10 years on Montreal Screwjob

[golden miz]

I was there in too. In attendance as Shawns wife, and afterwards we went home and laughed at Bret Hart.

Sorry if I don't believe "I was backstage at the Montreal screwjob" because I've heard it so many times from so many people.

Right, the fact? Do you want to show me some? Because at the moment all you're doing is moaning about you being there and that makes you know more? I think that's what you're getting at anyway.

All men involved were in the wrong here in some way. Yes, Hart was in the wrong too. But, the problem with Harts later career wasn't the problem of the WWE. It was that WCW had no idea how to use a talent such as Hart. And you'd think it was easy, giving the following he had already. They were gave a ready-made star and yet still couldn't use him.

Your only 16 right, it makes you 5 when the montreal screwjob happened. I've been in the buisness for over 30 years (74-07) and I'ts funny how the dirtsheet view rules. In the industry we believe that the internet ruined wresteling, it did. Saying wcw killed hart is like saying bill clinton didn't sleep with oher women. Skill is only 1/7th of what makes a wresterler, I wont explain the exact origional formula that verne developed but 2/7th's of the equation is passion, it's so easy to loose passion and in brets case he lost his passion for the "sport" Who liked working for wwf at this time anyway. The backstage was misable, the tallent wasn't happy and most importantly the business side of the equation was all up in caos. The business is more complex then you believe, just don't jump to coclusions about wrestling and point balme without realizing that it takes over 500 componets to produce a sucessfull show and everyone awalys focus on 2 or 3 of them throwing the others out the window which is wrong. Yeah I was at the screwjob, just like I attended every episode of raw for the first 10 years, I also was at every ppv over this time. The wwf was highly factioned at this time and still is, stop making comments with no basis behind the dirtsheet, if you want I can give you an actual account of the wwf in the 90's being a part of it all. And by the way I'm only 56 I'm not an old geiser

 

[Slyfox696]

Hart did not act like a man in this situation. He wouldn't drop the belt for a start.

Yes he would. Quit distorting facts.

Hart has gone on record numerous times he would have dropped the belt to anyone anywhere, with the exception of HBK in Canada. That's a bunch of nonsense and you know it.

But his reaction afterwards wasn't exactly that of a man, was it? Didn't he end up spitting at Vince and then punching him?

Yes, to his face. Not look him in the eye and lie to his face, screw him over on live TV, and then run to the back claiming to know nothing about it, like the other three did. He settled everything face to face like a man.

He denied being a part of it, yes. Why? Because McMahon told him to deny it. McMahon wanted the heat to be directed away from Shawn as much as possible. That's why he went down to ringside as it happened.

Yes, I've read HBK's book and seen McMahon's video too. That's not the reason at all, and we both know it. The reason he denied it was because he knew that Bret could kick his butt and do it badly. Bret was a shoot fighter, and a dang tough one as well. That's why when HBK and Brisco was in the hotel before the match, Brisco was showing him some basic ways to defend himself long enough to get out of danger or for someone to intercede on HBK's behalf if things went wrong. McMahon didn't want his new champion showing up on Raw after getting his butt kicked by WCW's newest acquisition.

THAT'S why he denied it. Because he was to scared to up and fight Bret, like what would have happened if he would have admitted to it.

How was Bret acting like a man in it? If the roles were reversed it would be like Shawn refusing to drop the belt anywhere in America.

Shawn did. Many many times.

There was nothing wrong with what Vince originally wanted Bret to do. Bret was leaving.

Wrong. Bret was being forced out. Significant difference.

It was his responsibility to drop the title to whomever his boss, who was the main reason that Bret was able to go to WCW for the big deal as he was the person that put Bret on tv and made him the superstar he was, recommended.

No, wrong again, and this is where the difference between leaving and forced out comes into play.

It is NOT Bret's responsibility to drop the title to whomever his boss chooses. It is Bret's responsibility to do what's best for both him and his new employer. If Bret was voluntarily leaving the WWF, or retiring, then I would agree with you. But that's not what happened. He was forced out, and thus, he had the legal right and the moral responsibility to do what was reasonably best for both him and his new employer.

It was a messy situation all the way around that would have been totally avoided had Bret just done as he was told.

No, you're wrong.

It could have been totally avoided if:

1. McMahon hadn't given Bret a 20 year deal he couldn't afford.
2. McMahon hadn't broke his contract with Bret.
3. If McMahon hadn't given Bret the belt four months before he needed it back.
4. If McMahon had booked Bret to lose before Survivor Series in Canada.
5. If McMahon had booked ANYONE besides Shawn Michaels to beat Bret.
6. If McMahon had allowed Bret to just vacate the title, like he allowed HBK to do so many times.


THAT'S how all of this could have been avoided.

Actually he did refuse to drop the title as he said on the Wrestling With Shadows DVD that the Bret Hart character would be blowing his brains out if he dropped the title in Montreal and for me him being stubborn is the catalyst for what happened at Survivor Series.

Yes, he had 30 days creative control that he had creative control, but that doesn't give him the right to refuse to drop the title as it makes him look unprofessional.

No. He said he refused to drop the title to one man in one place.

There's a major difference. Especially when it affects his earning power and the earning power of his new employer.

He wasn't being forced out as Vince wanted him to stay but said to Bret, if you want to go then go as WCW were offering him way more than Vince could. This whole mess could've been avoided if Bret let go off his pride about dropping the title in Montreal and they then would've the match finished the match in the way that was agreed backstage

No, he WAS forced out. McMahon told Bret that if Bret did opt out of his contract, then McMahon would intentionally breach it. He told Bret he should look to WCW for work.

And the match finish agreed on backstage was a Double DQ...how would that have changed anything?

For the people that have been saying things like "Bret refusing to job in Canada would be like HBK refusing to job in America" that is just wrong. They are two different things. Because Bret's entire gimmick at the time was based on being a Canadian hero and international hero, he wasnt just another wrestler in Canada he was like a hero to many of the Canadians. I believe he was actually voted most famous Albertan at one time(Im not entirely sure about that but I thought I heard that) and was actually named as one of the best Canadian athletes ever yes he was labeled as an athlete.

So you are asking a guy that has that going for him to job to his arch rival CLEANLY in a place where he is looked at so highly. That is devastating for a character and makes him look terrible and would kill any momentum he had going to WCW. There was no other wrestler that had the World title that had to drop it under those conditions when they left. When Hogan dropped it before he went to WCW he dropped it to a 600 pound man that needed a camera to explode in Hogan's eye to beat him, that did not kill Hogan's character what so ever. Not like it would have made a difference because Hogan was such a big draw but still nonetheless it didnt kill it. That was a totally different scenario than Brets. All Bret wanted was to drop it in a different way, he didnt even ask to beat Shawn then he said he would take a dq. I think for a guy that has served you loyally for that long the least you could do is do that for him.

GREAT post, and right on the money.

You just saved me a lot of work. Rep coming.

Let me get this straight, Slyfox696...Bret Hart acted like a man, for refusing to turn over company property when requested to by company management? That doesn't make him a man, it makes him a thief. The WWF Belt was not the property of Bret Hart, it was the property of the WWF.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Bret Hart was the only person who acted like a man, because he did it face to face, and with complete honesty. He told everyone exactly what he thought, and he didn't go around backstabbing people and then lying about it.

Even if I accepted the notion that he was being forced out, so what? That gives him the right to refuse to his job? That gives him the right to dictate to the company when he returns THEIR property?

YES!

That is the whole point. With McMahon breaching their contract, it put into effect Bret's reasonable creative control clause. Nowadays, creative control isn't heard about much, so maybe you're not aware of what it is. But, what Bret's did was essentially guarantee him that he had the right to refuse any angle or booking which would reasonably damage his character's reputation and the earning potential of his character or the earning potential of his new employer.

Being forced out gave him the LEGAL right to refuse to do any angle that was damaging. Including refusing to job to a man who picked his nose with the Canadian flag when Bret's character was that of a Canadian hero. Especially when the northern US and Canada were places that WCW wasn't yet strong in.

Not sure where you obtained your copy of his contract, so that you know the exact dates, but, I don't seem to recall even mentioning when his contract supposedly ended, so, I am unsure what you were trying to prove.

It's actually a well known fact that his contract didn't end until middle of December.

And the point of that is that Bret couldn't appear on WCW programming until his WWF contract was officially up. So this nonsense about Bret appearing on WCW was just that...nonsense. Not only that, it proves that McMahon had SEVERAL opportunities to take the belt off Bret after Survivor Series.

Reasonable creative control doesn't mean you get to call all your own shots, its just a way to guarantee your character doesn't get totally buried. Losing the belt to Shawn Michaels is hardly getting buried. Bret Hart simply let his ego get the best of him, and he refused to do his job, so the title got taken from him.

