Bret Hart was in the wrong during the screwjob

[D.R.H.]

The screwjob was a work and Brett was the pigeon.

 

[gspieler]

They're all workers Plenty of people in the business and here think it is. I'm guessing a shoot would win a poll and I think it's way more likely, I just wouldn't rule it out.

If it was a work, that would mean all parties involved would have not broken kayfabe on it for 20 years, including to family/friends. Its simply inconsistent with human nature.

 

[Good Ole Stannis's BBQ]

If it was a work, that would mean all parties involved would have not broken kayfabe on it for 20 years, including to family/friends. Its simply inconsistent with human nature.

Keeping kayfabe used to be the norm. I wouldn't really consider any of them as normal humans, they're all weird in their own way. Hebner probably the most and he'd have to be clued in the least.

 

[gspieler]

Keeping kayfabe used to be the norm. I wouldn't really consider any of them as normal humans, they're all weird in their own way. Hebner probably the most and he'd have to be clued in the least.

Hebner, in particular, has no reason to protect kayfabe on it, at this point. Hes been outed from the WWE universe. If anything, he could stand to profit off exposing it as a work. Same with Brett's ex.

 

[Good Ole Stannis's BBQ]

Hebner, in particular, has no reason to protect kayfabe on it, at this point. Hes been outed from the WWE universe. If anything, he could stand to profit off exposing it as a work. Same with Brett's ex.

If it was a work I'd expect them both to be fairly in the dark anyway. There's no reason he has to know anything other than the finish and Bret is probably more likely to complain to his affairs about it than his wife.

 

[Darth Nevets]

The crux of the issue wasnt the doing the job in Canada, but rather jobbing to Shawn. Doing the job in Canada was just throwing salt on the wound. Regardless, Bret had creative control; he was under no obligation to job to Shawn. Vince specifically choosing Shawn, when there were other obvious viable options that Bret would've agreed to job to, further reinforces that Vince created this mess for himself.

As for your second point; it was a mutually beneficial relationship, and had been for a long time. A promoter needs wrestlers, and vice versa. Bret had been a good company man for a long time, and helped keep the ship afolat(particularly overseas markets), after Vince/Hogan had done everything they could to bury the business in the early 90's. Furthermore, Vince had signed Bret to a contract, in which Bret had given up a huge payday to accept, with Vince reneging on his end of the deal. Vince didn't honor what he was contractually bound to, while everything Bret did was within his contract. So yeah, Bret didn't owe Vince shit circa Fall of '97.

You make some great points which I'll elaborate on. The reason Vince was releasing Bret was the bitching of Michaels who didn't want anyone outdrawing him. He basically concocted a way to destroy Bret's value and ensure he'd be on top a perpetual number 2 in the business.

Mind you Shawn didn't want to job so badly that he refused to work Mania 13 (this is after 1996 wherein the WWF was closest to closing during his title run) and pissed in Vince's eye by mocking his "injury." At 14 he wanted to go over Austin THE DAY OF THE SHOW even though he may have been retiring.

The real moment WWF won the war was at Rumble 98 when Undertaker crippled Michaels and paved the way for someone worthy to take over the top spot. If this was a war crime then Bret is at worst the bombing of Dresden, whereas the other side is the rape of Nanking.

 

[RaskeDanzig]

I have always believed this. End of the day, its not real. Don't care how much you dislike the guy you are working with, you do business. Especially being the champion going to the competitor who is kicking the WWF's ass at the time. Vince made the right call imo.

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

1. Bret had creative control on his contract. Both sides had to agree on when he dropped the belt. He contractually had the right to refuse dropping the belt in Montreal

2. He agreed to lose the belt to Shawn the next night on Raw. Vince was a dick and wanted him to lose it on ppv and in Montreal

 

[GSPSAKU]

Bret wanted it his way, or no way, and his way was essentially walking into WCW as the WWE Champion. Sure, he might not have brought the belt with him, but do you realize how shitty that would make the WWE look, to have their champion who never lost the title show up in WCW? Yeah, that was never, ever going to happen, and Vince was 100% right in making sure it didn't.

