side of things, the fact that he felt it outweighed the entire WWE, just proves how selfish he was. Did Vince fuck him? Sure, but only because his hand was forced by Bret's ego, and he was 100% justified in doing so. He was obligated to protect his business. He'd be an idiot not to.

Oh', and how did it all turn out for everyone in the end? Yeah, I think Vince made the right decision..

 

[RaskeDanzig]

At the end of the day, here is what it comes down to. Vince was protecting his business empire. Bret was trying to protect himself. Regardless of whether you think Bret was justified in his behavior, Vince had way more at stake, and his concerns over his business, were always going to outweigh Bret's concerns over himself. Sorry he didn't risk the WWE's credibility and future, for Bret's feelings.

While I can personally see Bret's side of things, the fact that he felt it outweighed the entire WWE, just proves how selfish he was. Did Vince fuck him? Sure, but only because his hand was forced by Bret's ego, and he was 100% justified in doing so. He was obligated to protect his business. He'd be an idiot not to.

Oh', and how did it all turn out for everyone in the end? Yeah, I think Vince made the right decision..

Bret's decision was definitely selfish, but he had every right to be selfish to protect his own brand. What was he getting in return by losing? Absolutely nothing. And by contract both sides had to come to an agreement on what happens with Bret from a creative stand point, which they did until Vince screwed him. It would be the equivalent if Bret just decided to shoot on Michaels and make him tap for real.

I understand Vince's side though and don't totally think he was In the wrong, but I hate the notion that "Bret screwed Bret" or that he was being selfish. Bret had every right to not drop the belt in Montreal.

 

[HereticBD]

Bret's decision was definitely selfish, but he had every right to be selfish to protect his own brand. What was he getting in return by losing? Absolutely nothing.

Precisely what he was owed.

And by contract both sides had to come to an agreement on what happens with Bret from a creative stand point

No it wasn't. The contractual agreement didn't say "Bret's way, or no way". It's "Reasonable Creative Control". "Reasonable" being the key word in all that, and who do you think gets to decide what's "reasonable" or not?

I understand Vince's side though and don't totally think he was In the wrong, but I hate the notion that "Bret screwed Bret" or that he was being selfish. Bret had every right to not drop the belt in Montreal.

He was being selfish though. He was only looking out for himself. At best, you have him not wanting to drop the title to Shawn, because he didn't like him. That's selfish as shit.

He had a right to disagree, but that's about it. In his position, at the end of his tenure, the professional thing is to do what you are asked on your way out. Within reason of course. If Vince asked him prance around like a fairy, make a mockery of himself in the ring, and moon the audience, before Micheals made him submit to a headlock, that's one thing. Simply losing the title to Shawn though, wasn't exactly a big ask.

 

[Fadetoblack918]

The older i get the more i side with Vince

 

[gspieler]

The older i get the more i side with Vince

Opposite for me. I used to side more with Vince, because ultimately he was doing it to protect his business. That was before I understood things like contractual obligations, the reciprocal nature of the employer/employed relationship, and the fact that this business, in particular, is built on trust.

Vince screwed Vince, and then to make up for his own fuck-ups, screwed Bret. Although Bret probably could've been a little less selfish on the way out.

 

[Darth Nevets]

At the end of the day, here is what it comes down to. Vince was protecting his business empire. Bret was trying to protect himself. Regardless of whether you think Bret was justified in his behavior, Vince had way more at stake, and his concerns over his business, were always going to outweigh Bret's concerns over himself. Sorry he didn't risk the WWE's credibility and future, for Bret's feelings.

While I can personally see Bret's side of things, the fact that he felt it outweighed the entire WWE, just proves how selfish he was. Did Vince fuck him? Sure, but only because his hand was forced by Bret's ego, and he was 100% justified in doing so. He was obligated to protect his business. He'd be an idiot not to.

Oh', and how did it all turn out for everyone in the end? Yeah, I think Vince made the right decision..

You seem very confused about basic facets of reality. Vince screwing Bret was to "protect" an empire with basically one owner, Vince. Even if there were thousands of owners it would still be selfish of the investors to screw Bret, morality and law are not decreed by democratic populism.

Also it didn't really win shit. The heel owner was a story he stole from Bischoff as the head of the nWo and it only worked because of Austin. If Michaels didn't get injured in RR 98 the WWF would have never got SCSA as the man, WCW would have won every monday, the Rock and Foley pushes wouldn't have happened, WWE would never exist.

