Guaranteed Title Reigns in Contracts

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

Discussion of rumor and innuendo is encouraged, but if anyone has some flat out facts that’s even better

I remember way back when it happened the online gossip was that Edge’s one day title reign in 1999 was a make good as a condition of having a guaranteed IC title reign in his contract. Of course Edge consistently delivered and won the IC title again, but not until later.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Dean Douglas’ less than one day title reign was just to meet a guaranteed title reign in his contract. No idea for sure, but it’s one of the most meaningless reigns in company history.

For non-WWE stuff, I wouldn’t be surprised if Chris Jericho being the first ever AEW champion was a big selling point to getting him to sign, if it wasn’t flat out spelled out.

[I'm Team Bayley and Indi]

I remember rumours of this being the case of Big Show winning in 1999, on top of that there was rumours the main event of WM2000 was a four way because a WM main event was also guaranteed to him

[Ultimo Gallos]

Not gonna mention the fed's name. But when a now defunct local indie brought in Rosey,of 3 minute warning,part of the deal was he had to win a title. So they tagged him up with one of their better rookies and they won the tag team titles.

The next show the ring announcer got on the mic "Rosey and Nate the Great lost the titles in a No Holds barred match in Sontag MS a week ago." Which got a huge laugh out of myself and a few friends. Sontag MS is a tiny town that every redneck/inbred/country joke you have heard of is legit there. Plus there is no place in Sontag to hold a show unless they set the ring up in someone's field.

[Hypnosis]

[Mozenrath]

I could buy Big Show as having had a guaranteed title run/'Mania match to entice him. A big part of why he jumped to WWF from WCW was he felt, understandably, underutilized after a point, though the main issue was money, since WCW frankly paid him way less than they should have.

Not so sure on Edge, that one may have just been WWF trying to make him a big deal right out of the gate, same with the Gangrel/Christian angle. Obviously, the tag scene was where he'd shine, but even if it feels like longer, keep in mind how it was still only a couple of years in WWF before he'd get his big singles push again. The tag years were just very packed.

One that's often cited is Luger in WCW when he returned, even if I am not entirely sure if that's true. I am sure Bischoff would deny it, but given he's been caught lying and telling people he offered Lex a huge pay cut to get him to go away and he came back, despite evidence showing he was actually given a raise in the late '90s, it's hard to say. I do know Lex was very aware that he'd been twice screwed over on main event credibility, so if he did demand a title win, that was probably a good career move. The big win over nWo, even fleetingly, did hit the mark nicely and was honestly a really good match.

[Deleted]

Goldberg surely had one during his first 1 year WWE run (and probably comeback runs too), hence the reign of terror taking a month or two off and nothing really being done with his reign other than losing it back as soon as possible.

[Phosphor Glow]

Aug 28, 2021 21:23:17 GMT -5 Hypnosis said:

I feel like with the length of his reigns this doesn't work.

[Mozenrath]

Aug 28, 2021 22:48:07 GMT -5 Phosphor Glow said:

Aug 28, 2021 21:23:17 GMT -5 Hypnosis said:

I feel like with the length of his reigns this doesn't work.

Yeah, really do get the impression his issue is more, "I get to be world champion here, or I can go somewhere else where they will probably not make me world champion", and his priorities are pretty set.

[TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out]

HHH's first major deal in 1999 included a guaranteed title reign, which was fulfilled almost immediately when he beat Foley the day after SummerSlam (and only because Ventura refused to put a heel over because it'd hurt him as politician because people are dumb)

[Jedi-El of Tomorrow]

Aug 28, 2021 23:01:48 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Aug 28, 2021 22:48:07 GMT -5 Phosphor Glow said:

I feel like with the length of his reigns this doesn't work.

Yeah, really do get the impression his issue is more, "I get to be world champion here, or I can go somewhere else where they will probably not make me world champion", and his priorities are pretty set.

Dude's so bland he makes Mike Bennett look like John Cena.

[Mozenrath]

Aug 29, 2021 0:04:04 GMT -5 TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out said:

HHH's first major deal in 1999 included a guaranteed title reign, which was fulfilled almost immediately when he beat Foley the day after SummerSlam (and only because Ventura refused to put a heel over because it'd hurt him as politician because people are dumb)

Wasn't Austin also not keen to put Triple H over there? It's obviously kind of hard to tell, it isn't generally like wrestlers advertise, "Oh yeah, I refused to do business, let me tell you all about it!", unless it's a very public situation like Austin not wanting to put Brock over since there would have been not been a build.

