Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:46 AM
Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:48 AM
Yeah, the Ross angle was the first hints of turning Vince heel that I remember.
Not really, Vince was clearly supposed to be the babyface in that feud.
Except they ran that angle in Philadelphia and when Ross refers to Vince as "the egotistical owner of this company" the crowd goes wild.
Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:14 PM
Any answer that isn't "Vince McMahon is an incredibly strange person with control issues" hardly suffices.
This, basically. I'm glad that Bret and Shawn buried the hatchet with each other, and after watching the Greatest Rivalries program I have little doubt as to the veracity of Shawn's remorse over the whole thing. Mostly because he didn't get very preachy about it (Bret brought up him being born again first, actually), or at least didn't appear to. The knowledge that Bret remained so violently bitter about it until it got the better of him and lead to his stroke had to have been eating away at him, and indeed Vince too.
I'm hoping Bret revises his book soon, in light of the recent reconciliation. It was published in 2007, and the final chapters were indicative of that he still had some grudges with Shawn and Hunter. It would be interesting if he put it all to rest that way, and talked about it frankly.
Posted 13 September 2013 - 01:14 PM
If I recall correctly the WWF made a loss of $5m dollars that year. Bret's contract (was it $2m-ish?) represented a near halving of that deficit, if one assumes that PPV revenues wouldn't have changed as a result of Bret's absence. So I suppose that one could indeed justify it as a cost-cutting measure, consdering Bret's base salary was so far ahead of anybody else's.
The whole "Bret's contract was too expensive" story has always sounded a bit weird to me. I don't know what the exact annual amount was, but was it really the crippling financial burden Vince made it out to be? Was letting Bret go to WCW really the only answer?
But somehow, McMahon and the WWF were able to pay Mike Tyson the money they did not more than 3-4 months later.
Posted 13 September 2013 - 01:16 PM
So why the hell didn't he just let Shawn go and keep Bret instead? Hart was a much more reliable employee and a better consistent draw than Michaels was. Getting rid of HBK would've meant Vince instantly becoming free of a lot of the backstage problems which had plagued the company; and it's not like WCW would've had any idea of what to do with Shawn anyway. And if the WWF no longer had to pay Shawn's probably-huge salary, then Bret's contract suddenly becomes infinitely more affordable. It boils down to Vince showing a really bizarre and still-unexplained favoritism to Shawn, letting him get away with all kinds of ridiculous bullshit which McMahon would've NEVER tolerated from any other performer before or since.
Also, this doesn't always get brought up, but Vince was worried about losing Shawn too. Shawn had asked for his release on multiple occasions and let it be plainly known that he wanted to join Hall and Nash in WCW. Vince created that monster, but at that point he needed HBK and really, really couldn't afford to say no to him. Michaels would have faked an injury and bitched and moaned his way out of the company if he had to, it isn't like that kind of thing hadn't happened multiple times over the years, as far back as 93 when he was still a midcarder.
In a way, Vince and the WWF did rid themselves of Shawn Michaels.
It just took a significant back "injury" to do so that wouldn't come until WMXIV.
Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:30 PM
Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:35 PM
Posted 14 April 2014 - 02:53 PM
With Bix finding the documents with the contract offer to Warrior in 1997 after the screwjob, does this bring Vince's reasoning that he couldn't afford Bret into question? I had always assumed he was freeing up money to pay for Tyson. If he wasn't, was the screwjob always a plan to create the "Mr. McMahon" character and really didn't have anything to do with money?
Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:21 PM
Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:24 PM
Posted 14 April 2014 - 04:00 PM
Posted 14 April 2014 - 11:05 PM
Warrior in the Attitude Era would have been a bad fit, unless maybe they stuck him working with Undertaker/Kane/Mankind. Other than that I can't see how he would have blended in, without it being awful.
Posted 15 April 2014 - 01:03 AM
Bret wasn't getting royalties under the 1996 contract, though, was he? Warrior's offer was $750K/year plus a higher royalty percentage than everyone else in the company got.
I would be surprised of Bret wasn't getting royalties on Merch when "everyone else is getting 25%".
He also was likely getting the standard license rate, which is from the pool of money that goes to wrestlers for video. Bret was pretty prominent on those, so probably got as much as anyone from those over a course of years (i.e. Nash and Shawn spiking in their title years, but Bret consistently being #1 or #2 because of his placement on loads of videos).
As far as calling into question the old story, we need to remember the time frame it was given for:
* Vince had $$$ issues when initially going to Bret about $$$ issues (earlier in the summer)
* Vince didn't have $$$ issues at the time when Bret made the decision to go
Hence he had the $$$ for Warrior, especially since Bret's contract was off the books when he left.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users