Bret Hart contract situation in 97

[CrucifiedRaven]

Where there's smoke there's fire. If Taker and Austin have all mentioned something like this happening. And if Shawn put something to this effect in his own book. And there's an awesome shoot interview with Cornette on the timeline of 1997 who says the same thing (he hates Shawn, so take it with a grain of salt).... I'm sure SOMETHING happened. We will never know what exactly. But something along these lines, I'm sure.

I'm wondering what WM13 would have looked like if Shawn didn't "lose his smile" and refuse to job to Bret?

Would we have had Austin/Bret at IYH for the right to face the champ at WM? And a WM12 rematch with Bret going over Shawn? That PPV could have looked entirely different.

 

[Wald]

I remember an interview with Bret where he said that the plan for the WWF Title was to have Shawn win it at the Rumble, lose it to Sid at IYH and win it back again on the Raw the next night (pop a rating I guess).

I think I've heard Sid mention that the plan was actually changed to Sid winning the title at IYH and going on to fight Undertaker for the belt at WM anyway, HBK vs Bret would be non-title. Bret has also said that one of the plans for WM 13 was for Bret vs HBK to be non-title and that that was one of the major sore points with him, that HBK was willing to lose to Bret at Wrestlemania but not for the title.

Either way Shawn is jobbing at Wrestlemania to return the favour, and here's where it comes in whether you believe his knee injury or not

For Bret, if he's getting the title at Wrestlemania he's winning the Rumble and probably beating Austin at IYH. If he isn't getting the title match at Wrestlemania I would say we get the same Rumble ending and Taker wins the shot in a four corners match at IYH.

Austin was turning face at this time because of the crowd anyway, have him defeat Vader at Wrestlemania and move into a program with Bret, the US vs Hart Foundation angle would be run regardless of what happened at Wrestlemania I think

 

[HBKperfect23]

I think I've heard Sid mention that the plan was actually changed to Sid winning the title at IYH and going on to fight Undertaker for the belt at WM anyway, HBK vs Bret would be non-title. Bret has also said that one of the plans for WM 13 was for Bret vs HBK to be non-title and that that was one of the major sore points with him, that HBK was willing to lose to Bret at Wrestlemania but not for the title.

I agree. I think the plan was always going to be Taker/Sid for the title. Taker deserved to close a WM and Shawn/Bret didnt even need a title at that point. I even think the finish in Bret/Shawn was supposed to be something like Bret/Steves finish and Bret was going heel here either way. I think it was Shawns shoot where he said an idea for him and Bret (not sure if it was going to be at WM13) Bret was going to put some kind of MMA hold on him and intentially "injure" him. This was going to turn Bret heel. I could be wrong though, I vaguley remember Shawn talking about this.

And yes, I think USA vs Canada still plays out the same. But would Steve have gotten over that big without the big match with Bret at WM? I think this may have delayed his getting over as a face.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

That's not what Taker says at all. What he said was it was questionable if he'd do the right thing, and then says "Who really knows?" Thing is that Shawn ALWAYS did his job if Vince asked him to or Shawn couldn't convince him of his way, Shawn did it vince's way. If you watch Heartbreak and Triumph and Shawn vs Bret you'd realize that... I'm saying it makes no sense for Shawn NOT to put over Austin when he could've phoned it in and no one would've blamed him. Remember at this time Shawn wasn't the most trusted person on the roster. After SS with bret, even a whisper of shawn not doing a job would've caused an uproar. Shawn could've dropped the belt saying he shouldn't wrestle as a risk to his health (which was true btw) but he did. So if Shawn showed up, he was planning on jobbing. Did Taker threaten him? Yes, do I think there was a reason for it? No..... Never have never will.

First, most if not all, the lockerroom were pissed at Vince for what he did and many in the lockerroom were at odds with Shawn for his part in it. So if he did phone it in, they would have every right to be on him about it. Second, if HBK always did the job he was asked, why would Taker even have a thought that HBK wouldn't do the job ? Why would he even suggest beating Michaels ass at all if HBK had a record of always doing the job ?
If his history is so spotless and he always did what Vince told him, it would
make no sense to worry about it.

And Vince says HBK always did what was best for business ? And I should take that to the bank because Vince says so ? Yeah, you can if you want, but I think there are far more credible witnesses out there for me to believe.

If you want to hear Austin's take on the situation and what he knows about it watch on YT or check the link below:

http://youtu.be/S15ejQ1eDN0?t=24m42s

Or if link doesn't work check out 'Stone Cold Steve Austin Shoot about his career'. HBK and Taker are mentioned at the 24:42 mark.


Hogan jobbed on the way out, HBK jobbed on the way out, Hart wouldn't do what was right.... Flat out, you can say HBK only jobbed for this or that reason but he still did the job. Bret didn't.

