|
Post by wolfmoon103100 on Nov 30, 2007 19:30:41 GMT -5
Remember Madusa and the womans championship? Vince had every right to be paranoid that it would happen again. It was Ruthless back then. Bishoff would loved to do it again.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Nov 30, 2007 19:36:47 GMT -5
I look toward a day when I don't have to hear about the screwjob or a day when Bret isn't whining. Agreed. At this point, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong. I just just don't give an f'. Agreed 100%. I was hoping that now that a f***ing Decade has passed since it happened, we'd never have to hear of it again.
|
|
|
Post by jcdenton on Nov 30, 2007 19:40:45 GMT -5
who cares at this point?
|
|
|
Post by normcoleman on Nov 30, 2007 19:46:15 GMT -5
can't we admit that all parties were in the wrong in some form?
|
|
threev
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 601
|
Post by threev on Nov 30, 2007 19:55:19 GMT -5
Bret screwed Bret.
Deciding who and who you don't job to with your contract expiring and the World Title involved does not constitute "reasonable" creative control, it demonstrates a will to want total control, which he did not contractually have.
Second, it doesn't matter where you lose or who you lose to. It's fake. And he was leaving the company. The fact that he cared is his own fault.
Vince was 100% correct.
|
|
jayjaystyles
AC Slater
Mongo never realized his best accomplishment ended at midnight on 31/01/1986
Posts: 121
|
Post by jayjaystyles on Nov 30, 2007 20:12:28 GMT -5
Let it Die. 10 years was a lifetime ago in the world of wrestling, Bret went to WCW was misused for 2 years and then Russo threw the belt around his waist a couple times. all while Steve Austin, Rock, Mick, Taker and Hunter were helping Vince build the biggest monopoly in sports history. Bret's career was ended by a steroid injected freak who tried to kick his head off his shoulders, while Shawn Michaels sat out for 4 years came back and started one of the most heated rivalries we've ever seen with his best friend. Shawn won the inagural Elimination Chamber match, while Bret was sitting at home suffering complications from a severe bicycle accident. Bret refused to be inducted to the HOF if Shawn was there, Shawn told Vince he and Bret had both moved on, yet Bret didnt want Michaels to be at his induction, what if Michaels walked up there and offered a genuine congradulatory handshake, would Bret have stiffed him on it? All 3 men, Hart Michaels and McMahon are Egotistical Petulent Children. Bret was a great wrestler in his time, hes not anymore, hes just some guy who lives in Italy now. There is no good or evil from the screwjob, just three grown men who dont want to talk about it, because all three were wrong. In 1997 Bret was screwed but the fans have been screwed by a watered down product since 2001. Bret gave Vince a cashcow by leaving, Michaels came back and has been solid since, and Vince sits on a pile of BS in Stamford and gets fat off our money we pay to watch his crappy product. All three are flawed, but Bret probably wouldnt have done it to Michaels if he was leaving for WCW. Bret would have never knowingly participated in the screwjob, at least i would like to think Bret has more integrity than that.
|
|
threev
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 601
|
Post by threev on Nov 30, 2007 20:16:43 GMT -5
Honestly, what in the hell does it matter if people are discussing it or not? Is someone forcing your eyeballs along the thread? Holy goodness gracious.
There are timeless debates in all facets of life. If you don't want to participate in it, don't click it. What do you think a thread titled "Bret Hart Screwed Bret Hart" is going to be about? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 30, 2007 20:17:31 GMT -5
If I never saw another Montreal thread ever again, I'd be pretty giddy.
And I've gotta click every thread, so that's really not an option for me.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Nov 30, 2007 20:39:18 GMT -5
Bret screwed Bret is so true. Still don't get the Canada arguement. Still don't get the HBK arguement. Still don't get the "would drop to anybody but" arguement". That's bs if he was such a professional he would have dropped the belt. Creative Control. Two words can make 100 pages of sensible arguments void and meaningless. Both sides have their "if"s and their "but"s and their valid points, but when it comes down to the core of the matter, Bret had creative control for his last 30 days of contract. Vince didn't respect the contract, so Vince screwed Bret.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Nov 30, 2007 22:02:09 GMT -5
If I never saw another Montreal thread ever again, I'd be pretty giddy. And I've gotta click every thread, so that's really not an option for me. I know what you mean. I knew another Montreal thread would just be annoying and I clicked on it anyway. It's like a sickness.
|
|
|
Post by DeuceDominoMark on Nov 30, 2007 23:00:52 GMT -5
If Hickenbottom refused to job to Bret at Wrestle-f***ing-Mania, Bret shouldn't have had to job to him at Survivor Series.
