Bret Hart, I love this guy

[BooCocky]

wouldn't that be advertising? I don't know, i just know to post it but use the quote tags.

 

[Shocky]

I don't want them to come here and say that. I just want to see a source. A link. Something other than his book or DVD.

Hilarious, so the guy saying it, or the guy writing it isn't good enough. I'll get on my Cell Phone and Give Bret a call, just so he can get on a plane from his home in Europe to tell one fan that doesn't believe things that he has said. I'm on it

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Hilarious, so the guy saying it, or the guy writing it isn't good enough. I'll get on my Cell Phone and Give Bret a call, just so he can get on a plane from his home in Europe to tell one fan that doesn't believe things that he has said. I'm on it

I think you have a problem with comprehension. I mean, I thought I made this clear about four times now.

BRET
HART
IS
KNOWN
FOR
LYING
TO
MAKE
HIS
SIDE
OF
THE
STORY
LOOK
BETTER

So for about the fifth time, I'll reiterate: If Bret Hart was so "close" to Vince, why was Vince so bent on him dropping the belt and basically shoving him into the WCW? Is there someone to confirm their closeness? Is there someone out there that has publically stated how close Vince and Bret were? Because it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Shocky]

I think you have a problem with comprehension. I mean, I thought I made this clear about four times now.

BRET
HART
IS
KNOWN
FOR
LYING
TO
MAKE
HIS
SIDE
OF
THE
STORY
LOOK
BETTER

So for about the fifth time, I'll reiterate: If Bret Hart was so "close" to Vince, why was Vince so bent on him dropping the belt and basically shoving him into the WCW? Is there someone to confirm their closeness? Is there someone out there that has publically stated how close Vince and Bret were? Because it doesn't make sense to me.

Bret Hart?
So Bret telling the truth, or his version of the truth makes him a liar, ok, glad to hear that.

If not, rewatch the Owen Hart tribute show, and listen to Shane talk about how he misses the closeness that once was the Hart,McMahon relationshp.

PS: Vince is a liar too, he just has more money to make his side of stories look like the truth.

 

[Shocky]

Ok mr bearer, you sound like a bitter prick that got dumped because you had no talent, you fat wreck. Bret screwed bret and there aint nothing thats going to change that.

Disagree with people all you want, but don't flame. People can call me out, I don't care, I'm a big boy, but when you get flamey and have two infractions already, your gone.

It's quite simple, I come on here to make sure that WWE Apologist don't get to run rough shot over these forums. The WWE is not without problems and blame in many things, you don't like it, don't post, or post and don't flame.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Ok mr bearer, you sound like a bitter prick that got dumped because you had no talent, you fat wreck. Bret screwed bret and there aint nothing thats going to change that.

That's not necessary at all. Good thing he's banned, eh? Anyway:

Bret Hart?
So Bret telling the truth, or his version of the truth makes him a liar, ok, glad to hear that.

If not, rewatch the Owen Hart tribute show, and listen to Shane talk about how he misses the closeness that once was the Hart,McMahon relationshp.

PS: Vince is a liar too, he just has more money to make his side of stories look like the truth.

Unfortunately for me, I can't seem to find the full Owen tribute video anywhere.

Bret Hart's "version of the truth" could very well be a his "version of a lie" to make him look like an angel being oppressed by the devil himself. That's why I want sources, and so far, you've yet to provide me with anything I can immediately get to. An article or a YT video or anything?

 

[Shocky]

no luck for that then, I hate youtube, I have zero attention span.

Right now I'm watching the HBK DVD, and Hunter pretty much admits he was the mastermind behind the screw job, kinda interesting.

If I watch the Bret DVD or Owen Tribute show, which I have on tape soon, I'll find it.

The Screwjob stuff on the HBK DVD was pretty interesting. Michaels pretty much wants it to die, and Hunter is the one saying, ya, Shawn Screwed you Bret, so what?

And honestly, I hate banning people that flame me, because I like people that are confrontational, but he had other infractions and he hasn't learned yet.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

There are a lot of gray areas in regard to the Montreal Screwjob as we don't know 100% exactly what went on. We don't know who said what. But what we do know can lead a lot of credibility towards the "Bret screwed Bret" option AS LONG AS you're willing to also admit that Vince is a businessman, not an enabler.