False.

See above.

If I have a company car, and quit my job, and they ask for their car back, do I get to tell them exactly when I am going to drop it off, or is it my responsibility to bring them back their property whenever they ask for it after I turn in my notice?

Depends. Is it written into your contract that you can drop it off anywhere you want? Because if it is, then you can.

And it was written into Bret's contract that he could dictate his character.

Further, the belt was just a TV prop. I think somewhere in Bret's warped little mind, he thought that it was actually real. Somehow the WWF title gave him importance. Here is a clue, Bret defenders...the WWF title isn't a real title. Its a TV prop. It isn't like a Super Bowl trophy or the Stanley Cup, wrestlers don't earn titles by winning a legitimate sporting competition. Its given to them by old guys in the back, and it can be taken away from them by the old guys in the back. Somehow Bret Hart forgot that. He believed the belt had actually made him far more important than he actually was.

You're killing your own argument.

If the belt is just a prop, then why did the Screwjob happen in the first place? If the belt is just a prop, then McMahon should have had no problem letting Bret take it to WCW. After all, it's just a TV prop.

Not only does this section of your post make ZERO sense, it also is a blatant mis-adaptation of what HBK said in his book, AND kills your own argument.

You failed numerous times with that one.

As the owner of the WWF, Vince McMahon can do any damn thing he wants with the belts. They are his property. Further, the actions of Vince McMahon, Shawn Michaels and Earl Hebner were necessitated by Bret Hart's actions. If Bret had done what was requested of him, and drop the championship when told to, like the professional he claimed he was, none of it would have been necessary. Bret brought it completely on himself.

And as the owner of a legal binding contract, which guaranteed Bret Hart creative control over his character, Bret Hart could do any dang thing he wanted to preserve his character's earning potential. And the only thing he did was to say he wouldn't get beat by HBK in Canada.

Its the people defending Bret that are the ignorant ones.

Yes, because pointing out legal binding contracts and being backstabbed is what makes someone ignorant. It's certainly not blatantly mis-adapting WWE propaganda, or ignoring all other factors except that HBK can do no wrong.

Vince McMahon has a right to protect his property, and can do anything with the belt that he wants.

It's just a TV prop, remember? Who cares?

Vince could have stripped Bret Hart the next night on RAW, and completely humiliated him by giving the title to a complete jobber

And Bret Hart told Vince he'd be perfectly fine with that. Bret said he'd even show up to hand the belt over to the jobber himself.

And then what does Bret do? He assaults the owner of the company backstage.

Like a man. He stood eye to eye, gave McMahon the chance to explain himself, and then man to man punched his lights out.

You call that acting like professional?

Who said anything about professionalism? We're talking about acting like a man.

But, considering McMahon, HBK and Triple H's role in all this, do you REALLY want to get into a discussion about professionalism?

To assault another man because you were pissed? It wasn't in a wrestling match, Bret Hart, coward that he is, had to resort to real violence out of anger of losing something that wasn't even his to lose. What a baby.

Wait. Telling another man to his face he's going to knock his lights out before he does it is cowardly?

Perhaps I should define for you what cowardly means.

I have to disagree here. Yes Bret's character was that of a Canadian hero and he certainly was one. I think i remember hearing that he was voted most famous Albertan or something of that nature as well, but he was leaving. Bret's time, as well as his character with the WWF was over. There is a bit of a difference as Canada isn't the focal point of the WWF, but it would be similar perhaps to saying Shawn wouldn't lose the belt in Texas, which is a place that the company goes to, bbut not on a regular basis. Bret and Vince both messed up that night but I thinkt he blame rests more on Bret than anyone else. Vince may have commited the greater sin, but it wouldn't have happened had Bret not forced his hand.

The main issue is that, as Canada's hero, losing to HBK (who had repeatedly criticized and insulted Canadians) in Canada could hurt Bret's earning potential. Not only that, when Hart left, WCW was the biggest promotion in America, but still did not have a good hold on the northern United States or the Canadian areas, so Bret Hart would be a great way to enter those new areas and further build WCW's empire.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Yes he would. Quit distorting facts.

Hart has gone on record numerous times he would have dropped the belt to anyone anywhere, with the exception of HBK in Canada. That's a bunch of nonsense and you know it.

Funny how he goes against the one thing McMahon is asking. Bret was still under contract with the WWE. His obligation was to the WWE and to their profits and reputation. McMahon thought Shawn was the best man for the job. Hart should have listened to him.

Yes, to his face. Not look him in the eye and lie to his face, screw him over on live TV, and then run to the back claiming to know nothing about it, like the other three did. He settled everything face to face like a man.

Your definition of a man is a lot different to mine, if you think shouting, swearing and fighting proves someones a man.

Yes, I've read HBK's book and seen McMahon's video too. That's not the reason at all, and we both know it. The reason he denied it was because he knew that Bret could kick his butt and do it badly. Bret was a shoot fighter, and a dang tough one as well. That's why when HBK and Brisco was in the hotel before the match, Brisco was showing him some basic ways to defend himself long enough to get out of danger or for someone to intercede on HBK's behalf if things went wrong. McMahon didn't want his new champion showing up on Raw after getting his butt kicked by WCW's newest acquisition.

THAT'S why he denied it. Because he was to scared to up and fight Bret, like what would have happened if he would have admitted to it.

Funniest thing I've ever seen posted on these forums. Was it Bret or his wife that told you Shawn was scared of him?

Your only 16 right, it makes you 5 when the montreal screwjob happened.

Clearly, meaning I don't know anything about it, right?

There are some things age make a difference on, yes. This isn't one of them.

I've been in the buisness for over 30 years (74-07) and I'ts funny how the dirtsheet view rules. In the industry we believe that the internet ruined wresteling, it did. Saying wcw killed hart is like saying bill clinton didn't sleep with oher women. Skill is only 1/7th of what makes a wresterler, I wont explain the exact origional formula that verne developed but 2/7th's of the equation is passion, it's so easy to loose passion and in brets case he lost his passion for the "sport" Who liked working for wwf at this time anyway. The backstage was misable, the tallent wasn't happy and most importantly the business side of the equation was all up in caos. The business is more complex then you believe, just don't jump to coclusions about wrestling and point balme without realizing that it takes over 500 componets to produce a sucessfull show and everyone awalys focus on 2 or 3 of them throwing the others out the window which is wrong. Yeah I was at the screwjob, just like I attended every episode of raw for the first 10 years, I also was at every ppv over this time. The wwf was highly factioned at this time and still is, stop making comments with no basis behind the dirtsheet, if you want I can give you an actual account of the wwf in the 90's being a part of it all. And by the way I'm only 56 I'm not an old geiser

So, who exactly are you blaming for the downfall of Bret, as there is, what? 500 people on a wrestling show? Who was at fault at Montreal? Clearly, Hart did nothing wrong .

WCW did not know how to use Hart, it's a fact. If they did, he'd have been in better feuds. I could go on forever, but it's obvious from the way Hart changed so suddenly WCW played a part in this. He was one of the most talented men in the business. You can't always blame the wrestler.

If it was all down to Hart, he would have been the one to fall, not the entire WCW promotion.

 

[klunderbunker]

First of all Sly, I never said a word about why Bret was leaving, but simply that he was leaving, so save your fact correcting for when I actually get something wrong.

He was leaving on his own. His contract was expiring and he took a better offer than WWF couuld afford. That's smart business. If he really wanted to stay with WWF, he could have taken a lower offer. I have no problem with him leaving, but you are flat out wrong when you say he was forced to do anything.

Where did I say Vince was innocent? Vince is equally to blame for what happened that night, but Bret comitted the ultimate sin by thinking he was bigger than the company and the business. No one, not Hogan, not Flair, not Austin, has the right to force the promoter's hand like that. It is completely unprofessional.

It could have hurt Bret's earnings potential, yes that's true, but that's no longer Vince's responsibility. When any wrestler is leaving a company, they're owed nothing more. You talk about WCW still not having a hold over the country and Bret potentially being someone that could expand their empire. That's very true. My question is this: Wouldn't stopping that or slowing it down be in Vince's best interests? Vince was trying to keep his compnay afloat and losing Bret was a big deal. If Bret showed up on Nitro with that belt it would have been disastorous for WWF. Vince was fighting for survival. In that case, anything goes.

 

[Davi323]

Bret comitted the ultimate sin by thinking he was bigger than the company and the business.