[petef3]

Ventura raising a babyface's hand is sensible booking, even for the Attitude Era's standards. As in, not even up for discussion. To have Triple H win that SummerSlam match would be utterly asinine and defeat the purpose of bringing Ventura in.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of these "contracted" title reigns existed in any major promotion. As in, zero of them. A lot of these wrestlers aren't belt marks to begin with the way we may think, and it goes against Vince's whole "I offer opportunities, not guarantees" philosophy.

[TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out]

Aug 29, 2021 0:25:23 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Aug 29, 2021 0:04:04 GMT -5 TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out said:

HHH's first major deal in 1999 included a guaranteed title reign, which was fulfilled almost immediately when he beat Foley the day after SummerSlam (and only because Ventura refused to put a heel over because it'd hurt him as politician because people are dumb)

Wasn't Austin also not keen to put Triple H over there? It's obviously kind of hard to tell, it isn't generally like wrestlers advertise, "Oh yeah, I refused to do business, let me tell you all about it!", unless it's a very public situation like Austin not wanting to put Brock over since there would have been not been a build.

That was the rumor, but it makes more sense that they had a convenient excuse to continue building HHH/Austin because it was a money feud that would have main evented WrestleMania if it wasn't for Austin's neck and HHH's quad

[Mozenrath]

Aug 29, 2021 0:32:36 GMT -5 TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out said:

Aug 29, 2021 0:25:23 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Wasn't Austin also not keen to put Triple H over there? It's obviously kind of hard to tell, it isn't generally like wrestlers advertise, "Oh yeah, I refused to do business, let me tell you all about it!", unless it's a very public situation like Austin not wanting to put Brock over since there would have been not been a build.

That was the rumor, but it makes more sense that they had a convenient excuse to continue building HHH/Austin because it was a money feud that would have main evented WrestleMania if it wasn't for Austin's neck and HHH's quad

That also makes sense, yeah. Like, I get why Austin would turn down a 1999 feud with Jeff Jarrett, who had kind of plateaued in WWF and Austin had personal beef with, but Triple H was a good foil and someone with considerably more upside at that time.

[TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out]

Aug 29, 2021 0:31:33 GMT -5 petef3 said:

Ventura raising a babyface's hand is sensible booking, even for the Attitude Era's standards. As in, not even up for discussion. To have Triple H win that SummerSlam match would be utterly asinine and defeat the purpose of bringing Ventura in.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of these "contracted" title reigns existed in any major promotion. As in, zero of them. A lot of these wrestlers aren't belt marks to begin with the way we may think, and it goes against Vince's whole "I offer opportunities, not guarantees" philosophy.

The main issue with Ventura's involvement is really the main issue with WWE in 1999 in general: nothing matters besides the immediate reaction in the moment.

And I'm like 95% sure that HHH was guaranteed a title shot for resigning, which I don't really disagree with Vince doing

[Mozenrath]

Aug 29, 2021 0:31:33 GMT -5 petef3 said:

Ventura raising a babyface's hand is sensible booking, even for the Attitude Era's standards. As in, not even up for discussion. To have Triple H win that SummerSlam match would be utterly asinine and defeat the purpose of bringing Ventura in.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of these "contracted" title reigns existed in any major promotion. As in, zero of them. A lot of these wrestlers aren't belt marks to begin with the way we may think, and it goes against Vince's whole "I offer opportunities, not guarantees" philosophy.

I can buy that, re: Ventura. By the time he'd have been booked to ref, it would for sure be a face winning, since guest refs are almost always going to mean a face winning, anyway, much less one who at the time was a pretty big get.

As for the zero thing, it's not an issue of being a belt mark, it's an issue of them giving a shit about their market value, especially during the Monday Night Wars, where that was still pretty important, even if it was less important than the territory days. Didn't mean everyone wanted a title, Piper famously resisted most any attempts to give him one since he didn't like being beholden to the expectations attached to them, but for a lot of guys, it wasn't just ego, it was money.

[petef3]

A title reign is hardly proof of more money. It may result in more main events in another era, but by the time of the Attitude Era no one ever held a title long enough for that to matter. Plus I think even a '90s wrestler can see how easily the WWF could game that clause by putting a title on them one week and taking it off of them the next.

[polarbearpete]

Sorry but there’s just about no chance at all that WWF/WWE has put guaranteed title reigns in their actual contracts.

[James Fabiano]

Not a title, but the KISS Demon "had" to be in a main event per year.

[TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out]

Aug 29, 2021 9:55:30 GMT -5 polarbearpete said:

Sorry but there’s just about no chance at all that WWF/WWE has put guaranteed title reigns in their actual contracts.

I can't find it at the moment, but I remember seeing a copy of HHH's contract in 1999 and it including a guaranteed title reign.