Take a look at their situation. Bret is given an option for more money over loyalty. He takes it. Vince, therefore, should be pissed, because he's losing his champion and one of his stars to his feuding company just over money. Would you not be pissed and try to take it out on him? Its not the professional thing to do, no, and if the situation was just left at that, Vince would be acting like a jerk. However, look at where Bret stood in the company. He was their champion, their top guy, and he was in the most massive feud with the guy who they wanted to be the champ after him. It is Bret's obligation, therefore, to drop the title when he's leaving to whoever he is scheduled to drop it to. Also, Bret's main complaint is that he didn't want to lose the title to Shawn (which shouldn't be his call in the first place as he's not the one in charge and his actions affect the entire company, not just himself jobbing at a house show) and his second main complaint is that he didn't want to lose in his home country....wait..yes...his home COUNTRY. Now that's being a bit of a child about the situation. Essentially, that's "I don't wanna!!" over and over again or when a child suddenly acts like they want a toy just because another child showed interest in it and refuses to give it up. Bret sold out to the rival company and thereby not necessary to pamper. If you were working your job and the boss told you "we're firing you in 3 days no matter what", would you bother working your ass off? Nope. So why should they bother tending to Bret's wants that step outside of his contractual obligations just because they had a previously good relationship that was obviously in shaky foundation at that time. If I've had a friend for 19 of my 20 years, and suddenly he/she up and killed my family, I wouldn't go "eh that's ok, we've been friends for so long, I'll let it slide" lol.

Would Bret have made a mockery of the WWE at WCW? I don't think so. I think he would've talked trash about them backstage, complained about the way he was treated (as from the videos and interviews we've seen, all this guy does is talk about how much better he thinks he was than everyone else). But Vince couldn't foresee that and if he had a reasonable doubt in Bret, on top of Bret complaining that he wouldn't follow suit to the standards of the business, then that's why we're in the situation where "Bret screwed Bret".

I'm a big fan of Bret's wrestling, he's always been a favorite of mine, but no matter how you cut it, the only reason the Montreal Screwjob exists is because he felt he deserved special treatment.

 

[Shocky]

I like your argument, but your basing it on the wrong opinion.

Bret was given the opportunity in 1996 to sign a deal with WCW, which Bret turned down and signed a 20 year deal, not 1, 2, or 3, even 5, he signed a 20 year deal in which he would still have 9 years left today if he was still under contract. Bret was content int he WWE. He took a huge pay cut to stay with the WWE and be loyal.

Vince was the one that came back a year later and said, he couldn't afford to keep Bret anymore and that he should call WCW and see if the deal was still there. This is where the conspiracy theory of the Screw job comes to play. A lot of people think this action right here was Vince and Bret conspiring together to have both look good. Bret would get his payday in WCW, and Vince would get a storyline that shook the very foundation of the business.

So I Like your argument, but I think most people have the misconception, and the WWE likes to show case that perception, that Bret went running to WCW not looking back. Bret chose to stay, Vince asked him to leave. In the buyout process this is were the creative control clause was written into Bret's contract and that he would have complete control over his character the last 30 days of his contract, and his contract didn't expire until Early December, so it was impossible for Bret to show up legally before then on Nitro, so it was impossible for him to drop the belt on Nitro like many people believe.

Vince broke the contract by refusing Bret to exercise his character control clause that Vince wrote into Bret's contract, therefore, Bret could have showed up the next night after the screwjob, but only because Vince broke the contract.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Vince was the one that came back a year later and said, he couldn't afford to keep Bret anymore and that he should call WCW and see if the deal was still there. This is where the conspiracy theory of the Screw job comes to play. A lot of people think this action right here was Vince and Bret conspiring together to have both look good. Bret would get his payday in WCW, and Vince would get a storyline that shook the very foundation of the business.

I really like this conspiracy theory a lot, though I have no proof to support otherwise, something is telling me in the back of my mind that this can't be true. Certainly this would have all come out already, no? Too many things happened back stage at both shows for me to consider this theory - I would love to say I believe it though.