EXACTLY. He showed he had no respect for anyone but himself. Bret Hart is a fraud. Wrestlers with titles that leave the company drop the belts first, its a well established tradition. (Ric Flair being the obvious exception, but he had a legal claim to the big gold belt, as the NWA forced him to pay something like a 25 or 30k deposit on the belt, and refused to refund it to him when he went to the WWF, entitling Flair to show up with it, in a matter that was settled as soon as they ponied up the cash and Flair returned it to the NWA)

Losing to Shawn Michaels is never being buried, and Bret had to know that as a heel, EVENTUALLY he would have to drop the belt anyway. The argument that losing to Shawn Michaels would kill his income is ridiculous, as losing to someone lesser would have killed any potential income even more. HBK was already a two time former holder of the belt, two time winner of the Royal Rumble, and already had PPV victories over Hart, he wasn't a midcarder being elevated, he wasn't a jobber, he was Shawn freaking Michaels. Bret losing to HBK is believable, it doesn't damage him. That argument is patently ridiculous. Plus, in case it escaped everyone's minds, at the time, Hart's Canadian faction was heel, while DX was an attitude era face unit. Heels ALWAYS get what is coming to them in the end. Bret may have been a hero to blind Canadian fans, but, the WWF is an American company, not Canadian. Bret Hart was the villain. The main villain in a heel faction loses to the main hero in a face faction at the culmination of most storylines. Do we really expect to believe that having Hart lose to anyone else, who his faction HADN'T been feuding with for a long time would have made any sense at all? Because of the feud between DX and the Hart Foundation, it HAD to be HBK.

 

[Slyfox696]

Funny how he goes against the one thing McMahon is asking. Bret was still under contract with the WWE. His obligation was to the WWE and to their profits and reputation. McMahon thought Shawn was the best man for the job. Hart should have listened to him.

Bullshit...twice.

He WASN'T going against the one thing McMahon was asking. McMahon asked him to lose the title, and Bret said fine. But, he wasn't going to do it in Canada to Shawn Michaels.

And, he was ALSO under contract to WCW, and his obligation was no longer to the WWF, it was to WCW.

Like I said. Bullshit...twice.

Your definition of a man is a lot different to mine, if you think shouting, swearing and fighting proves someones a man.

I'd much rather have someone tell me to my face what it is he wants to say then be a coward and go behind my back and betray my trust to get what he wants.

Funniest thing I've ever seen posted on these forums. Was it Bret or his wife that told you Shawn was scared of him?

It was him lying right to his face that told me that. When Bret is in the locker room, and asked him to be completely honest, and Shawn says "I swear Hitman, I didn't know anything about it". That's when I knew he was scared of him.

Just because you're an avid HBK fan, doesn't mean it's not true. I mean, why do you think HBK had Brisco showing him moves and stuff to get out of a situation if it got bad? HBK knew he couldn't win a fight with the Hitman (especially after Hitman had already bettered him once before...you know, the fight that HBK claims caused the big bald spot on his head), and the last thing he wanted to was to get his ass kicked by the guy going to WCW.

Clearly, meaning I don't know anything about it, right?

There are some things age make a difference on, yes. This isn't one of them.

Actually, I beg to differ, but I think his main point is that you obviously weren't in attendance at the show, where as he was.

First of all Sly, I never said a word about why Bret was leaving, but simply that he was leaving, so save your fact correcting for when I actually get something wrong.

Wrong.

Leaving implies having a choice. Bret was being forced out. There was a difference.

He was leaving on his own. His contract was expiring and he took a better offer than WWF couuld afford.

Wrong again.

He had just signed a 20 year contract not that long before. His contract wasn't expiring, it was being breached.

That's smart business. If he really wanted to stay with WWF, he could have taken a lower offer.

Until McMahon decides he no longer wants to pay him that money, and force him to take even less? Not a chance.

I have no problem with him leaving, but you are flat out wrong when you say he was forced to do anything.

Wrong again.

When your boss comes up to you and tells you that he is breaking a 20 year contract in the first year, and that you should seek employment elsewhere, that's being forced out.

Where did I say Vince was innocent?

Who said you did?

Vince is equally to blame for what happened that night, but Bret comitted the ultimate sin by thinking he was bigger than the company and the business.

Wrong again. You're making a habit of this.

This wasn't about Bret being bigger than the business, this was about Bret exercising a legal clause in his contract. It's amazing how all the Bret bashers conveniently ignore the fact that BRET HART HAD A LEGAL CONTRACT TO DO WHAT HE DID!!!. Was it also personal? Sure. But, even with that, Bret Hart had legal standing to do what he did.

It could have hurt Bret's earnings potential, yes that's true, but that's no longer Vince's responsibility. When any wrestler is leaving a company, they're owed nothing more.

But, it shows that what Bret was refusing was well within his rights to refuse. Because, reasonably, any angle that could hurt his drawing power, he has the right to refuse.

It's not Vince's responsibility to care, but it IS his legal obligation to adhere to it.

You talk about WCW still not having a hold over the country and Bret potentially being someone that could expand their empire. That's very true. My question is this: Wouldn't stopping that or slowing it down be in Vince's best interests?

Sure it would.

But, it doesn't matter. It would be in my best interests to run an old lady off the road when she's driving 15 in a 45 when I'm late to work. Doesn't make it legal.

Vince was trying to keep his compnay afloat and losing Bret was a big deal.

He didn't lose Bret, he kicked him out.

Christ's sake Klunder, learn the difference.

If Bret showed up on Nitro with that belt it would have been disastorous for WWF. Vince was fighting for survival. In that case, anything goes.

Bullshit. Complete and utter ignorant bullshit. Bret Hart could not appear on WCW programming until the middle of December. This nonsense about him showing up on Nitro is just that. If Bret didn't show up to Raw the night after Survivor Series, the WWF just files an immediate injunction to prevent their title from showing up on WCW, which would obviously be granted, and if the WCW had shown the title, they would be basically opening themselves up to enormous lawsuit, not to mention someone (Bischoff I'd guess) going to jail for disobeying a court order.

This nonsense about Bret showing up with the belt is complete bullshit, but it's the only thing the Bret Hart bashers have, so they lean on it like a crutch, defending everything HBK and McMahon did, while conveniently ignoring the complete ridiculousness of it. Bret would NEVER have been able to show up on WCW programming with the belt.

EXACTLY. He showed he had no respect for anyone but himself. Bret Hart is a fraud. Wrestlers with titles that leave the company drop the belts first, its a well established tradition.

And Bret Hart was more than willing to drop the title.

Christ, how blind can some of you people be? Bret Hart WAS going to drop the title, ironically in the same fashion that HBK has dropped 5 of his titles...by vacating the title.

(Ric Flair being the obvious exception, but he had a legal claim to the big gold belt, as the NWA forced him to pay something like a 25 or 30k deposit on the belt, and refused to refund it to him when he went to the WWF, entitling Flair to show up with it, in a matter that was settled as soon as they ponied up the cash and Flair returned it to the NWA)

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait. So, when Flair doesn't like his booking, it's OK for him to leave with the title when money is involved, but when Bret Hart has a LEGAL contract clause guaranteeing him the right to decide how his character is booked when money is involved, it's a completely different story.

Jesus Christ, I don't think I've ever seen a more hypocritical post in all my life.

Losing to Shawn Michaels is never being buried, and Bret had to know that as a heel, EVENTUALLY he would have to drop the belt anyway.

He did. And he offered to drop it to 50+ wrestlers, anywhere in the world.

Just not Shawn Michaels in Montreal.

The argument that losing to Shawn Michaels would kill his income is ridiculous, as losing to someone lesser would have killed any potential income even more.

Do you not remember the feud?

Bret Hart was Canada's hero. Every week he would show how proud he was of his country, talk about how great Canada was and how trashy America was, and his heel heat was only in America. When he got to Canada, he was treated like a god.

HBK, on the other hand, insulted and degraded Canadians constantly. He picked his nose with the Canadian flag. Bret Hart, the god of Canada, losing to HBK in Canada, COULD hurt his earning power. To say that it's ridiculous is just being blind to the facts.

Now, WOULD it have hurt it? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But, the fact that it COULD have, gave Hart the right to veto it. The LEGAL right.

he was Shawn freaking Michaels.

Yes, the guy who trampled over Canada and it's flag and was the WWF champion during the WORST period of time in WWF history.

Great call.

Plus, in case it escaped everyone's minds, at the time, Hart's Canadian faction was heel, while DX was an attitude era face unit. Heels ALWAYS get what is coming to them in the end. Bret may have been a hero to blind Canadian fans, but, the WWF is an American company, not Canadian. Bret Hart was the villain. The main villain in a heel faction loses to the main hero in a face faction at the culmination of most storylines. Do we really expect to believe that having Hart lose to anyone else, who his faction HADN'T been feuding with for a long time would have made any sense at all? Because of the feud between DX and the Hart Foundation, it HAD to be HBK.

This whole post gets a "Who gives a shit?" response.