Hogan jobbed to who he wanted to. Because he had that kind of control. He was supposed to put over Bret, he chose Yokozuna. Later on Austin refused to put over Lesnar and walked out. HBK was selective about who he jobbed to. Triple was supposed to job to a number of people, he talked his way out of it. Rick Flair on his way out to WWE, refused to put over who WCW wanted to. Picking who you will and won't job to isn't the same as always doing the job the promoter tells you to. Bret was willing to job to anyone but HBK and Vince said fine. He's already admitted he lied to Bret to put his plan in motion for SSeries 97. There's no issue there.

He was paid to do a job, the WWE made bret hart, and he didn't do what was right.[/QUOTE]

He's not an employee who has to do everything without question. Very few if any performers just do what they're told like mindless sheep. I've already mentioned a number of people who made that choice as well, but you act as though Bret's the only person wrong for doing it. WWE didn't make shit. Bret was a performer before he got to WWE, and he worked his ass for 14 years for Vince, Vince didn't train him, put him in his first match ever, or even come up with his look or nickname, he gave him a platform, a huge platform but Vince didn't make Bret. He was told to leave to WCW for a better deal and then denied the exit he deserved. He still had 4 more weeks left on his contract, so the screwjob was completely unjustified. Vince was wrong and showed himself to be a backstabbing son of a bitch.

 

[Arashi]

First, most if not all, the lockerroom were pissed at Vince for what he did and many in the lockerroom were at odds with Shawn for his part in it. So if he did phone it in, they would have every right to be on him about it. Second, if HBK always did the job he was asked, why would Taker even have a thought that HBK wouldn't do the job ? Why would he even suggest beating Michaels ass at all if HBK had a record of always doing the job ?
If his history is so spotless and he always did what Vince told him, it would
make no sense to worry about it.

Because of what happened with bret. Why would Taker trust shawn after what he did to a close personal friend of his? Taker didn't agree with Shawn about screwing bret, and if shawn was willing to cross that line, Taker may be inclined to think he'd cross ANY line. Which I can't blame him, but Shawn still did what was right and what his boss told him. Taker didn't trust Shawn because Shawn went against the boys, still doesn't mean Shawn didn't always do the job Vince asked him to do.

And Vince says HBK always did what was best for business ? And I should take that to the bank because Vince says so ? Yeah, you can if you want, but I think there are far more credible witnesses out there for me to believe.

That might be true but if anyone knows if Shawn was willing to do something it would be Vince, secondly if you watch bret vs shawn, it seems like Shawn always did what he thought was right for business and even Ross acknowledges this at one point. I am not saying Shawn WANTED to do what was right. In fact he ADMITS he didn't. But when push came to shove, he always did.

If you want to hear Austin's take on the situation and what he knows about it watch on YT or check the link below:

http://youtu.be/S15ejQ1eDN0?t=24m42s

Or if link doesn't work check out 'Stone Cold Steve Austin Shoot about his career'. HBK and Taker are mentioned at the 24:42 mark.

I will watch it later but I doubt that it's anything that will change my mind. Did Shawn want to job to Austin? No, but him showing up to WM 14 is enough to show me that he was going to job the belt. He didn't have to show up, and he was risking his own health to do so. HBK was an ass but he did what was right.

Hogan jobbed to who he wanted to. Because he had that kind of control. He was supposed to put over Bret, he chose Yokozuna. Later on Austin refused to put over Lesnar and walked out. HBK was selective about who he jobbed to. Triple was supposed to job to a number of people, he talked his way out of it. Rick Flair on his way out to WWE, refused to put over who WCW wanted to. Picking who you will and won't job to isn't the same as always doing the job the promoter tells you to. Bret was willing to job to anyone but HBK and Vince said fine. He's already admitted he lied to Bret to put his plan in motion for SSeries 97. There's no issue there.

Of course he lied, it's the only way Bret would do what was right. Hogan was an ass, Flair and Herd well, I don't blame Flair for that. It had nothing to do with the wrestlers in that case but with Herd more than anything. Austin, I disagree with, he was wrong. But just because Hogan and Austin are wrong doesn't mean Hart wasn't. Bret didn't do what was right and was hurt due to it.

He's not an employee who has to do everything without question. Very few if any performers just do what they're told like mindless sheep. I've already mentioned a number of people who made that choice as well, but you act as though Bret's the only person wrong for doing it. WWE didn't make shit. Bret was a performer before he got to WWE, and he worked his ass for 14 years for Vince, Vince didn't train him, put him in his first match ever, or even come up with his look or nickname, he gave him a platform, a huge platform but Vince didn't make Bret. He was told to leave to WCW for a better deal and then denied the exit he deserved. He still had 4 more weeks left on his contract, so the screwjob was completely unjustified. Vince was wrong and showed himself to be a backstabbing son of a bitch.

Actually bret had already worked over the maximum amount of dates he had on his contract (bret says this himself in bret vs shawn) meaning bret could've worked SS 97 and showed up on WCW Nitro the next day if he wanted to. Bret admitted as much on the DVD (he of course said he wouldn't do that). Bret worked for the fans and Bret, I get tired of hearing the whole Bret worked his ass off for 14 years for vince bs. He got paid to do it, he got paid alot of money to do a JOB. Wrestling is his JOB. He didn't wrestle for Vince to be friendly, he didn't do it as a volunteer, and he didn't do it from the kindness of his heart. He worked his ass off to be the best, not for vince, or Linda, or anyone but BRET HART and he got to get a paycheck doing what he wanted.