I'll do a little bit of research.

 

[beetle717]

I like your argument, but your basing it on the wrong opinion.

Bret was given the opportunity in 1996 to sign a deal with WCW, which Bret turned down and signed a 20 year deal, not 1, 2, or 3, even 5, he signed a 20 year deal in which he would still have 9 years left today if he was still under contract. Bret was content int he WWE. He took a huge pay cut to stay with the WWE and be loyal.

Vince was the one that came back a year later and said, he couldn't afford to keep Bret anymore and that he should call WCW and see if the deal was still there. This is where the conspiracy theory of the Screw job comes to play. A lot of people think this action right here was Vince and Bret conspiring together to have both look good. Bret would get his payday in WCW, and Vince would get a storyline that shook the very foundation of the business.

So I Like your argument, but I think most people have the misconception, and the WWE likes to show case that perception, that Bret went running to WCW not looking back. Bret chose to stay, Vince asked him to leave. In the buyout process this is were the creative control clause was written into Bret's contract and that he would have complete control over his character the last 30 days of his contract, and his contract didn't expire until Early December, so it was impossible for Bret to show up legally before then on Nitro, so it was impossible for him to drop the belt on Nitro like many people believe.

Vince broke the contract by refusing Bret to exercise his character control clause that Vince wrote into Bret's contract, therefore, Bret could have showed up the next night after the screwjob, but only because Vince broke the contract.

Actually the clause according to Bret was reasonable creative control. That tends to lead to "what is reasonable?" that is what wasn't spelled out in the contract. Logically though I wouldn't think refusing to drop the title is reasonable though.

 

[Shocky]

Mozzarella, just rewatched the Bret DVD.

Vince McMahon: Bret and i had a very close personal and professional relationship. The only thing that could ever of come between us was Ted Turner's money. 1 hour 37 minutes into it.

Bret Hart: I feel sorry for Shane, witnessing the fist breakdown in the locker room. It was a shame for him to watch this almost father son relationship I had with Vince. 1 hour 43 minutes.

Just to clarify.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Mozzarella, just rewatched the Bret DVD.

Vince McMahon: Bret and i had a very close personal and professional relationship. The only thing that could ever of come between us was Ted Turner's money. 1 hour 37 minutes into it.

Bret Hart: I feel sorry for Shane, witnessing the fist breakdown in the locker room. It was a shame for him to watch this almost father son relationship I had with Vince. 1 hour 43 minutes.

Just to clarify.

Alright, I'll take that.

Even with that, what makes you think Bret had any right to refuse to drop his title under any circumstance?

 

[Shocky]

Well as much as most disagree with it, Vince wrote in Creative control. So contractually Bret had every legal right to do what he wanted with his character.

From what I've read and watched, it was a matter of respect with Bret. He felt Shawn Michaels gave him no respect. He even says in his DVD that he felt he was never given a true title run, and he was the one the WWE knew would hold the belt well until Shawn was ready.

The entire incident with Sunny, (bret had a real life affair with Sunny and Shawn had an interview including the words "Sunny Days ahead" in it, that didn't sit well, resulting in a hair pulling fight in the locker room, yes, a hair pulling fight). Plus with Wrestlemania 12, after wrestling over one hour, Shawn wouldn't give Bret the time of day. You can see after the match HBK telling the ref to get Bret out of the ring, while Bret was there waiting to give michaels the typical handshake/passing of the torch moment. Bret felt the moment should be Shawn's, but this was the traditional wrestlemania thing to do, and Shawn hogged the spotlight.

Plus, rumor or not rumor, and Bret thinks Michaels is full of shit, so take that for what it's worth, Michaels was supposed to job to Hart and return the favor at WM 13, which he didn't. This is the lost smile incident, which Bret refers to shawn as "A little faker with his pussy foot injury".

So when the time came for Bret to lie down for shawn, again, it was a no go. Bret had bent over backwards to get Michaels over, and all he wanted was a little respect, which Michaels never showed. Plus, Bret hints that he was doing it for the locker room. That other guys in the locker room felt the same way about Michaels being the man, but didn't have enough stroke to stand up to McMahon. This is what led to the Mutiny in Montreal after the Screwjob where everyone was going to no show Raw the next night, but only at the request of Bret in the locker room did the guys go to Raw the next night, except Rick Rude and Mick Foley.