The match wasn't being had in America, it was in Canada. Bret Hart said that he would lose to HBK in America. That wasn't the problem. Like you said, he was the heel, and the faces eventually go over. But, in Canada, Bret Hart WAS the face, and HBK was the heel, so using your own logic, Bret Hart SHOULD have gone over. But Hart wasn't even asking to go over, he was asking for a Double DQ. And then, Hart would never work another match in the WWF (since that is what Vince McMahon wanted) and so the belt would go to whomever McMahon wanted it on.

The more you post, the more you prove my case.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes, and his choice was leave for more money or stay for less. He was financially secure, and he took more money. Hardly a force. You're just wrong here Sly. Get over it.

I'd hardly call what Vince did a breech. Bret was offered a contract by WCW which he turned down. Vince gave him the long one, and knowing he couldn't pay it, told Bret he should go to WCW. If that's not looking out for an employee, I don't know what is.

And I'm sure you have proof that Bret was trying to hold onto the walls of WWF offices while security picked him up and threw him to Atlanta. You can't prove that he wanted to go to WCW or that he didn't want to and neither can I. It is your opinion that he was forced out, despite the evidence pointing to the opposite.

Sly your blindness stuns me at times, it really does. Bret had control over his character, not the belt, not the city the show was in. He was leaving. He had no say left in his character. He knew his contract was coming up, he knew the show was in Canada, and he was stubborn and unprofessional, plain and simple.

How is it Vince's legal job to adhere to a contract that wasn't in effect anymore? The 20 year contract was broken. Vince was free and clear legally. If he wasn't, where was the lawsuit for Bret's potential earnings being hurt?

There is a differnece between being kicked out and leaving under your own will. Bret left under his own will.

So it would have been illegal for Bret to do what had already been done in the past by Madusa?

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, and his choice was leave for more money or stay for less. He was financially secure, and he took more money. Hardly a force. You're just wrong here Sly. Get over it.

McMahon told him that either Bret allow McMahon out of his agreement, or that McMahon would breech his agreement. McMahon then told him to seek employment with WCW as he wouldn't pay him.

I'd hardly call what Vince did a breech.

That's funny, because Vince McMahon called it that.

If that's not looking out for an employee, I don't know what is.

Oh, I don't know. How about not lying to his face, then screwing him on live global programming?

And I'm sure you have proof that Bret was trying to hold onto the walls of WWF offices while security picked him up and threw him to Atlanta. You can't prove that he wanted to go to WCW or that he didn't want to and neither can I. It is your opinion that he was forced out, despite the evidence pointing to the opposite.

What evidence?

The fact that WCW had earlier offered him a HUGE contract (bigger than his WWF one) to join them and Bret had turned it down to show loyalty to McMahon? The fact that Bret signed a 20 year deal, which would eventually have moved him into a management position? What part of that makes you think he wanted to go to WCW and not stay with the WWF?

Bret had control over his character, not the belt, not the city the show was in. He was leaving. He had no say left in his character. He knew his contract was coming up, he knew the show was in Canada, and he was stubborn and unprofessional, plain and simple.

And his character losing in a place that his character had been built on could have been damaging to his character.

Why the fuck didn't McMahon just have Hart lose the belt on Raw the week before?

How is it Vince's legal job to adhere to a contract that wasn't in effect anymore? The 20 year contract was broken. Vince was free and clear legally. If he wasn't, where was the lawsuit for Bret's potential earnings being hurt?

The contract WAS in effect though. It was being ended, but it still was going to run through the middle of December.

And the lawsuit wouldn't have been economically feasible for either Hart or WCW to pursue. By the time all money for attorneys and all the time had passed, it would never come close to being worth it to sue for broken contract.

So it would have been illegal for Bret to do what had already been done in the past by Madusa?

Yes, it would have been illegal for Bret to do that. Hell, I think the WWF sued WCW and won for their title appearing on WCW programming. Which is why it is so absurd of everyone to say that McMahon was just trying to prevent it from happening again. Not only that, had Bret not shown up on Raw, then they would have file the court injunction against preventing their title from appearing on Nitro.

But, besides that, Bret had promised Vince that he would never do such a thing, and that he'd show up the next night on Raw to hand the title over if that's what he was asked to do. And while you can question whether Bret was a man of his word or not, all I can tell you is that Bret turned down WCW at first to stay with WWF for less money, AND that both Hart and Bischoff have publicly said that Hart made sure that Bischoff knew before Hart signed the contract that Hart would fulfill his obligation to McMahon, and wouldn't do anything like bring a belt with him.

 

[klunderbunker]

Still, that's not being forced out. That's giving Bret warning and Vince admitting he bit off more than he can chew. He was trying to make ammends after he messed up. Little to no harm, little to no foul, although not good either way.

After having his hand forced by Bret refusing to do what was right for the company and the business. Bret and Vince were both wrong here, but Bret pushed it at first.

I have never said that he didn't want to stay with WWF. I said that he had two options: Stay for less money, or leave for more. Either way it was his choice. That's not being forced out.

Because the 20 year contract with Bret having creative control was almost null and void at that point. This was Bret's swan song for Vince, and his character would have been intact no matter what. And I would think that he didn't want to change a big main event 6 days before the 4th biggest show of the year and was hoping that Bret would be professional and do business the way it should have been done.

As far as Vince having Bret's word, he also had Hall and Nash's word that they were with him, just up until the Outsiders showed up. Same with Luger. Why should Vince believe that Bret wouldn't do the exact same thing? While the Madusa thing was scary and the lawsuit more than likely was won by WWF, the Women's title being dumped in the trash would be nothing compared to even the chance that Bret would do the same with the world title.

As for Bret and Bischoff's word, Bischoff I wouldn't believe if he told me what my own name was, and Bret......not sure.

 

[Davi323]

Sly, perhaps if you actually read up on why Ric Flair was legally entitled to show up on WWF programming with the belt, you wouldn't sound like such an ignoramus attacking me for pointing out the CLEAR differences. Vince McMahon, to the best of my knowledge, does not require wrestlers to put down a retainer on belts. In order to be the NWA champion, Ric Flair had to pay the NWA 25 thousand dollars as a security deposit for the belt. Essentially, what that means, is that until the NWA (now WCW) paid him back the 25k dollar deposit, Ric Flair actually could claim ownership of the Big Gold Belt. It wasn't the property of the NWA, because they made him pay for it, and didn't want to give him his money back. Ergo, Ric Flair bought the NWA World title. When WCW paid him the 25 thousand dollars they owed him (plus interest), he gave it back. That is a completely different situation from what Bret Hart tried to pull. Flair had a legitimate legal claim to the NWA title, on the basis that WCW refused to return his deposit money, which is returned after champions drop the belt. WCW pays him, he returns the belt, matter over. They actually paid him 38k to give the belt back. Flair made 13 thousand dollars on it...Because WCW knew if they didn't refund his money, and took him to court, they would lose. Flair was legally entitled to do with the belt whatever he want. Until WCW refunded his money, it was his. Bret Hart was just a caretaker for the WWF title. He didn't own it, had no claim to it. He had a contract to portray a character on WWF TV. His contract did not include calling the shots as to when he won or lost titles. He had a right not to get completely buried on TV, not to dictate when he loses the title. Those are two completely separate issues. Hart with the title was an ADDITION to the contract, not part of it. He had creative control over his character, not over the title. There is a difference between controlling your character and controlling the title the WWF graciously allowed him to carry for a while. That is what you remain ignorant of. Bret Hart's creative control would prevent him from being forced into doing some kind of super demeaning sketch or match, like, if they had wanted him to have a hogpen match like HHH and Henry Godwinn had, wrestle midgets, or he could veto a tasteless storyline like Katie Vick. That would be reasonable creative control. Creative control does NOT give him the right to choose when and where he loses a belt that was never his property to begin with. If Vince McMahon broke his contract with Bret Hart by the so called Montreal Screwjob, why didn't Bret sue him? If it was a legitimate breach of contract, it seems to me that Hart would have sued McMahon for the amount he would have made during the 20 years he signed for. Why not? Because Bret had no legal standing, no grounds to do so. He had control over the Hitman character, Vince McMahon retained full control over his titles in his company.

Creative control over character NOT equal to control over title situation.

 

[The Dungeon]

Vince told him he can leave ANYWAY HE WANTS! ANYWAY HE WANTS! That's what the content of the CONTRACT....according to Bret...and EVEN Vince has said a couple times....was in the CONTRACT!

Which mean, YES, Bret can leave anyway he see's fit, as long as talent didn't get buried along the way. Bret promised he wouldn't bury Shawn. And he didn't. as a matter of fact, Shawn buried him every step of the way!