Besides, you got it all wrong, the correct answer is...
Wendi Richter screwed Wendi Richter!
|
|
|
Post by Captain Wonderful on Nov 30, 2007 23:17:54 GMT -5
I look toward a day when I don't have to hear about the screwjob or a day when Bret isn't whining.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 30, 2007 23:21:18 GMT -5
Bret screwed Bret is so true. Still don't get the Canada arguement. Still don't get the HBK arguement. Still don't get the "would drop to anybody but" arguement". That's bs if he was such a professional he would have dropped the belt. Creative Control. Two words can make 100 pages of sensible arguments void and meaningless. Both sides have their "if"s and their "but"s and their valid points, but when it comes down to the core of the matter, Bret had creative control for his last 30 days of contract. Vince didn't respect the contract, so Vince screwed Bret. But on THIS website Nash, Hogan, Angle, HBK, and Jarrett are called out on their creative control as being unprofessional. What's the difference with Bret Hart?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2007 23:25:44 GMT -5
At the end of the day, Bret can only complain so much. I remember Bad News Brown/ Allen saying that he hated that Bret whines so much about being "screwed" when countless other guys never had a belt to get screwed out of in the first place. Plus, the amount of money he made in WCW for the amount of actual work he did is absolutely obscene. Maybe, but with Bret it wasn't about the money as I think he wanted to end his career there in WWE. Yeah, but he still took the checks (hell, I'd do the same thing). Why was it so hard for him to just stay? So he didn't couldn't get along with Bret, so what? Countless guys can't get along with other guys but still stick around. I wonder why exactly these two couldn't let it go.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Nov 30, 2007 23:29:57 GMT -5
Creative Control. Two words can make 100 pages of sensible arguments void and meaningless. Both sides have their "if"s and their "but"s and their valid points, but when it comes down to the core of the matter, Bret had creative control for his last 30 days of contract. Vince didn't respect the contract, so Vince screwed Bret. But on THIS website Nash, Hogan, Angle, HBK, and Jarrett are called out on their creative control as being unprofessional. What's the difference with Bret Hart? Probably something to do with "workrate" whatever the hell that means.
|
|
El Dandy
Don Corleone
Who are you to doubt El Dandy?
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by El Dandy on Nov 30, 2007 23:45:56 GMT -5
Creative Control. Two words can make 100 pages of sensible arguments void and meaningless. Both sides have their "if"s and their "but"s and their valid points, but when it comes down to the core of the matter, Bret had creative control for his last 30 days of contract. Vince didn't respect the contract, so Vince screwed Bret. But on THIS website Nash, Hogan, Angle, HBK, and Jarrett are called out on their creative control as being unprofessional. What's the difference with Bret Hart? Who gives a crap what some nerds on the internet think of 'creative control'? How is it unprofessional if it is part of their contract? It is a clause in their contract that was negotiated by two sides. How is that unprofessional? In sports. there is a no-trade or no-movement clause that stipulates a player will have the right to reject a trade involving him or can reject being reported to the minors. Is that unprofessional if the general manager of a team agreed to include such a clause? Maybe you should learn something about contracts.
|
|
|
Post by kickassforumguyme on Nov 30, 2007 23:54:44 GMT -5
After seeing the Bret DVD and the HBK DVD I think Brets a Jackass.
Shawn really was better then him and shawn has matured at least, Brets still a jackass.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 30, 2007 23:54:57 GMT -5
Maybe you should learn something about smashing double standards.
If using creative control to get out of losing is bad when one guy uses it, it's bad when EVERYBODY uses it.
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Nov 30, 2007 23:59:02 GMT -5
Was it "creative control" or "reasonable creative control" that Bret had within his contract?
|
|
|
Post by tankmcquade on Dec 1, 2007 0:02:59 GMT -5
Why do I get the feeling 30ish years from now, all of us will be in our 50s and STILL debating the Montreal Screwjob?
|
|