He openly criticized the company he worked for, he openly insulted it, told people how wrong they were, and then wouldn't put over the next top star. Yeah the guy was a five star asshole. I could care less about what bret did for 14 years because he got paid to do it. IT'S HIS JOB!!!! If I criticize my boss like Bret did his (openly to millions of people) I'd be fired in two seconds. Bret got away with ALOT, a HELL of ALOT. And all you get to see is "Poor Bret" from Bret marks. Well Bret wasn't 100% behind the WWE like people make it out to be. He did do things to negate from the product and he wasn't 100% loyal. He left, he demeaned the company that made him millions of dollars, and he acted like a total ass. You want to say there was no need to do these things I disagree. Bret openly disliked WWE at that time, would've I been shocked to see bret show up in WCW with the WWE belt, NO!!!! If it was someone who had been loyal to the company for 14 years didn't publicly humiliate said company, and had done all the right things. Maybe then you play ball. But bret was far from a choir boy, and seemed like the kind of guy that would do something to hurt the company, especially when leaving.

He even admitted in the DVD that the whole reason for the problems between him and Shawn in the beginning was him thinking they weren't treating him with the right kind of respect while he was the champion and they just wanted him out of the way for Shawn. It was his Ego that drove this. Shawn was an ass, admittedly so. But acting like Vince had EVERY reason to trust bret is bullshit. Bret did what was best for Bret, Vince did what was best for Vince, and Shawn did what was best for Shawn. Acting like Bret is the victim is insane.

 

[theHeadliner]

Also in the summer of 1996, Bret used WCW to get leverage over Vince. He put Vince's back up against the wall when he met with Bischoff and got the WCW to offer him $2.8 million a year for 3 years with way less dates. That was when the trust started to wear away, at that moment. What was Vince supposed to think? He offered Bret that crazy contract just so he wouldn't lose one of his few established and created stars that WCW didn't steal yet, and immediately regretted it. Then he came back and wanted things his way when Shawn was clearly going to be the next guy. He was younger, the better performer during that time period, and had recently went over Bret for the title at the biggest PPV of the year. It would've been stupid to immediately have Shawn lose to Bret for the belt so soon after he was thrust in that position. Vince was paying his so much to not be the top guy, they all knew that, it ate Bret's ego away, and the contract drove Shawn nuts (It shouldn't have been any of his business anyway).

 

[theHeadliner]

Even in his own book he makes a pretty good case for Vince's side because he's honest and tells what really happen. Even though he spins it to make him look good and like the victim, the facts he lays out make Vince look like he did the right thing. Here are some facts:

Bret used WCW and Bischoff in the summer of 1996 for leverage and was able to put Vince's back up against the wall due to receiving an unbelievable offer from Bischoff, only to be countered by an even crazier deal from Vince.

Bret publicly bashed the direction of the WWF while still wrestling for the company.

Although Vince came to Bret and said he might have to cut payments in the present and defer in down the line on the back end of his contract, in October of 1997 in Long Island he came to Bret and said money was no longer an issue and he could pay him in full.

Vince laid out his plans for Bret in regards to matches, etc., and it was Bret losing to Michaels more than once, not being the champ, and not being the top guy, so he chose to leave.

It was Vince's company and well-being for himself and the people who worked for him. In Vince's eyes Shawn was always loyal and did what he was told. Yes Michaels was an asshole, but they are called professionals for a reason, and although Michaels was acting unprofessional, Bret was no example to follow either.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

There is one thing that stopped Bret suing... and quite a major one at that... The clause was for REASONABLE creative control.

Reasonable is that he knows he has to lose but has input into how it occurs until that last day, after that, if he is holding the title ransom (which in reality he was doing) then it's equally reasonable for Vince to protect his business first.

Bret didn't take it to court because he knew that a judge or jury would likely agree that it was unreasonable for Vince to allow him to walk out of that arena with the title, risking untold damage when Bret's WCW contract started the following day. As many have stated within WWE, Vince trusted Bret to do the right thing, but not Bischoff and Bret would have been under contract to WCW after that night. Bret probably was honest in that he'd drop the title the following night, but Bischoff could have insisted he be on Nitro and with the belt, even if he had to video distort it, imagine the fallout!

Even if he'd won a case it'd have likely been thrown out on appeal and Vince would have had a case for false litigation, which would have eaten up all the money Bret was making from WCW.

 

[Wald]

Even in his own book he makes a pretty good case for Vince's side because he's honest and tells what really happen. Even though he spins it to make him look good and like the victim, the facts he lays out make Vince look like he did the right thing. Here are some facts:

Bret used WCW and Bischoff in the summer of 1996 for leverage and was able to put Vince's back up against the wall due to receiving an unbelievable offer from Bischoff, only to be countered by an even crazier deal from Vince.

Bret publicly bashed the direction of the WWF while still wrestling for the company.