So it boils down to Michaels never being grateful to Bret for putting him over, and Bret feeling that he was doing something for the boys, not the company. Brets loyalty is to the WWE and it's wrestlers. At the time, Michaels was hated, so Bret felt he was doing the right thing for the boys in the Locker Room. He even states himself hid had nothing to do with losing in Canada, "Lord Knows I've lost in Canada plenty of times".

It all comes down to Bret and Shawn didn't like each other. Bret wasn't going to put shawn over without anything. This would have all been avoided if Vince or any promoter, giving creative controls to in ring talent. But Bret had the right, so he exercised it. Vince broke the contract by having him job to Michaels, so therefore Vince screwed Bret.

 

[beetle717]

Well as much as most disagree with it, Vince wrote in Creative control. So contractually Bret had every legal right to do what he wanted with his character.

From what I've read and watched, it was a matter of respect with Bret. He felt Shawn Michaels gave him no respect. He even says in his DVD that he felt he was never given a true title run, and he was the one the WWE knew would hold the belt well until Shawn was ready.

The entire incident with Sunny, (bret had a real life affair with Sunny and Shawn had an interview including the words "Sunny Days ahead" in it, that didn't sit well, resulting in a hair pulling fight in the locker room, yes, a hair pulling fight). Plus with Wrestlemania 12, after wrestling over one hour, Shawn wouldn't give Bret the time of day. You can see after the match HBK telling the ref to get Bret out of the ring, while Bret was there waiting to give michaels the typical handshake/passing of the torch moment. Bret felt the moment should be Shawn's, but this was the traditional wrestlemania thing to do, and Shawn hogged the spotlight.

Plus, rumor or not rumor, and Bret thinks Michaels is full of shit, so take that for what it's worth, Michaels was supposed to job to Hart and return the favor at WM 13, which he didn't. This is the lost smile incident, which Bret refers to shawn as "A little faker with his pussy foot injury".

So when the time came for Bret to lie down for shawn, again, it was a no go. Bret had bent over backwards to get Michaels over, and all he wanted was a little respect, which Michaels never showed. Plus, Bret hints that he was doing it for the locker room. That other guys in the locker room felt the same way about Michaels being the man, but didn't have enough stroke to stand up to McMahon. This is what led to the Mutiny in Montreal after the Screwjob where everyone was going to no show Raw the next night, but only at the request of Bret in the locker room did the guys go to Raw the next night, except Rick Rude and Mick Foley.

So it boils down to Michaels never being grateful to Bret for putting him over, and Bret feeling that he was doing something for the boys, not the company. Brets loyalty is to the WWE and it's wrestlers. At the time, Michaels was hated, so Bret felt he was doing the right thing for the boys in the Locker Room. He even states himself hid had nothing to do with losing in Canada, "Lord Knows I've lost in Canada plenty of times".

It all comes down to Bret and Shawn didn't like each other. Bret wasn't going to put shawn over without anything. This would have all been avoided if Vince or any promoter, giving creative controls to in ring talent. But Bret had the right, so he exercised it. Vince broke the contract by having him job to Michaels, so therefore Vince screwed Bret.

But Bret didn't have the right to refuse. According to all parties involved the contract was "reasonable creative control for the last 30 days"

Can you honestly tell me you think refusing to do your job and lose the title at the big show is reasonable? The fact is you pass the title at the big show not the throw away Raw or house show after. What would it have hurt Bret or anyone else to drop the title then, the answer is it wouldn't. Your presentation would only be valid if Bret's contract had said FULL creative control.

 

[Shocky]

So, Bret felt that him losing to Shawn Michaels was not reasonable. So if Bret felt that losing to Michaels was detrimental to his character, it is reasonable for him not to job to him. Like I said, blame Vince, Eric Bischoff or whoever that writes creative control into stars contracts. Bret did everything he was allowed to do, thanks to Vince McMahon

 

[beetle717]

So you believe that it is perfectly reasonable for an employee of a company you own to take it's most prized possesion away from you and to the competition? Wow.