Hoe people can still say this with a straight face is beyond me. It's been confirmed Bret was willing to lose the title to anyone but Shawn. The same guy who lost his smile, refused to return the fsvor to Bret at WM13 and later told Bret he would never lose to Bret even if Bret lost to him. Shawn even admits to all of this as does JR...but keep harping the false narrative that he wanted to leave as champ

 

[RaskeDanzig]

Hoe people can still say this with a straight face is beyond me. It's been confirmed Bret was willing to lose the title to anyone but Shawn. The same guy who lost his smile, refused to return the fsvor to Bret at WM13 and later told Bret he would never lose to Bret even if Bret lost to him. Shawn even admits to all of this as does JR...but keep harping the false narrative that he wanted to leave as champ

Bret agreed to lose to Shawn, just not in Montreal

 

[HereticBD]

Hoe people can still say this with a straight face is beyond me. It's been confirmed Bret was willing to lose the title to anyone but Shawn. The same guy who lost his smile, refused to return the fsvor to Bret at WM13 and later told Bret he would never lose to Bret even if Bret lost to him. Shawn even admits to all of this as does JR...but keep harping the false narrative that he wanted to leave as champ

Even if that's true, boo fuckin' hoo for Bret. Shawn was next in line. It's called being professional. Yeah, we'll just shoehorn a new champion in there out of nowhere, because poor wilttle Bret doesn't want to lose a pro-wrestling title to Shawn Micheals.

It's not a false narrative though. The agreed upon scenario was a DQ finish at SS and Bret forfeiting the title the next on RAW. That is what Bret accepted.

 

[RaskeDanzig]

Even if that's true, boo fuckin' hoo for Bret. Shawn was next in line. It's called being professional. Yeah, we'll just shoehorn a new champion in there out of nowhere, because poor wilttle Bret doesn't want to lose a pro-wrestling title to Shawn Micheals.

It's not a false narrative though. The agreed upon scenario was a DQ finish at SS and Bret forfeiting the title the next on RAW. That is what Bret accepted.

He agreed to lose it to Shawn, Bret's issue was dropping the belt in Montreal. He was on his way out and had creative control in his contract, why SHOULD he agree to drop the belt there? It was a smart business move on Bret's part and he contractually was in the right to refuse doing so.

 

[ArchGoat]

He agreed to lose it to Shawn, Bret's issue was dropping the belt in Montreal. He was on his way out and had creative control in his contract, why SHOULD he agree to drop the belt there? It was a smart business move on Bret's part and he contractually was in the right to refuse doing so.

Actually Bret had issues with 2 things.

1. Dropping it to Shawn

2. Dropping it to Shawn in Montreal

If you watch their shoot interview Bret recalls Shawn blatantly telling him wouldn't put Brett over... even though Brett was leaving that's what this whole Fuss about people just think it was entirely about Brett not wanting to lose in Montreal there was more to it than that. Brett just wanted the respect from a guy who would be willing to put him over the same way he did for him. Shawn made it clear he wouldn't and both guys legit hated each other especially over Shawn's Sunny Days comments against Bret...Brett took it personal and those comments were why they had that shoot fight (listen to Jerry Lawlers take on this he was actually in the bathroom stall when the fight brokeout). If it was any other person besides Shawn i don't think Brett would mind losing in Montreal but because it was Shawn who disrespected him Professionally and personally that's what this was about

 

[HereticBD]

He agreed to lose it to Shawn, Bret's issue was dropping the belt in Montreal. He was on his way out and had creative control in his contract, why SHOULD he agree to drop the belt there? It was a smart business move on Bret's part and he contractually was in the right to refuse doing so.

Smart decision?

Anyways, it doesn't matter where he drops the belt. Why SHOULDN'T he lose in Montreal? He was just being a delusional mark for himself, as usual.

 

[gspieler]

Smart decision?