Although Vince came to Bret and said he might have to cut payments in the present and defer in down the line on the back end of his contract, in October of 1997 in Long Island he came to Bret and said money was no longer an issue and he could pay him in full.

Vince laid out his plans for Bret in regards to matches, etc., and it was Bret losing to Michaels more than once, not being the champ, and not being the top guy, so he chose to leave.

It was Vince's company and well-being for himself and the people who worked for him. In Vince's eyes Shawn was always loyal and did what he was told. Yes Michaels was an asshole, but they are called professionals for a reason, and although Michaels was acting unprofessional, Bret was no example to follow either.

You do know that Shawn asked for a contract release to move to WCW a few times in 1997 right?

 

[HBKperfect23]

Either way Shawn is jobbing at Wrestlemania to return the favour, and here's where it comes in whether you believe his knee injury or not

Shawn was never asked to job to Bret at Wrestlemania. And how in the world does it make sense to "return the favour". Did Bret "return the favor" for everyone that ever beat him for the title? I dont think so.

You do know that Shawn asked for a contract release to move to WCW a few times in 1997 right?

What does that have to do with anything? He made a point about Bret being "no example to follow either" and you still respond by dowing Michaels. The headliner even said in the post Michaels was unprofessional. I guess you have to respond by downing Shawn because there is no way you can defend Bret against his valid points. Man, you are a mark.

 

[Wald]

Shawn was never asked to job to Bret at Wrestlemania. And how in the world does it make sense to "return the favour". Did Bret "return the favor" for everyone that ever beat him for the title? I dont think so.



What does that have to do with anything? He made a point about Bret being "no example to follow either" and you still respond by dowing Michaels. The headliner even said in the post Michaels was unprofessional. I guess you have to respond by downing Shawn because there is no way you can defend Bret against his valid points. Man, you are a mark.

First point was in reference to what I think would have happened had Shawn not lost his smile, and I think my scenario is perfectly reasonable to expect, especially considering both Bret and Shawn have acknowledged that they were building to a rematch even whilst Bret was off filming Lonesome Dove. I don't see Bret losing to Shawn at the rematch as it wouldn't make any sense if business wise.

Second point was in relation to the poster saying Shawn was always loyal in Vince's eyes. Obviously asking to be let go to the opposition doesn't show 100% loyalty.

You need to stop getting so worked up that not everyone likes Shawn to be honest

 

[Arashi]

Well that's the thing, Shawn always did what was right for business. Shawn asked out but when he wasn't allowed, he did his job to the best of his ability and remained loyal to vince and did what was right for business.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

I thought about this a long time before I put this up. I don't want to go too crazy on this but I found the last post too disturbing to ignore. SO hopefully this will be my last but who knows...

Because of what happened with bret. Why would Taker trust shawn after what he did to a close personal friend of his? Taker didn't agree with Shawn about screwing bret, and if shawn was willing to cross that line, Taker may be inclined to think he'd cross ANY line. Which I can't blame him, but Shawn still did what was right and what his boss told him. Taker didn't trust Shawn because Shawn went against the boys, still doesn't mean Shawn didn't always do the job Vince asked him to do.

Taker could have whooped HBK’s ass anytime, why did he wait 3-4 months afterwards ? Why not beat the shit out of him after Montreal ? Why wait till WM ? He knew what happened. He knew HBK was part of it.

What you don’t want to do is tell the truth about HBK. HBK is an amazing athlete. He was a great in-ring performer. But there are downsides. He wasn't a better draw than Bret, he was worse. HBK had a history of refusing to work with some performers, he had a history of starting shit with fellow performers, and those peformers who wanted to beat the shit out of him, didn’t because they knew that HBK was Vince’s pet and they’d be fired. Often Bret and Davey Boy would try to discourage the guys in the back from kicking his ass. He would work with friends helping them make money and not the rest of the lockerroom. He would tell Vince to fire this person or that person. HBK was a cancer that should have been cut out of the lockerroom. Vince is largely to blame. Many told him about the Kliq and he refused to listen. Taker took all these incidents into account and was convinced that HBK wouldn’t do the job, he had seen HBK refusing to put over people or influencing a change to the end of a match, to suit his needs or wants, and Taker was going to make sure that HBK didn’t get away with it this time. He took upon himself, to keep HBK in line because.... wait for it.... he knew that HBK DIDN’T ALWAYS DO WHAT’S RIGH FOR BUSINESS.



That might be true but if anyone knows if Shawn was willing to do something it would be Vince, secondly if you watch bret vs shawn, it seems like Shawn always did what he thought was right for business and even Ross acknowledges this at one point. I am not saying Shawn WANTED to do what was right. In fact he ADMITS he didn't. But when push came to shove, he always did.

1) As great a dvd, as it is, it is still a WWE dvd. Vince controls what’s seen on WWE material and what isn’t. He tries very hard to control what people will know about things and what will remain secret when it comes to WWE. A lot was left off that dvd conversation about the many things HBk did.