Also his creative control only happened in the last thirty days of his contract which Vince could have cancelled anytime, like when he wasn't champion.

 

[Darth Nevets]

Precisely what he was owed.

Are people inherently owed things now? People are owed based on a contract, which Bret fulfilled at every level on a more than good faith basis.

No it wasn't. The contractual agreement didn't say "Bret's way, or no way". It's "Reasonable Creative Control". "Reasonable" being the key word in all that, and who do you think gets to decide what's "reasonable" or not?

Actually the contract only had creative control in the last 30 days of his lifetime deal. Essentially Hart could never go to WCW unless Vince let him go. The legal definition of reasonable is obvious and not based around opinion. If Bret wanted to slip-and-slide down a hundred naked women on the way to the ring that could be called not reasonable. If they wished him to work a hundred matches a month that would not be reasonable. Considering Hart is an independent contractor it would be reasonable to argue he didn't even need to come to Montreal, much less lose his last match in a career hurting program.

He was being selfish though. He was only looking out for himself. At best, you have him not wanting to drop the title to Shawn, because he didn't like him. That's selfish as shit.

He had a right to disagree, but that's about it. In his position, at the end of his tenure, the professional thing is to do what you are asked on your way out. Within reason of course. If Vince asked him prance around like a fairy, make a mockery of himself in the ring, and moon the audience, before Micheals made him submit to a headlock, that's one thing. Simply losing the title to Shawn though, wasn't exactly a big ask.

Again Hart made a deal which prohibited him ever leaving Vince in good faith for his entire life. If Bret took six weeks vacation a year (not counting his stroke) his deal would still today be in effect for more than a year. The only way his tenure could end is if Vince let him go (for no reason), which hilariously is the only reason Hart could avoid jobbing absolutely (Shawn just wasn't a professional period).

 

[HereticBD]

You seem very confused about basic facets of reality. Vince screwing Bret was to "protect" an empire with basically one owner, Vince.

....and thousands of employees. Are you serious with this comment?

Empire > One delusional Canadian

Also it didn't really win shit. The heel owner was a story he stole from Bischoff as the head of the nWo and it only worked because of Austin. If Michaels didn't get injured in RR 98 the WWF would have never got SCSA as the man, WCW would have won every monday, the Rock and Foley pushes wouldn't have happened, WWE would never exist.

So now you're going to deny that the McMahon screwing Bret and turning it into an angle, didn't help the floundering WWE garner much needed attention, and helped create one of the best heels of all time? Please. Bischoff didn't have a patent on the asshole boss character.

As far as "stealing" goes, that's quite a stretch to think that the entire Mr. McMahon character was stolen from WCW, because Bischoff joined the NWO. If you want to go there, DX is a much more appropriate comparison as far as the WWE stealing ideas from WCW goes.

Also his creative control only happened in the last thirty days of his contract which Vince could have cancelled anytime, like when he wasn't champion.

It was "reasonable" creative control, which Vince can and did veto at anytime.

 

[Darth Nevets]

....and thousands of employees. Are you serious with this comment?

Empire > One delusional Canadian

Your argument is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, which makes sense unless you remember that this is business. Vince ran a dozen companies out of business, all of which would have benefited more people. Hart doing what was right for him is no different than Vince (who actually did with Flair what he claimed Hart might do) except Vince violated their agreement.

So now you're going to deny that the McMahon screwing Bret and turning it into an angle, didn't help the floundering WWE garner much needed attention, and helped create one of the best heels of all time? Please. Bischoff didn't have a patent on the asshole boss character.

E basically created the conflict, that the boss worked with the heels to give them an unfair advantage (thus making the babyface a perfect victim). Now Vince did it better, but he didn't create the angle. Also Austin got the company turned around, and the attention really came from Tyson. Many of the fans in the AA started, or restarted, watching immediately afterward.

As far as "stealing" goes, that's quite a stretch to think that the entire Mr. McMahon character was stolen from WCW, because Bischoff joined the NWO. If you want to go there, DX is a much more appropriate comparison as far as the WWE stealing ideas from WCW goes.

Wow we don't agree. DX was a posse of cool heels but they were never invaders and (once Shawn left) never close to the main event. They certainly were never the focus of the entire show.

