Originally Posted by Trouble Trouble
The problem I have with your post is the fact that Vince already pulled a "screwjob" 8 years prior, based on Wendi Richter deciding not to resign with WWE. Go back to 1991, when Vince paid Ric Flair to show up on WWF TV with the WCW Title. Go back to 1995, where Luger had jumped ship the day after competing for WWE, without letting Vince know ahead of time. Madusa, in a similar situation, signed with WCW while holding a WWE belt, showed up on Nitro and threw it in the trash. Now, my opinion is that Vince did the right thing, as history shows that trust was thrown out the window years ago, when it comes down to money.
None of us can say whether or not Bret would have shown up on Nitro with the WWE Title. But at the same time, is it wrong for Vince to prevent the possibility of that happening? And answer this: What was the reason Bret left WWE for?
Again with trust. Did Flair give WCW a reason not trust him? Did Wendi Richter, Lex Luger or Madusa give Vince reasons not to trust them? And look what happened. All of them either screwed over their boss or got screwed over for not wanting to do business and lose their titles, eventhough they weren't under contract or signed with the competition. And I know HBK has done tons of fucked up shit, so he's automatically the scapegoat. Look at the relationship Hogan and Vince had. Hogan, giving Vince the impression he was retiring, sat out the remainder of his contract. And 6 months later, he signs with the competition. History has shown there is no such thing as loyalty or trust from the wrestlers to the promoters, what makes Vince/Bret so different? How can you say that Bret wouldn't have jumped ship with the belt, but for us that thinks he might have, you say there is no logic behind that?
Wendi Richter was an employee for 2 years. Lex Luger was an employee for 2 years. Alundra Blayze was an employee for 2 years. Bret Hart was an employee for approximately 15. There is a massive difference between the employer trusting someone who has been with the company for 2 years and trusting someone who has been there a decade and a half.
All I see you doing is borrowing trouble. IF Bret did this. IF Bret did that. WHAT IF Bret had done blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is that you automatically assume the worst of a man who was very willing to do business and said that he'd not only job to Shawn, but actually HAD done so in the past.
Originally Posted by Trouble Trouble
In case you didn't know, Attitude Era started months before HBK/Austin. HBK refusing to drop the title had no effect on AE happening or not and I might be crazy, but I thought HBK/Austin were friends. And I've heard Undertaker had to threaten HBK to get him to job but with the way his back was, why would he refuse to job? So, it's a problem for HBK refusing to job because "he would have ruined Austin's push" but it's okay for Bret refusing to job because HBK "hypothetically" said he wouldn't return the favor. Even if HBK said he wouldn't return the favor, what difference would it have made? Bret was leaving, it's not like HBK was scheduled to drop the belt back to him the next month, the feud was likely done at that point. IMO, Bret and Shawn were acting like a bunch of fucking babies. However, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Sometimes, you have to be the bigger man. We all know Shawn was immature but when Bret went from willing to drop it to not willing because HBK said wouldn't do it for him, Bret officially dropped to his level. If I'm Vince, I wouldn't cater to a guy who could potentially jump ship with my title, a guy who doesn't want to do whats right for business, despite being so outspoken against another guy who he classifies as a guy who doesn't want to do whats right for business and, lastly, a guy who basically made the whole situation financially related. Bret left because WCW was willing to pay him more than WWE could. I understand he has a family but what makes you think that if Bischoff offered him a significantly large amount of money, he wouldn't have showed up on Nitro with Vince's title?
While smarks know the AE started earlier in 1997, its officially recognized by the WWE and majority of casual wrestling fans as being WM14 when Austin won.
Watch the Bret/Shawn DVD. In it Shawn even ADMITS he said he wouldn't return the favor to Bret, so its not hypothetical.
Undertaker has admitted in interviews before about how he had to lay down the law with Shawn, and I'd take his word over just about anyone else in the locker room.
Shawn refused to job to Austin at WM14 because despite the fact that his back was a complete mess, Shawn did not want to lose the title, which is no different from how he didn't want to lose titles any OTHER time in his career. He was a massive egomaniac and was sickened with the thought that he might lose the spotlight by losing, even though he could barely walk.
If HBK, who had guaranteed creative control in his contract from amassing all his political power backstage, didn't job to Austin, then no Austin win at WM14, now start of Austin 3:16 as the champion, no feud with Mr. McMahon, etc. So yes, Shawn very realistically could have ruined the push. The first Raw that beat Nitro in almost 2 years was in April, 1998. It featured Austin vs. Vince as the main event. If Austin hadn't won at WM14, you would have had no time to build this match up, because no Austin winning means no Austin vs Vince. That win at WM14 was what set the feud in motion. If Austin didn't get it, one can only guess how things might have turned out later. How long was HBK planning on keeping the belt? Until he was paralyzed at Summerslam? Hell, WCW could have won the war in that time.
All I see you doing is vilifying Bret, yet giving no concrete reasons as to why, except that you have some sort of problem with the guy. His opponent was being unprofessional, so Bret says he does not want to work with him. I think that's a pretty reasonable expectation. Instead, you call BRET unprofessional. You say BRET was the one who was in the wrong for not being the bigger man. Its like you clearly ignore everything that was Shawn's doing. When Vince approached Shawn with the idea of having Bret go over that night, Michaels refused. Where was Shawn being the bigger man? Where was his professionalism? No, you lay it squarely on Bret, despite the fact that Bret was fully willing to do business with this guy up until Shawn's immaturity and unprofessional conduct kicked into high gear and Bret understandably didn't want to work with him. He and Shawn hated each other, how was he supposed to know Shawn wouldn't 'drop' him on his head or something to that effect? This goes back to the trust the guys have with each other in the ring. And you're a liar if you say that if you were in Bret's situation you'd have gone in there and just lost with a smile on your face, so don't try to.
Bret, with confirmation, has also said that the plan was for him to lose it the next night or 8 days later on Raw, since they wouldn't be in Montreal any longer. So its very obvious Bret wasn't going to just show up with the title in WCW, in fact I think his contract ended later in November, so he was technically still employed by the WWF, still having time to drop it.
Vince has the right to take certain measures to prevent what happened with Madusa from happening again. However, this was most DEFINITELY not the right way to fix the situation. And yet despite all of this shit you keep talking, you had also not given any proof as to why Bret actually deserved what happened to him? Let's say Bret was in the wrong, that he should have just lost and was being stubborn. That STILL does not excuse the humiliation and betrayal he received in front of the tens of thousands at the arena, everyone watching on PPV, and in front of the entire locker room. They could EASILY have just fabricated an injury where someone won via DQ (not a clean win, so there is obvious pride retained), and then have Bret be hurt kayfabe afterwards, then be forced to vacate, with Shawn winning a tournament to crown the new champion. See? Easy and behind the scenes, the personal shit stays personal. But no, Vince decided it was much better to go the route he did and it was absolutely the wrong thing to do, there were 100 other ways it could have been handled better. The fact that he handled it so poorly means that he's mainly at fault. If we're going at it from a professionalism angle, then its Shawn. Such a horrible, unjust outcome for something so fucking stupid and petty. No one deserves what Bret had happen to him. So even in a fictitious situation where Bret WAS acting badly, even then he STILL did not act the worst, and that's the point of this thread. Vince didn't just betray Bret, he betrayed the entire roster with that little public display.