2) Who cares if HBK did what he thought was right for business ? Who cares about what Michaels is willing to do ? By your own argument, HBK’s paid to do a job, right ? He should do what he’s told without question. The fact is he didn’t do what was always right for business, if Vince came to him with something he didn’t like or didn’t suit him, he had Vince wrapped around his finger and said the right things to convince Vince to doing things his way.

3) You think Ross is going to say anything that Vince doesn’t want heard on the dvd ? You honestly believe this video wouldn’t be edited if it was just too honest for Vince’s standards ?

4) As far as Vince’s concerned, he’s not above lying about something or for someone. He’s not above betraying a performer, or ripping them off. You think because Vince says something it’s true ? I guess you’ll be telling me next Vince never knew his performers were taking drugs, steroids or otherwise.

I will watch it later but I doubt that it's anything that will change my mind. Did Shawn want to job to Austin? No, but him showing up to WM 14 is enough to show me that he was going to job the belt. He didn't have to show up, and he was risking his own health to do so. HBK was an ass but he did what was right.

What ? He shows up with the belt so that means he was prepared to job ? Bret showed up with the belt at Series '97, he wasn’t going to job. Look how that turned out. Austin wasn’t the only person considered to be the person to take the belt off HBK. Shamrock, Vader were being considered. It didn’t happen, HBK made sure of that, but they were considered. HBK was supposed to put over Tatanka (when he was IC Champ) didn’t happen cause HBK talked them out of it. It was supposed to go to Shane Douglas, he forfeits, only after making sure the belt goes to his pal Scott Hall. That’s not always doing what’s right. Him just showing up with the belt means nothing.
Take a look at the Hogan HBK match at Sslam. That really destroys your point. Yeah he did the job, but made what could have been a classic match look like a fucking comedy reel. It was the most unprofessional nonsense, I’ve ever seen. For all the promotion and hype they tried to put around this match, Vince has a match he couldn’t give away to fans. And the reason ? He didn’t like the fact that Hogan wouldn’t return the favour and put him over at a later time. That sounds so familiar. Oh I remember, that’s the same thing HBK told Bret prior to Sseries 97. Or like any number of times, he refused to put over somebody when he was champion.

Of course he lied, it's the only way Bret would do what was right. Hogan was an ass, Flair and Herd well, I don't blame Flair for that. It had nothing to do with the wrestlers in that case but with Herd more than anything. Austin, I disagree with, he was wrong. But just because Hogan and Austin are wrong doesn't mean Hart wasn't. Bret didn't do what was right and was hurt due to it.

The point I’m making, is Hogan had creative control and Vince respected it and gave Hogan an opponent he was comfortable with. Bret could have been treated the same way. If you are the owner and don’t like being told no, don’t give them creative control. Flair didn’t like what the boss was saying and he refused to do what he was told which is okay by you. He was fired and he took the belt till they paid him for it. Flair probably was right. Performers have a right to take a stand when they think they are being wronged whether you or I like it or not. And performers who have a contract which spells it out like Bret and Hogan had, really have a right to say no if they want.

BTW, Brock Lesnar was nobody for Austin to put over (shit he wasn’t good enough for Rock or Undertaker to put over) and if Vince didn’t want to listen, and after him seeing the screwjob, I certainly don’t blame Austin for walking.

Actually bret had already worked over the maximum amount of dates he had on his contract (bret says this himself in bret vs shawn) meaning bret could've worked SS 97 and showed up on WCW Nitro the next day if he wanted to. Bret admitted as much on the DVD (he of course said he wouldn't do that). Bret worked for the fans and Bret, I get tired of hearing the whole Bret worked his ass off for 14 years for vince bs. He got paid to do it, he got paid alot of money to do a JOB. Wrestling is his JOB. He didn't wrestle for Vince to be friendly, he didn't do it as a volunteer, and he didn't do it from the kindness of his heart. He worked his ass off to be the best, not for vince, or Linda, or anyone but BRET HART and he got to get a paycheck doing what he wanted.

I don’t care what you’re sick of or tired of. You want to say that Bret had no loyalty to WWF. If he had no loyalty, he would have left for a better payday in WCW, in 96 after WM or whenever his contract had expired. He would have not worked a single day beyond the 275 day mark and gone for a bigger payday in WCW, if he had no loyalty. If he had no loyalty, he would forfeited the title instead of wrestling when he lost his 'smile', he wouldn't have worked a match with a knee injury if he had no loyalty.The fact that he did stay and worked hurt and never forfeited a title, means he wanted to stay with WWE and continue to be there. That’s loyalty to me. The lockerroom respected him and his efforts, and were prepared to walk out with him. SO whether we believe he was loyal or not, the lockerroom clearly believed and knew otherwise.

BTW, it was their lives, not their job. These performers are overworked, underpaid, working hurt, no insurance, for a long time and most will never see the heights Bret or HBK did. Countless performers leave the industry just to find something else, because the pay is shit compared to the work they have to do. No, he didn’t work to be friendly, yes he got paid, but he worked injured, he did the promotion work, went everywhere to help promote WWE and to say he was only about himself is a lie.