It was "reasonable" creative control, which Vince can and did veto at anytime.

That makes no sense. Vince didn't and couldn't veto shit, that is why a screwjob was necessary. One can't claim Hart was not acting in good faith by refusing to lose to Michaels, because Shawn was responsible for Vince needing him to win this match and Shawn himself had refused to job in far more damaging circumstances.

 

[HereticBD]

Your argument is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, which makes sense unless you remember that this is business.

Yes, and in what scenario was Bret doing right by the business? The business of Bret Hart maybe, and the business of WCW. Both of which Vince and the WWE had no benefit from.

You can agree with Bret and his logic from a personal standpoint, but you can't disagree that Vince had WAY more to lose in that situation, and that he was obligated to protect his asset, and the people within his company. Bret's feelings and personal gain, are not going to outweigh all that, and Bret was selfish for not understanding that. He was going to WCW and making a fuck ton of money regardless. Vince's business was literally on the brink of collapse at the time.

Wow we don't agree. DX was a posse of cool heels but they were never invaders and (once Shawn left) never close to the main event. They certainly were never the focus of the entire show.

No, they didn't go full retard with the angle like WCW did, and make 75% of the roster members, and revolve the whole show around them, but the similarities and timing of group can't be ignored. It was an answer to the NWO, and the popularity of factions that the NWO reignited.

That makes no sense. Vince didn't and couldn't veto shit

As the owner of the company? LOL. He could, and he did. Unless I missed a lawsuit that Bret won, Vince indeed vetoed Bret's bullshit live on PPV, and there was nothing Bret could do about it.

 

[astrozician]

WCW screwed Bret. WCW screwed everybody... except for Hogan.

 

[D.R.H.]

There was no right in the screwjob...it was just the final step in a long series of fucktardery.

 

[MMouse]

bret shouldn't have made those demands and vince shouldn't have agreed to only do the opposite.

 

[gspieler]

WCW screwed Bret. WCW screwed everybody... except for Hogan.

You forgot Nash, Hall, and Goldberg.

 

[HereticBD]

You forgot Nash, Hall, and Goldberg.

Goldberg is debatable. He got a shot, but they made sure they fucked that one up too.

 

[Darth Nevets]

Yes, and in what scenario was Bret doing right by the business? The business of Bret Hart maybe, and the business of WCW. Both of which Vince and the WWE had no benefit from.

Work on your use of the word business, because I said "this is business." Bret's business is no different than Vince's, I even pointed out how Vince ran many companies out of business which was good for his business but not the business. Quite a convenient ignore on your part as well.

As the owner of the company? LOL. He could, and he did. Unless I missed a lawsuit that Bret won, Vince indeed vetoed Bret's bullshit live on PPV, and there was nothing Bret could do about it.

Good lord this logic. I know we live in a society where the President believes getting away with something means you did right but that holds no water for regular human beings. What was Bret going to do? Spend years suing over a storyline about a contract dispute before a court that wouldn't give a damn? The legal fees could be in the millions and the payout almost nothing and there is even a good chance even if the court would find WWF in the wrong that could still rule they defended themselves without malice of intent (not a hard claim) and thus had no obligation to pay Bret's fees.

Take the Punk suit, what they wanted him to sign for a fee (during the summer months post-contract release) was a non-disparagement clause. A legal item designed to get you to keep your mouth shut about what they did essentially. He refused and spilled the beans. As a tactic of vengeance they had their doctor sue. While not a poor man he has far from enough money to make a counter-suit effective and all his fees are almost certainly paid by the E. They have stretched this simple suit three years to make it as damaging and costly as humanly possible and refuse to bring their (frankly) bogus shit forward. Christ, they named the interviewer as guilty as well despite that being fatuous and legally indefensible.

 

[HereticBD]

Work on your use of the word business, because I said "this is business." Bret's business is no different than Vince's

Quite different actually.

Good lord this logic. I know we live in a society where the President believes getting away with something means you did right but that holds no water for regular human beings. What was Bret going to do? Spend years suing over a storyline about a contract dispute before a court that wouldn't give a damn?

If it was an actual breach of contract that you've been alluding to this entire time, then yes, I would expect Bret Hart to sue McMahon.

He didn't though, and since that means your argument holds no weight, you'll just throw some irrelevant comparisons at me, and think you've made a point. Bravo.


Look we're not going to agree on this, so that's that.