You know why Bret didn't sue??? Because he was about to make a truckload of money in WCW...and plus at that time he assumed that he was also going to make MORE money because of it. And that's what should've happened. He didn't need to sue, merely because he didn't need the money.

And I guess Bret just too pride in that title....like a hockey team takes pride in the Stanley Cup. Bret did his best to make sure the title and his own self both creatively and personally, weren't desicrated. ANd it cost him.

One more thing...BRET DIDNT LEAVE FOR THE FUCKING MONEY!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOU PEOPLE!!!!!

If Bret left for the money, he would've left a year earlier when he was FIRST OFFERED THE DEAL!!!!!!!!!! I can't stress this point enough people.

 

[Slyfox696]

Still, that's not being forced out. That's giving Bret warning and Vince admitting he bit off more than he can chew. He was trying to make ammends after he messed up. Little to no harm, little to no foul, although not good either way.

What? Being told his contract was going to be broken no matter what, and that he should seek employment elsewhere is not being forced out?

After having his hand forced by Bret refusing to do what was right for the company and the business. Bret and Vince were both wrong here, but Bret pushed it at first.

What the fuck is this "refusing to do what was right for the company and the business" garbage?

How was Bret dropping the title to Shawn in Montreal "good for the business"? It meant fuck all to the business. Bret OFFERED to do what was right for the business, as long as it wasn't HBK in Montreal. It could have been Taker or Austin in Montreal. It could have been HBK in New York City at MSG. Everyone who gives that line of bullshit seems to think there was only ONE person, ONE place, and ONE way that Hart could have dropped the belt. And that's just ignorant.

Because the 20 year contract with Bret having creative control was almost null and void at that point. This was Bret's swan song for Vince, and his character would have been intact no matter what. And I would think that he didn't want to change a big main event 6 days before the 4th biggest show of the year and was hoping that Bret would be professional and do business the way it should have been done.

ALMOST null and void means absolutely nothing until it is completely done. As long as Bret had the legal contract, McMahon had nothing.

As far as Vince having Bret's word, he also had Hall and Nash's word that they were with him, just up until the Outsiders showed up. Same with Luger.

Hall and Nash were snakes. Everyone knew that. He never had Luger's word, that was a fuck up by the WWF's talent department. Luger's contract expired and apparently no one knew it but Luger.

Why should Vince believe that Bret wouldn't do the exact same thing? While the Madusa thing was scary and the lawsuit more than likely was won by WWF, the Women's title being dumped in the trash would be nothing compared to even the chance that Bret would do the same with the world title.

Because Bret COULDN'T show up the next night on Nitro. His contract was still good, and any appearance on Nitro, before it was up in December, would result in a lawsuit. Not only that, the WWF was aware of the situation, and that their title could show up on Nitro, which means they could have had a court order to prevent it from happening, unlike the Medusa thing.

How many fuckin' times do I have to repeat myself Klunder before you understand there was no way that Bret could have ever shown up on Nitro with the title?

Oh yeah, and because Bret had never shown ANYTHING but loyalty to Vince McMahon, even taking less money to stay with him.

As for Bret and Bischoff's word, Bischoff I wouldn't believe if he told me what my own name was, and Bret......not sure.

Why would Bischoff lie about something that happened in a rival promotion 10 years ago, which only served to hurt him, not make him look good?

Sly, perhaps if you actually read up on why Ric Flair was legally entitled to show up on WWF programming with the belt, you wouldn't sound like such an ignoramus attacking me for pointing out the CLEAR differences.

Maybe if you knew what "legal binding contract means", you'd understand why the differences actually make it MORE right for Bret to do what he did.

Vince McMahon, to the best of my knowledge, does not require wrestlers to put down a retainer on belts. In order to be the NWA champion, Ric Flair had to pay the NWA 25 thousand dollars as a security deposit for the belt.

No shit. Way to speak common knowledge.

Essentially, what that means, is that until the NWA (now WCW) paid him back the 25k dollar deposit, Ric Flair actually could claim ownership of the Big Gold Belt. It wasn't the property of the NWA, because they made him pay for it, and didn't want to give him his money back.

Bullshit. Do you even know what a "deposit" means?

A deposit is a security net for the owner, to make sure the person who is renting the owner's property doesn't do anything to damage it. The deposit is not payment for a piece of property, and the belt was NEVER Ric Flair's. It belong to the NWA.

Ric Flair decided he didn't like what the NWA was doing with his character (sound familiar?), so he told them that he wasn't going to do it and refused the angles that were booked for him (sound familiar?). The NWA told him tough shit, you're going to do it (sound familiar?). Ric Flair said piss on that, I'm not doing it, you can't make me, and I'm going to the WWF. I'll give you the NWA title, but only in the way that I want to (sound familiar?), which is receipt back of my $25,000 (money determining booking, sound familiar?). The NWA said no, you're under contract so you'll do what we tell you (sound familiar?).

The situations are ALMOST exactly the same. Want to know what the ONE difference between them is? Bret Hart actually had a legal binding contract to dictate what his booking should be. Ric Flair didn't.

It's the same damn situation, except Bret had the right to refuse his booking, and Flair didn't.

You say I'm an "ignoramus", and yet, I've just proven (once again) how incredibly flawed your post is.

That is a completely different situation from what Bret Hart tried to pull. Flair had a legitimate legal claim to the NWA title, on the basis that WCW refused to return his deposit money, which is returned after champions drop the belt.

No he didn't. Flair DIDN'T have a legitimate legal claim to the NWA title. In fact, Flair didn't have a legitimate anything, except a legitimate contract to the NWA, which he broke.

Flair was legally entitled to do with the belt whatever he want.

No he wasn't. And I'll tell you something he wasn't legally entitled to do, and that was to have creative control over his character.

Bret Hart was just a caretaker for the WWF title. He didn't own it, had no claim to it. He had a contract to portray a character on WWF TV. His contract did not include calling the shots as to when he won or lost titles.

For fuck's sake do you read ANYTHING I post?

He wasn't calling the shots as to when he won or lost titles. He was calling the shots as to how his character was used. And losing to the HBK, in Canada, was not something he felt his character should do. Hart offered to give the title away any time McMahon wanted. The belt meant absolutely dick. Why don't you understand this? You can't be as thick as you're making yourself seem.

There is a difference between controlling your character and controlling the title the WWF graciously allowed him to carry for a while. That is what you remain ignorant of.

And this is the same bullshit that you don't even fucking begin to understand.

BRET HART DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE TITLE, HE GAVE A DAMN ABOUT LOSING TO HBK IN CANADA!

Should I type that out 7 more times so you're actually read and comprehend it? Because I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.

Bret Hart's creative control would prevent him from being forced into doing some kind of super demeaning sketch or match, like, if they had wanted him to have a hogpen match like HHH and Henry Godwinn had, wrestle midgets, or he could veto a tasteless storyline like Katie Vick. That would be reasonable creative control.

Wrong.

Hart's creative control gave him reasonable control over his character. Losing a match which could hurt his earning power, and the earning power of his new employer is a reasonable veto situation.

If Vince McMahon broke his contract with Bret Hart by the so called Montreal Screwjob, why didn't Bret sue him? If it was a legitimate breach of contract, it seems to me that Hart would have sued McMahon for the amount he would have made during the 20 years he signed for.

Why didn't he sue? Did you really just ask that, AFTER I'VE ALREADY SAID IT.

Here, allow me to save you some time, because I know how much work it must be to read 2 posts.

And the lawsuit wouldn't have been economically feasible for either Hart or WCW to pursue. By the time all money for attorneys and all the time had passed, it would never come close to being worth it to sue for broken contract.

Next time, quit being so god damn lazy, and actually read a thread you're posting in.

Creative control over character NOT equal to control over title situation.

No one has ever said it did. Maybe one day you'll actually take the time to comprehend that.

Vince told him he can leave ANYWAY HE WANTS! ANYWAY HE WANTS! That's what the content of the CONTRACT....according to Bret...and EVEN Vince has said a couple times....was in the CONTRACT!

Which mean, YES, Bret can leave anyway he see's fit, as long as talent didn't get buried along the way. Bret promised he wouldn't bury Shawn. And he didn't. as a matter of fact, Shawn buried him every step of the way!

You know why Bret didn't sue??? Because he was about to make a truckload of money in WCW...and plus at that time he assumed that he was also going to make MORE money because of it. And that's what should've happened. He didn't need to sue, merely because he didn't need the money.

And I guess Bret just too pride in that title....like a hockey team takes pride in the Stanley Cup. Bret did his best to make sure the title and his own self both creatively and personally, weren't desicrated. ANd it cost him.

One more thing...BRET DIDNT LEAVE FOR THE FUCKING MONEY!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOU PEOPLE!!!!!

If Bret left for the money, he would've left a year earlier when he was FIRST OFFERED THE DEAL!!!!!!!!!! I can't stress this point enough people.