He openly criticized the company he worked for, he openly insulted it, told people how wrong they were, and then wouldn't put over the next top star. Yeah the guy was a five star asshole. I could care less about what bret did for 14 years because he got paid to do it. IT'S HIS JOB!!!! If I criticize my boss like Bret did his (openly to millions of people) I'd be fired in two seconds. Bret got away with ALOT, a HELL of ALOT. And all you get to see is "Poor Bret" from Bret marks. Well Bret wasn't 100% behind the WWE like people make it out to be. He did do things to negate from the product and he wasn't 100% loyal. He left, he demeaned the company that made him millions of dollars, and he acted like a total ass. You want to say there was no need to do these things I disagree. Bret openly disliked WWE at that time, would've I been shocked to see bret show up in WCW with the WWE belt, NO!!!! If it was someone who had been loyal to the company for 14 years didn't publicly humiliate said company, and had done all the right things. Maybe then you play ball. But bret was far from a choir boy, and seemed like the kind of guy that would do something to hurt the company, especially when leaving.

He disagreed with the direction into the Attitude storyline. He wasn’t alone. He was wrong from a company standpoint. Things need to change, companies either adapt or die, but in saying that I know many lifelong wrestling fans who stopped watching after Austin did the 3:16 speech, or were offended by the sexuality involved. Many performers were put off by that, so while it may have been wrong, he wasn’t alone in his beliefs. That alone, is not reason to discount the previous 13 years. It didn’t help matters, but it didn’t stop the company from moving forward into the era with their storylines. While he didn’t get involved with the sexual stuff, or much of the cursing, he still delivered in the ring.

As far as you being fired from your job, that’s very true. But if workers, employees never challenged bosses when they knew they were doing things that were wrong, what would happen ? How many employees keep their mouths shut while companies get away with all sorts of abuse against them and the public ? Hell, the financial crisis would never have happened, if employees had told on their bosses.

Let’s get it back to wrestling, how many wrestlers could have been saved if some one spoke about the working conditions or drug abuse before ? We need people like Ventura (who spoke about starting a union and blasted the pay rates) and others to speak for those who need an advocate. Sometimes people need to speak in spite of the consequences to create the necessary change needed. Countless wrestlers speak up when they believe something is wrong and those who lack the backbone to do so get trampled on in the wrestling business.

I have no reason to believe he’d go to another company with the belt. Just because Flair did it or Alundra Blayze did it (right or wrong) doesn’t mean Bret would. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never called Bret a victim, or a choir boy and even stated that he probably should have just done the job. But I also believe that Bret prided himself on being a WWE guy, for a long time, had worked to earn the respect of management and the lockerroom alike, and he went the extra mile for the company when many other performers wouldn’t have even thought twice of leaving sooner for the bigger payday.

BTW, Mick, Austin, Taker to name a few also publicly complained about the company, while working there so it’s not unusual. And if Vince was so offended, he should have fired them and him, he didn’t, so more than likely he didn’t have a problem with it. Not every one is just a soldier who does as he’s told, sometimes you gotta develop a spine, or backbone and speak up for what you believe is right even if it isn’t popular or profitable to do so.

He even admitted in the DVD that the whole reason for the problems between him and Shawn in the beginning was him thinking they weren't treating him with the right kind of respect while he was the champion and they just wanted him out of the way for Shawn. It was his Ego that drove this. Shawn was an ass, admittedly so. But acting like Vince had EVERY reason to trust bret is bullshit. Bret did what was best for Bret, Vince did what was best for Vince, and Shawn did what was best for Shawn. Acting like Bret is the victim is insane.

I never called Bret a victim, there you go putting words in my mouth again. I even said earlier, he might have been better off just dropping the belt to HBK. What I also said, is I understand his position. He offered to drop it another time to HBK or another worker. HE WAS WILLING TO DROP IT. If HBK hadn’t been such an ASSHOLE and run his mouth, the conflict wouldn’t have happened. He had been working more dates than he was required to anyway, at a lot less than WCW was willing to pay. He was a committed WWF guy no matter what he felt about the direction, or about some people there.
You want to minimize and not really discuss HBK’s actions here saying he was an ‘ASS’ but always did what he was told, no matter the mountain of people who say otherwise and talk about Bret like his sins are so horrible compared to HBK’s and THAT’s BULLSHIT! That’s what I love about you HBK Marks, you and HBK hide behind Vince, saying Vince says this about HBK and that’s the truth, like Vince never lied to anyone to portray things as he wants people to see things. You HBk fans just stick you heads in the sand, or your fingers in your ears not wanting to be told anything honest about HBK and his attitude in the lockerroom You seem to kid yourselves that HBk’s amazing in-ring ability makes up for his bullshit politics behind the scenes.

Yes, Bret worked for his own interests, everyone has to think of their own interests in the time they have on this Earth, that doesn't make him disloyal. Disloyalty is only being about your own interests to the detriment of your company and you can't tell me based on the things we saw in that video that he did that. You can disagree all you want. I can’t make you believe anything and you damn sure can’t change my mind. I’ll just leave it that.