Anyways, it doesn't matter where he drops the belt. Why SHOULDN'T he lose in Montreal? He was just being a delusional mark for himself, as usual.

Why do people keep lerpetuating that it was a Montreal thing? It wasnt. It was a jobbing to Shawn thing.

 

[HereticBD]

Why do people keep lerpetuating that it was a Montreal thing?

Oh' I don't know. Maybe because Bret has said as such about 9,000,000 times, as has Vince.

It wasnt. It was a jobbing to Shawn thing.

It was a losing in Canada thing too. Maybe in retrospect and in new interviews or whatever, Bret has said Shawn was the main reason, but I don't know why you're dismissing the Canada thing, when it's been heavily documented as part of it as well.

 

[gspieler]

Oh' I don't know. Maybe because Bret has said as such about 9,000,000 times, as has Vince.



It was a losing in Canada thing too. Maybe in retrospect and in new interviews or whatever, Bret has said Shawn was the main reason, but I don't know why you're dismissing the Canada thing, when it's been heavily documented as part of it as well.

Bret's on record saying he wouldve done the job for Austin, Shamrock, etc. Implying that the only reason he didnt want to do the job was Canada is incorrect.

These are moot points anyway. Vince refused to honor what he was contractually bound to. Meanwhile Brett had creative control written into his contract. Brett had every right to not go out jobbing to the biggest POS in the business, and even presented Vince several viable opoptions. Vince opted not to use any of scenarios, instead chooding to backstab the guy who had been loyal for over a decade. Brett is a mark, and doing the job wouldve been the most classy thing to do, but Vince is clearly more at fault.

 

[HereticBD]

Bret's on record saying he wouldve done the job for Austin, Shamrock, etc. Implying that the only reason he didnt want to do the job was Canada is incorrect.

It's not incorrect. It's a big part of the story. Hypothetical opponents are irrelevant. He was in a feud with Shawn Micheals. He was asked to drop the title to Shawn Micheals.

These are moot points anyway. Vince refused to honor what he was contractually bound to. Meanwhile Brett had creative control written into his contract.

Creative control is a very broad term. There is creative control, and then there is booking yourself. I doubt Bret had those powers, especially on his way out the door.

Brett had every right to not go out jobbing to the biggest POS in the business, and even presented Vince several viable opoptions.

If Bret's suggestions aren't good for business, Vince has every right to tell him to go fuck himself. As an irritated Undertaker once told Bret, "Motherfucker, it's not always about you!"

Vince opted not to use any of scenarios

As the owner of the business, he can do that.

instead chooding to backstab the guy who had been loyal for over a decade. Brett is a mark, and doing the job wouldve been the most classy thing to do, but Vince is clearly more at fault.

Both are at fault, obviously, but Vince had a bigger obligation to protecting his business, than he did Bret. There is more justification to what he did, than what Bret refused to do.

In short, Vince was thinking of his business...as usual. Bret was thinking of himself...as usual..

 

[GSPSAKU]

It's not incorrect. It's a big part of the story. Hypothetical opponents are irrelevant. He was in a feud with Shawn Micheals. He was asked to drop the title to Shawn Micheals.

Correct, he was asked by Vince to drop the title to Shawn. He said no, which was in his legal right. JR and even those who have maintained Bret should have "done business" like Patterson, Prichard, and Slaughter have all said Bret did have reasonable creative control for the last 30 days so both he and creative had to agree and Bret did have the power not to do something if he didn't want to. Patterson, Prichard, and Slaughter still said maintained even with his creative control, he should've dropped it to Shawn.

Also, what I put in bold is not even close to being true. How was Bret in a feud with Shawn? Here are the PPVs from Mania up to Survivor Series feat. Bret Hart

WM 13: Bret Hart vs Steve Austin
IYH: Revenge of the Taker: Bret Hart vs Steve Austin
IYH: Candian Stamepede: Hart Foundation vs Austin, Shamrock, Goldust, LOD
Summerslam 1997: Bret Hart vs Undertaker (Shawn as ref screwing over 'Taker)
IYH: Ground Zero: Bret Hart vs Patriot
One Night Only: Bret Hart vs Undertaker
IYH: Badd Blood: Bret Hart and British Bulldog vs Patriot and Vader

Creative control is a very broad term. There is creative control, and then there is booking yourself. I doubt Bret had those powers, especially on his way out the door.