Great post, but don't bother with these people. They have a one track mind when it comes to this, and refuse to see the fact that their one track is so horribly skewed and fucked up it makes absolutely zero sense to keep spouting the same ignorant bullshit.

Great post though. I just wish these people would wake up from the WWE propaganda coma they are in.

 

[klunderbunker]

No its not being forced out. Its Vince admitting that he screwed up and giving Bret fair warning of it to try to avoid things getting even worse later. Bret then had a chance to set up things with WCW so the transition would have gone smoother.

And Bret knew that this was going to happen around the time of SS in Canada and wouldn't quit being stubborn up until the last minute, thus forcing Vince's hand. Vince was trying to save some credibility for himself by not changing a major main event that had been in the works since August. When I say good for the business, think about it for a second. What Bret did was unprofessional. He owed Vince whether you think he did or not. Without Vince, there would be no huge WCW contract, nor would Bret be the major star he was. Would he have become a star by starting in WCW? More than likely yes, but VInce put him on the big stage and made him the big star that he was. Bret more or less said that despite everythign Vince had done, he wasn't backing down for anyone. That is completely unprofessional and selfish.

Yes they were snakes, and yes Luger was a screw up by Vince. Vince was trying to protect his company by any means necessecary. You know how much trouble WWF was in at the time and Bret doing anything remotely close to what the Outsiders or Madusa did would have hurt WWF even more. Vince may have been paranoid, but he was trying to protect his business.

So Bret couldn't have shown up on Nitro while under contract to another company like oh say, Mike Awesome did two years later? Even if he didn't have the belt, how weak does it make WWF look to have one of their top guys come to the rival organization when he's still the world champion, belt or no belt?

As for Bischoff, probably for the same reason that he says everything else he does: To get the spotlight on himself and try to get people to forget that he was a big reason the biggest wrestling company in the world is now out of business.

 

[reddevil69]

Sly, perhaps if you actually read up on why Ric Flair was legally entitled to show up on WWF programming with the belt, you wouldn't sound like such an ignoramus attacking me for pointing out the CLEAR differences. Vince McMahon, to the best of my knowledge, does not require wrestlers to put down a retainer on belts. In order to be the NWA champion, Ric Flair had to pay the NWA 25 thousand dollars as a security deposit for the belt. Essentially, what that means, is that until the NWA (now WCW) paid him back the 25k dollar deposit, Ric Flair actually could claim ownership of the Big Gold Belt. It wasn't the property of the NWA, because they made him pay for it, and didn't want to give him his money back. Ergo, Ric Flair bought the NWA World title. When WCW paid him the 25 thousand dollars they owed him (plus interest), he gave it back. That is a completely different situation from what Bret Hart tried to pull. Flair had a legitimate legal claim to the NWA title, on the basis that WCW refused to return his deposit money, which is returned after champions drop the belt. WCW pays him, he returns the belt, matter over. They actually paid him 38k to give the belt back. Flair made 13 thousand dollars on it...Because WCW knew if they didn't refund his money, and took him to court, they would lose. Flair was legally entitled to do with the belt whatever he want. Until WCW refunded his money, it was his. Bret Hart was just a caretaker for the WWF title. He didn't own it, had no claim to it. He had a contract to portray a character on WWF TV. His contract did not include calling the shots as to when he won or lost titles. He had a right not to get completely buried on TV, not to dictate when he loses the title. Those are two completely separate issues. Hart with the title was an ADDITION to the contract, not part of it. He had creative control over his character, not over the title. There is a difference between controlling your character and controlling the title the WWF graciously allowed him to carry for a while. That is what you remain ignorant of. Bret Hart's creative control would prevent him from being forced into doing some kind of super demeaning sketch or match, like, if they had wanted him to have a hogpen match like HHH and Henry Godwinn had, wrestle midgets, or he could veto a tasteless storyline like Katie Vick. That would be reasonable creative control. Creative control does NOT give him the right to choose when and where he loses a belt that was never his property to begin with. If Vince McMahon broke his contract with Bret Hart by the so called Montreal Screwjob, why didn't Bret sue him? If it was a legitimate breach of contract, it seems to me that Hart would have sued McMahon for the amount he would have made during the 20 years he signed for. Why not? Because Bret had no legal standing, no grounds to do so. He had control over the Hitman character, Vince McMahon retained full control over his titles in his company.

Creative control over character NOT equal to control over title situation.

I know this isn't a Flair thread but since you brought it up...Yes Flair had 'technical' ownership of the NWA belt due to the $25,000 deposit he was owed, but he could have dealt with that privately...Instead he decided to show up on a rival company's program and try to fuck over WCW where hundreds of people still had to go to work to feed their families, including his best friend Arn Andersen.

It does not matter that Flair felt he was in the right, he still tried to damage the WCW. Vince McMahon has been quoted, and I have the video interview to prove it, as saying that his credo is " make your company the best it can be...do everything you can but do it without deliberately trying to hurt the 'other' guy"...in this case the other guy is his rival promotion. Bret stood up for what he thought was the right thing to do, he didn't try to screw Vince's business over deliberately, for pete's sake he turned down the original WCW offer..

You can't have it both ways, Bret is unprofessional, but Flair is the model of professionalism? Sorry...Terry Funk and Harley Race have both been quoted putting over Bret and saying they would have done the same thing in his shoes....the only difference is that Harley said he would have brought his shot-gun...and both those guys are friends of Flair's.

I think all involved have to take responsibility for their part in Montreal, I just can't understand why people bash Bret for 'not doing the right thing' and no one ever questions Flair for trying to fuck over WCW...HBK and HHH praise Flair and call him the greatest ever and drool on and on about him and they bash Bret and claim he was difficult and was never a draw...meanwhile, Bret has moved on and conducted himself with class the past 8 years, he never once took any cheap shots at Shawn, Flair or Hunter at the HOF ceremony, and the WWE keeps drudging up Montreal to start angles on TV.

And there is Flair getting beaten up in bar fights with his daughter getting tasered last week, he's walking around with a black eye at 60 years old, his third wife is now filing for divorce and he's conducting himself like an ass...and this is the guy that HBK says is the measuring stick for the business, but Bret is a coward and has no integrity? At some point your conduct outside of your profession is as important as your conduct within your profession.

as a side note to SlyFox: why does Klunderbunker only reply to select parts of your posts?...he hops, skips, jumps, and never seems to touch the ground on alot of what he replies to.

 

[Davi323]

WCW had already replaced the NWA belt with the WCW belt, WCW already had a World title in play. Nor did I say that Flair showing up on WWF TV with the big gold belt was a total act of professionalism, I just used it as the obvious exception to the champs losing the belt before they go tradition, and then explained why Flair had a right to do it. I never said he SHOULD have done it, merely that it was his right to do so, and compared it to Bret's not having the right to refuse to lose to HBK. The argument that losing to HBK in Montreal because it would "damage his earning potential" is patently ridiculous. It is nothing but a lame excuse by Bret apologists grasping for anything to make their hero look better in all of this. Nobody ever said Vince McMahon was a saint, but Bret Hart could have avoided the entire thing by not being such an egotistical ass. Vince's actions were determined by Bret's actions, not the other way around. Wrestlers lose in their hometowns. It happens. And considering Bret wasn't even from Montreal, let alone Quebec, the argument that losing there would damage his character is also ridiculous. Further, what did Bret think was going to happen after he left? His whole anti-American Pro-Canadian gimmick was ending anyway. Did he seriously expect WCW to simply pick up where his WWF career left off? What irreversible damage would there have been by putting over HBK? He was leaving the company anyway. Bret Hart apologists spend so much time getting worked up defending their boy, I worry that they are going to pop blood vessels or something. The arguments defending Bret are pathetic, in that they make very little sense at all. Instead, they have to resort to name calling, because they know they are on weak ground.

Hell, perhaps the greatest ego in the history of wrestling, Hulk Hogan, once willingly put over the Genius, Lanny Poffo. Mr. Perfect interfered of course, for those that remember that SNME, but, Hulk Hogan had TOTAL creative control, unlike Bret. Bret had reasonable control, Hogan had absolute control. And he still made Lanny Poffo's career by letting him win via countout over him. No, its not quite the same, and I realize that. But, Lanny Poffo was never the star HBK is, and Bret Hart was never the star Hulk Hogan was. Hogan agreed to lose to a midcard jobber. Hart refused to lose to a former 2 time champion, 2 time Rumble winner, multiple time intercontinental champion, European champion, and one of the biggest stars the WWF/E has ever had. If Hogan putting over Randy Savage's little brother didn't harm his earning potential, Hart losing to HBK wouldn't have damaged his. It didn't damage his earning potential the previous times Hart lost to HBK, did it? Hart fans need to stop drinking the tainted kool-aid.