 

[HBKperfect23]

First point was in reference to what I think would have happened had Shawn not lost his smile, and I think my scenario is perfectly reasonable to expect, especially considering both Bret and Shawn have acknowledged that they were building to a rematch even whilst Bret was off filming Lonesome Dove. I don't see Bret losing to Shawn at the rematch as it wouldn't make any sense if business wise.

Second point was in relation to the poster saying Shawn was always loyal in Vince's eyes. Obviously asking to be let go to the opposition doesn't show 100% loyalty.

You need to stop getting so worked up that not everyone likes Shawn to be honest

Nobodys getting worked up...on a pro wrestling message board. Though, it is very funny to read your constant biased posts. Bret went behind Vinces back and negotiated a WCW deal. Im a big Bret fan but he was wrong in 1997.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

Nobodys getting worked up...on a pro wrestling message board. Though, it is very funny to read your constant biased posts. Bret went behind Vinces back and negotiated a WCW deal. Im a big Bret fan but he was wrong in 1997.

I though in 97 Vince told Bret to negotiate with WCW. Are you refering to Bret's WCW negotiations in 96?

 

[FlairFan2003]

[Hogan jobbed to who he wanted to. Because he had that kind of control. He was supposed to put over Bret, he chose Yokozuna. Later on Austin refused to put over Lesnar and walked out. HBK was selective about who he jobbed to. Triple was supposed to job to a number of people, he talked his way out of it. Rick Flair on his way out to WWE, refused to put over who WCW wanted to. Picking who you will and won't job to isn't the same as always doing the job the promoter tells you to. Bret was willing to job to anyone but HBK and Vince said fine. He's already admitted he lied to Bret to put his plan in motion for SSeries 97. There's no issue there.

.

There were only two documented occassions when Flair complained about putting over someone - 1988 when he was asked by Dusty Rhodes to lose the title to Rick Steiner in 30 seconds (Flair agreed to lose the belt but wanted a longer, decent match, Dusty was fired after the incident) and 1990 when Jim Herd wanted to have Luger take Sting's spot as champ and Flair argued they should wait for Sting's injury to heal, then have the big money pay off match to end their feud with Sting winning.

Flair lost a televised Loser Leaves Town Match on his way out of WWE to put over Curt Henning as probably the 2nd biggest face in the company behind Hart. He wrestled with a serious injury, struggling to maintain his balance, just to put over Hart as champ so WWE would have a champ who could wrestle and defend the title, not an injured guy being treated at The Mayo Clinic who no one was sure when (or if) he could return. He also put over Randy Savage at WrestleMania in front of 70,000 fans at the biggest PPV of the year. He agreed to lose to Hogan multiple times in high profile matches toi get Hogan to agree to sign with WCW. Even after WCW tried to cut his pay in half, force him to change his name to Spartacus and take on a ridiculous Roman Gladiator gimmick, he still agreed to lose the championship to whoever WCW picked in 1991 on his way out to WWE. First he was asked to put over Luger at the next PPV and he agreed, then he was asked to drop the title to good friend Barry Whyndam sooner than that at a house show and he agreed. It was was WCW that decided not let him drop the title in the ring after he disputed their claims they did not owe him back money on deposits he made (that were supposed to be invested and draw interest) as a liability payment on the expensive "Big Gold Belt", deposits other wrestlers made when the wore the title and got refunded when the lost. Flair was totally willing to drop the title in the ring and properly put over the next champ on his way out but WCW decided to fire him beforehand because he was complaining about the deposit money, which eventually turned into a nasty lawsuit which Flair ultimately won, receiveing several thousand dollars from WCW after agreeing to return the physical belt.

Comparing any Flair situation to Hart in 97 is ludicrous.

 

[theHeadliner]

I'm pretty sure I said Shawn was an asshole and acted unprofessional. He asked to be released for a few reasons. One, the backstage fight with Bret and not having fun anymore there. He wasn't allowed to travel with Hunter cus they were heel/face. All the guys in the back hated him (even though that was a lot of his own making), they blamed Shawn for bad business when he was on top, and his best friends were down in WCW doing phenomenal business.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

Comparing any Flair situation to Hart in 97 is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

Only two incidents where he refused to put someone over, according to whom ? Who documented these incidents you're refering to ? You ? Rick Flair ? Who ?

And you choose to miss my point. The point is the company wanted one thing, Flair wanted another. He didn't do what the company told him to, he did what he felt was the right thing to do. Bret refused to do what the company wanted. There's the similiarity. The specifics are different, but the general idea or conflict is similar, where the boss wanted one thing and the talent said no. Why is everything an arguement ?

 

[HBKperfect23]

I though in 97 Vince told Bret to negotiate with WCW. Are you refering to Bret's WCW negotiations in 96?

Yes, that would be it. In 97, Bret had every right to go negotiate with WCW. 1996, he said he was coming back.

Comparing any Flair situation to Hart in 97 is ludicrous.

I cant believe Flair got brought into this. He is the most unselfish wrestler in history, BAR NONE.