The correct and actual legal term that was in his contract was "reasonable creative control" where both parties (wrestler and promoter) would have to agree to all terms concerning the wrestler, his matches, use of his images, and angles inside and outside of the ring.

Again, remember the reason why Bret was given reasonable creative control. It was because Vince asked Bret to let Vince out of the 20 year contract that was signed just less than a year ago. So Bret let Vince out of the contract and in return, VINCE ALLOWED BRET TO HAVE REASONABLE CREATIVE CONTROL SO HE COULD LEAVE THE WAY HE WANTED.

It was a two way street; Bret did Vince a HUGE favor and Vince gave Bret reasonable creative control for the last 30 days of his WWE contract. [/QUOTE]

If Bret's suggestions aren't good for business, Vince has every right to tell him to go fuck himself. As an irritated Undertaker once told Bret, "Motherfucker, it's not always about you!"

Again, this is where I have to disagree with you. If Vince has every right to tell Bret to go fuck himself, Bret has every right to tell Vince to go fuck himself too. Bret let Vince out of a 20 year contract and Vince, in return, gave Bret creative control to leave as he wanted the last 30 days of his career.

As far as the Undertaker quote, we've only heard that from one person and it has never been corroborated and all within the WWE lockerroom have always stated that Undertaker, even when he is hot as can be, never yells or raises his voice at his fellow wrestlers or Vince.

Prime example, when he got burned at Elimination Chamber 2010, he was pissed and rightfully so. Yelled at the crew but once he got back to Vince, he was calm as can be and just said he never wanted those guys to work in the WWE again and, poof, they were gone. Corroborated by Bruce Prichard, Chris Jericho, HHH, and Cena that in the back, Taker calmed told Vince he didn't want to see that guy ever again or he'd kill him.

In short, Vince was thinking of his business...as usual. Bret was thinking of himself...as usual..

Which is his prerogative personally and from a legal business standpoint. Again, Bret did Vince a favor and Vince legally returned the favor only to reneg on it at the very end. The boys were upset, say what you want now but it was what it was. 'Taker forced Vince out of his LOCKED OFFICE to go and talk to Bret.

Shawn even mentioned during his interview with Austin two years ago that he knew he had heat with 'Taker already and the whole thing with Bret (Montreal) didn't help. Austin asked Shawn if Shawn and 'Taker ever talked about it (Montreal) and Shawn said:

"I know 'Taker was hot and unhappy with how it all went down. At Montreal, he already forced Vince to go talk to Bret which, ya know, ended with Bret punching Vince so when I got to TV on Monday, I went to find 'Taker and I found out he was already talking with Vince. I waited oustide until he got out and he looked at me, stuck his hand out and said we're cool and I never asked him what was said between he and Vince. I just left it at that."

Again, Vince didn't need to give Shawn the title, it could've gone to 'Taker and then to Shawn. Vince and the WWE made things more complicated than it had to be. Anyone saying Bret didn't do what he was supposed to do is complete bullshit. His contract stated he did not have to do anything he didn't agree to and Vince SIGNED OFF ON IT. Take the title off and put it on 'Taker and then have Shawn beat 'Taker at RR '98, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Being unprofessional...that would be Shawn Michaels who was the first TRIPLE CROWN FORFEITER, forfeiting the IC, Tag, and World titles without ever having a match. And then he has the audacity to tell another wrestler he will never job to him when the other wrestler tried to bury the hatchet saying he'd do the job for him? Yea, I'd say fuck him too

 

[sangreporsangre]

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".

 

[RaskeDanzig]

Smart decision?

Anyways, it doesn't matter where he drops the belt. Why SHOULDN'T he lose in Montreal? He was just being a delusional mark for himself, as usual.

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