Bret Hart's earning potential was diminished? How? He had already informed the WWF that he was leaving, he had no further income potential in the WWF. He had accepted the offer from WCW prior to Montreal, so, what happened after that point had nothing to do with his future income with WCW. His income in WWF was done, he already had a contract with WCW, WCW would be paying him the same regardless of how or when he dropped the WWF title. Any future income potential would be based on what he did in WCW, not the WWF, so, the diminished income argument is worthless.

Bret Hart couldn't appear on WCW TV prior to December? I beg to differ. He couldn't COMPETE on WCW until his contract expired, that doesn't mean they couldn't stick him in the front row at a Nitro, with Tony Schiavone going "oh my god, that's the current WWF champion, Bret Hart in attendance of WCW Nitro!" Having him be sitting down in the crowd isn't performing. Its just a guy watching a wrestling event. I seem to recall one of the Highlanders sitting in attendance at a TNA event, while still under WWE contract, didn't stop TNA from showing him, did it? That is exactly what Vince McMahon was trying to prevent. While contractually Bret Hart couldn't wrestle for WCW until his WWF contract was over, he could appear on WCW TV with the belt, in a spectator capacity, claiming to be a simple attendee. What would the WWF do, fire Hart? He was leaving anyway. So, that argument is worthless.

 

[golden miz]

This situation was neither Bret's nor Vince's fault. At this time Bret was real mad at the creative control of the wwf since it was being handled by marketing people not ex wrestlers. Bret should have lost his championship to Ken Shamrock on the last show of october that year, instead Bret refused to go out like he did on a regular basis if we didnt do it his way so we made it a non title match which Bret won. I was part of creative durring my tenure with wwf, dealing with the marketability of each story angle and how to advertise the angles. Everyone awalys blames either Bret or Vince but really you should blame creative and me because we gave into Bret to easily and we were his whipping boys because most of us were afraid of him since backstage he wasn't the best person to be near. If we just decided to use someone like Goldust or Vader he might of agreed. The screwjob in nature was a last minute decision that creative and vince came up with in secret since if Bret would of knew he would of refused to go out again. If he brought the belt to WCW, the marketing value and advertising value of championship matches would of been deminished. After the screwjob Bret's attitude didnt drastically change but he awlays harbored the situation and carried that resentment to this day.

I personaly am real happy I havent seen bret since 1997 and I really never liked bret he was always on a high horse, and he's only considered a ledgend because he competed in ledgandary matches, Vince almost picked Owen to be in the role he designed for Bret but wrestling politics came up and of course the person with more connections gets further.

In my mind Bret is no better then any other wrestler because they're only as good as we decide they will be, we could of easily turned the Boogeyman into a 4 time wwe champ like we did with the Undertaker. God knows he had the popularity but we didnt. I had enough of this Bret mumbo-jumbo since this situation is more complicated then anyone will ever dream, you have to work for the wwe/f to have true understandings of what actually happened so stop pretending like you know the full story.

 

[reddevil69]

This situation was neither Bret's nor Vince's fault. At this time Bret was real mad at the creative control of the wwf since it was being handled by marketing people not ex wrestlers. Bret should have lost his championship to Ken Shamrock on the last show of october that year, instead Bret refused to go out like he did on a regular basis if we didnt do it his way so we made it a non title match which Bret won. I was part of creative durring my tenure with wwf, dealing with the marketability of each story angle and how to advertise the angles. Everyone awalys blames either Bret or Vince but really you should blame creative and me because we gave into Bret to easily and we were his whipping boys because most of us were afraid of him since backstage he wasn't the best person to be near. If we just decided to use someone like Goldust or Vader he might of agreed. The screwjob in nature was a last minute decision that creative and vince came up with in secret since if Bret would of knew he would of refused to go out again. If he brought the belt to WCW, the marketing value and advertising value of championship matches would of been deminished. After the screwjob Bret's attitude didnt drastically change but he awlays harbored the situation and carried that resentment to this day.

I personaly am real happy I havent seen bret since 1997 and I really never liked bret he was always on a high horse, and he's only considered a ledgend because he competed in ledgandary matches, Vince almost picked Owen to be in the role he designed for Bret but wrestling politics came up and of course the person with more connections gets further.

In my mind Bret is no better then any other wrestler because they're only as good as we decide they will be, we could of easily turned the Boogeyman into a 4 time wwe champ like we did with the Undertaker. God knows he had the popularity but we didnt. I had enough of this Bret mumbo-jumbo since this situation is more complicated then anyone will ever dream, you have to work for the wwe/f to have true understandings of what actually happened so stop pretending like you know the full story.

And your interpretation is the full story? 100% accurate?...you want us to believe you worked in a creative capacity for a billion dollar company? Comparing the Boogeyman to the Undertaker is ridiculous...the guy ate worms on TV and couldn't work a decent match to save his life and you'd have us believe that the WWE could have made a huge draw out of him? If he could draw money he'd be doing it...Vince does like to make money true or not true? Politics may have something to do with it but I sincerely doubt it...I think it has more to do with the fact that he's a shitty wrestler, not to mention the fact that he was already 40 years old when he debuted.

 

[Deathvalley]

Let me make myself clear , Bret intended to drop the title after he left but Vince apparently couldn't wait that long. Bret also didn't want to lose the title in Montreal. It was his hometown and he shouldn't have had to lose it there. Can you say bad move Vince? He didn't care about the belt, he cared about winning in his hometown. He could have dropped it at another show, maybe on RAW. After all his contract wasn't set to expire until December. Even after the deed was done, WWE made it look like it was Bret's fault. In the end, the only good thing for the business that happened that night was the birth of Vince's character. Now that this has been cleared up, can we all just forget about it! I'm tired of people dwelling on this! It happened 10 YEARS AGO! It's time to leave it alone Bret. That goes for everyone! It may have been wrong but severalgood things happened to. Shawn was champ, Vince discovered his character and so on and so forth. Besides, a few yrs later, WCW got bought out by who? VINCE! So again, why do you people like to talk about something that happened 10yrs ago? It's time to put up the past ad stick with the present!

 

[Emmet]

Seriously to god some of the people in this thread cannot be serious? Some of the shit being spouted in this thread is terrible. Has the WWE's revionist history brainwashed some of you? Here are some of the facts leading up to SS 1997:

Bret was champion
He had reasonable creative control in his contract
He didn’t have to LEAVE the WWF until December 5th
Bret would have jobbed to anyone in Canada bar HBK.
Bret would have jobbed to anyone in the USA, including HBK
HBK wouldn’t lie down for anyone
Bret turned down the same offer from WCW year before hand.

So what is the conclusion?

It wasn’t about the money for Bret. Anyone who has half a brain can realise that. He would have stayed with Vince had Vince had any creative for him and had Vince not been pushing him out (which how anyone can say otherwise is a complete joke).

Bret wanted his pride, that’s all he wanted. He wanted to beat HBK in Montreal and forfeit the title the next day on RAW. Was that so hard for Vince to do? Really? HBK still would have got the title.

People say Bret hasn’t moved on from Montreal. He has moved on a whole of a let more than HBK/WWE. This event has been raped to death by Vince how many times now? I’ve lost count. When HBK says anything about Bret he has nothing nice to say at all. Bret in his book totally gives HBK anything credit which he is deserves. At the WWE HOF Bret even brought up a story HBK related. Would HBK have done the same? Nope.

This event might have been ten years ago but Vince and HBK are still getting shit from the fans for it anytime they are in Canada. So it still means a lot to some people.

 

[Canadian Knight]

First off, what are you talking about fiancial troubles? Bret Undertaker HBK Stone Cold, and maybe the Rock were being paid lots of money. The reason why McMahon was cutting him loose was because he did not want to pay him the same amount of money.

As for losing the belt, how do you know that Hart did not want to drop the belt? In the Wrestling with Shadows (I think it is called) he comments how the plan was for him to give it to Shawn. Then he screwed Bret by not allowing to go through with his storyline.

Remember while it is from "a point of view" but Shawn did not have to be a disrespectful jerk in putting the flag in his nose, or how they treated Bret the day after the screw job on Raw. And we all know how compassionate Vince can be to the wrestlers.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

For you people that blame Bret let me ask you something, do you think this is the first time a wrestler has asked not to do something the promoter/owner said? Of course not so by your guys philosophy every single time a wrestler doesnt agree to do something it its ok for him to get screwed like Bret did. If thats the case guys like HHH, HBK and others would have been screwed over dozens of times by now.