 

[Wald]

Well that's the thing, Shawn always did what was right for business. Shawn asked out but when he wasn't allowed, he did his job to the best of his ability and remained loyal to vince and did what was right for business.

A guy with Vader as his avatar talking about how HBK always did what was right for business. You've got to be kidding me with that one right?

 

[HBKperfect23]

A guy with Vader as his avatar talking about how HBK always did what was right for business. You've got to be kidding me with that one right?

Please tell me how this makes any sense. Did HBK screw Vader out of the title too? Did he refuse to job to him.

Both Shawn and Bret acted unprofessionally in 1997. Shawn admits it, takes responsibility, and has moved on. Bret has dwelled on it and still trys to play the good guy who did nothing wrong. Im a Bret fan and I am glad to see he has gotten a lot better in the last few years in regards to the past. I do wish (some of)his fans would stop trying to portray him as this guy who was strictly the victim.

 

[theHeadliner]

Vader was not going to win the belt in 1996. He beat Shawn a few times during his run, once in a tag match, once in a non-title. He made Vader look good. Shawn was THE guy in Vince's eyes. It was all the parties involved faults, if that's correct grammar. Bret does try to play the good guy still, even though Michaels admits he was immature and irrational back then.

 

[HBsam31]

I am just glad Bret has seemingly gotten over this stuff. It was cool to see Bret back on TV. It was all of their fault that it went down the way it did. The worst part of the whole thing was the fact that after Bret goes to WCW they totally misuse him, and gets his career ended. After going through everything he did at the end of his WWE run, his life just kind of kept going down hill. I know he had a part to play in the trouble with Vince, and Shawn, but damn his life was tough after his time in WCW. After all of it, I am glad they all are able to work together now even if for one time appearances and such.

 

[thebarber]

Nobodys getting worked up...on a pro wrestling message board. Though, it is very funny to read your constant biased posts. Bret went behind Vinces back and negotiated a WCW deal. Im a big Bret fan but he was wrong in 1997.

Vince actually helped broker Bret's deal with WCW. But if your talking about the first time WCW offered a deal, well go back to 1991, they came to him, Flair tried to sign Bret in 1991. In 1996, Bret was under NO CONTRACT to anybody, so I dont know how Bret went behind anybodies back, and he told Vince he had deals on the table from WCW also. Bret could have just signed with them, but he didnt.
This is an undisputed fact. Vince was going in a new direction and Hart was vehnemously against it. Vince tried to look after Bret by getting him the best possible deal, as Vince could not live up to his end of the 20 year contract, or so he said at the time. Yet he was able to negotiate a multi million dollar payment for Mike Tyson 4 weeks later.......
15 years on, and its all said and done, Vince should not have done what he did in Montreal. Bret, even though he is a whiner and sook, had every legal, moral and professional right to refuse to do the job at SS97. He was happy to drop the belt the night after, or at the Dec97 ppv. Thsi is all fact. Hindsight shows that what Vince did that night was the greatest business decision since signing Hogan back in late 83. HBK had a long history of not doing jobs, handing over belts instead of dropping them, he was untrustworthy due to his massive drug problem in the mid 90s. At the end of the day, that whole incident was regrettable on all parts, egos should have given way to smart business.

 

[IT Factor]

Bret's whole contract situation and the following Montreal screwjob were all unnecessary. Between what Bret said on the "Wrestling with Shadows" documentary and what he wrote in his book, Bret did everything a loyal employee would do for his company. Although it did make for compelling television, I've always hated how it happened. McMahon truly made his feelings about business practices and ethics[or lack thereof] known. His workers were just cogs in a big machine and everyone was replaceable even if they helped to establish the company[like Bret did]. Bret never refused to job except for Shawn Michaels[who wasn't willing to put Bret over, so it's understandable mutual dislike]. And while I'm glad that Vince, HBK, and Bret all buried the hatchet it still doesn't excuse what happened. As a fan, I've always wondered why McMahon seemed to get a free pass for Montreal. He never was truly accountable for his actions, despite being the captain of the ship. He explained his actions away as "Bret screwed Bret" but every fan of the pro wrestling business knew that was bullshit. I often wonder what would've happened if McMahon had tried the same screwjob on unpredicatable badasses like Taker or Terry Funk. Wanna know why he didn't? He'd have been dead, that's why. Those guys would've literally have killed Vince and he knew that.

I know the Montreal thing is ancient, but it still is a sore topic to me. I was a huge fan of Bret's and thought the whole thing was unneeded and not necessary. If McMahon had wanted out, there were other ways of going about it. Strip Bret of the title[which Hart agreed to, btw]. McMahon wanted to humiliate and make an example outta Bret, which is very telling about how insecure Vince must be. You see it all the time in the history of Vince McMahon. He's a shallow and child-like personality who is by very definition a hypocrite. Anti-bullying campaigns galore, yet a bully himself. The whole Bret Hart contract dispute and Montreal situation were just the beginning and it was a very dark day in wrestling history. I don't think Bret Hart, McMahon, Michaels or the wrestling business itself ever truly recovered from that one single event.