Face it Bret got screwed, he was lied to and overall just embarrassed by the company he served so loyally for so many years. Think about it it was almost like one big inside joke against Bret, Brets opponent new about it, the referee new about it, the owner obviously new about it, some of his stooges new about it and his opponents best friend new about it. It was seriously like a big joke against him performed infront of 12,000 live fans and millions around the world. How would you feel if your company and co-workers completely kept you in the dark about something like that? So I can see why Bret would be pissed at them.

And finally all I have to say is Vince AGREED to what Bret wanted. Granted that wasnt what Vince originally wanted but he sat there and agreed to the finish that Bret wanted so why didnt Vince grow a pair and demand him to do what he wanted to do? How can you defend somebody like Vince for their actions when they agree to it? If Im selling a car and I want 15,000 dollars for it but my customer doesnt want to pay that he only wants to pay 10,000 so even though I want 15 for it I finally cave in and agree to take 10. Now is it ok for me to go and screw him over and charge him 15 for it after we both agreed to 10? I dont think so. I know thats not the best analogy but its a similar situation because the fact is Vince did agree to something and ended up screwing the person that he agreed with.

 

[golden miz]

And your interpretation is the full story? 100% accurate?... you want us to believe you worked in a creative capacity for a billion dollar company? Comparing the Boogeyman to the Undertaker is ridiculous...the guy ate worms on TV and couldn't work a decent match to save his life and you'd have us believe that the WWE could have made a huge draw out of him? If he could draw money he'd be doing it...Vince does like to make money true or not true? Politics may have something to do with it but I sincerely doubt it...I think it has more to do with the fact that he's a shitty wrestler, not to mention the fact that he was already 40 years old when he debuted.

I can't spell right because I'm 56 and I have limited computer skills, I just started the forum thing a couple of days ago, I just learned how to use the internet just under 3 years ago.I did work in a creative capacity for wwf but it was from a purely business end. Plus we could have made Boogeyman even bigger then he is now but we opted not to for many reasons. His skill was not a major reason he didn't get a bigger push, in wrestling, politics rule the game.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

Vince told him he can leave ANYWAY HE WANTS! ANYWAY HE WANTS! That's what the content of the CONTRACT....according to Bret...and EVEN Vince has said a couple times....was in the CONTRACT!

Which mean, YES, Bret can leave anyway he see's fit, as long as talent didn't get buried along the way. Bret promised he wouldn't bury Shawn. And he didn't. as a matter of fact, Shawn buried him every step of the way!

You know why Bret didn't sue??? Because he was about to make a truckload of money in WCW...and plus at that time he assumed that he was also going to make MORE money because of it. And that's what should've happened. He didn't need to sue, merely because he didn't need the money.

And I guess Bret just too pride in that title....like a hockey team takes pride in the Stanley Cup. Bret did his best to make sure the title and his own self both creatively and personally, weren't desicrated. ANd it cost him.

One more thing...BRET DIDNT LEAVE FOR THE FUCKING MONEY!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOU PEOPLE!!!!!

If Bret left for the money, he would've left a year earlier when he was FIRST OFFERED THE DEAL!!!!!!!!!! I can't stress this point enough people.

He had REASONABLE creative control not full or anyway he wants to leave control. Dropping the belt how you want when you have a big money deal from the competition is not reasonable.

Bret didn't sue because he couldn't. What exactly would be his case? He was screwed out of a title in a sport that is pre-determined? He would get laughed out of court. Now I know you will say his contract stated but do you know how long it would drag through the court system. Once again what exactly is reasonable control?

Thirdly(this is not meant for you), would people quit saying he didn't want to lose the title in his home town of Montreal. Montreal is not his home town.


I don't like Vince at all but I can't blame him for what he did. It saved his company.

 

[The Dungeon]

I love how "Law18489", says it was Owen they wanted to put in that position, when NOBODY, no wrestler, not Bret, not Owen's widow in her book, NOBODY has ever mentioned that! I've been watching a million shoot interviews on Youtube lately, and I don't believe any of that to be true.

And you say that you didn't like Bret? Buddy, I gotta tell you, the guy was well respected by many of his peers, outside of the usual suspects. Even those who felt he was wrong about Montreal, still generally liked him personally, and professionally.

He had REASONABLE creative control not full or anyway he wants to leave control. Dropping the belt how you want when you have a big money deal from the competition is not reasonable.

The anyway he wants to leave part...was "WRITTEN IN THE CONTRACT". The circumstances said that, as long as no talent was harmed or buried, both Vince & Bret have indeed said this numerous times in interviews on TV or Radio, that, under those circumstances, Bret could leave any way he wants!. Bret had no intention of killing Shawn's heat, or momentum. Bret even said recently in a radio interview, "Despite my gripes with Shawn, I didn't want to kill his heat, I just wanted to maintain mine. I would've lied down in the middle of the ring, on National TV, on "Raw", to that Superkick, had Shawn's attitude been a little different".

Bret didn't sue because he couldn't. What exactly would be his case? He was screwed out of a title in a sport that is pre-determined? He would get laughed out of court. Now I know you will say his contract stated but do you know how long it would drag through the court system. Once again what exactly is reasonable control?

Now you're making the assumption that Bret wanted to sue! That merely isn't the case, he wanted to capitalize on the situation in WCW. But of course we all know it didn't pan out that way. Bret just wanted his career back on track, he didn't want to sue Vince.


Oh and another thing...on numerous boards including this one, I'm so damn sick and tired, of people saying "Oh well Flair did what he did because Jim Herd was an asshole", and in the SAME post say..."Bret should've listened to Vince, his boss!". I'm sorry people, asshole or not, Jim Herd was Flair's boss, no matter how you cut it! You can't have it both ways people.

Reddevil does a good job pointing out the nitigating circumstances in the Flair situation, so there's no need fo rme to go there.

All I'm saying is it's a double standard, because of a lot of Flair marks here.

 

[Davi323]

Ric Flair did what he did because he was forced to pay a 25 grand security deposit that WCW didn't want to pay back. If he had simply blamed it on Jim Herd, I would agree with your point, Dungeon. Flair had a legitimate financial concern he had to take care of. No double standard involved, as the situations were quite different. Flair's issue with giving back the belt had to do with the money legitimately owed to him by WCW, not whether or not Herd was a douchebag. The financial issues involved with the Flair situation differentiate it from Harts in a major way. When I point out the differences between Flair and Hart, it has nothing to do with Jim Herd, and everything to do with twenty five thousand dollars. If the NWA didn't require the security deposit, and Flair had refused to return the belt just because Herd was a jerk, I would agree that Flair was wrong, that he should have manned up, just like I criticize Hart. However, by all indications, if WCW had paid back Flair the money, he had no problems returning the belt to them. Flair's only problem was not getting his money back. He wasn't trying to protect his earning potential, wasn't exercising creative control over his character by refusing to give it back or anything, he just wanted his money. Certainly understandable.

If Hart simply wanted his career back on track, why bitch about it for the next ten years? What failure Hart had in WCW had nothing to do with Montreal, and everything to do with WCW's complete lack of organization, an inability to market anyone that wasn't named Sting or Hollywood. "Anyway he wants to leave" is not the same as "anyway he wants to drop the belt". Hart apologists seem to think that Hart was entitled to the WWF belt, and conveniently forget that it was never his to lose. He was ALLOWED to carry it for a while, as a prop, but it was never "his". Because Flair had to pay twenty five thousand dollars to be able to wear the World Heavyweight title, he had a legit legal claim to it. Hart didn't.

His character was Bret 'the Hitman' Hart regardless of whether he had the belt or not. With or without the WWF title, his character was unaffected. Nor is losing the WWF title to Shawn Michaels the same as losing to Barry Horowitz or the Brooklyn Brawler.

Claiming that losing to HBK, one of the greatest wrestlers in the history of business is damaging to someone's career is ridiculous.

Claiming losing to HBK caused his earning potential to decline, when he was leaving the company anyway is ridiculous. It was WCW's job to maintain Hart's earning potential the second he agreed to leave the WWF for WCW.

Claiming that losing in his home country would drastically affect his career in a negative way is ridiculous. Wrestlers not only lose in their home countries, but their hometowns all the time. Just because you are from somewhere doesn't guarantee that you have to win. Case in point:

12/29/03 Monday Night Raw, from San Antonio Texas.
Shawn had a title match against Triple H for the World Heavyweight Title. He got 'screwed' out of the belt too, this time by Eric Bischoff, and that was his hometown, not just his home country. Was his career diminished at all by losing in his hometown? I think not. Did his earning potential decrease? Not in the slightest. That argument from Hart apologists is utterly ridiculous.

Nor is winning in your hometown or country a guarantee of success or increased earning potential. The rest of the pro-Canada faction, The British Bulldog, Jim Neidhart, Phil LaFon and Doug Furnas won their SS match in Montreal, the same night, did that positively increase any of their careers?