JerryvonKramer Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Who do you side with? I categorically side with Vince. 100%. Arguments here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Why do you side with Vince? We actually already have a Montreal thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Is there a "neither" option? Or a "I side with Vince on the night of Montreal, but I side with Bret for every other night in 1997" option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 There is no argument. Bret was 100% in the right and Vince and Shawn were 100% in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Should have just put the belt on Shamrock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I think this argument is too framed around our personal opinions. A contract is a contract is a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I think this argument is too framed around our personal opinions. A contract is a contract is a contract. For what it's worth, I was more inclined to take the pro-Vince side of the argument until this board convinced me otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Their was a contract, but Bret did have creative control . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I'd like to think Loss refers to the contract Vince broke and that's his point. The day of Montreal Vince has a point but his actions in that past year are so deplorable that at that point Bret owed him nothing. It's Bret and it's not even close. Signing someone to a contract you have NO intention to pay and bail out on to prevent them from taking a job elsewhere is disgusting behavior. And I don't even believe it was for business reasons purely, it was Vince's insane man crush on Shawn Michaels refusing to know bounds or see common sense. Vince spent a year doing everything possible to ruin Bret Hart's value without being so obvious he ended up alienating his entire locker room and having his head handed to him. I truly believe he was supporting everything HHH and Shawn did to Bret, because he resented a talent being smart enough to negotiate a great deal for what he felt he was worth rather than the "dumb rasling jocks you control with an insane schedule that all but forces them to do drugs" style he had always employed in dealing with most of his talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I'd argue for Bret, but I honestly don't know what argument there is in favor of Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxnj Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I'm not sure what it means to "side" with someone in this. On one hand, I can completely understand why Bret wouldn't want to lose on that night to Shawn and why he would have been as pissed as he was with how things turned out. On the other, I also think it was a brilliant and ballsy move by Vince to do that so he could jump start the Mr. McMahon character he had been building for months and turn Shawn into the hottest heel possible for Austin to take the title off him. After reading Meltzer's account I see no reason Vince would have done it if he didn't foresee how it could have helped business and he deserves more credit than he usually gets for taking such a huge risk to help his company in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR Ackermann Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 How is lying and breaking the terms you established the right thing you to do? I understand why Vince did it but that doesn't mean it was right in any way whatsoever. If a guy broke into someone's house to commit burglary and then the homeowner caught him and then the burglar killed the homeowner so he wouldn't be caught and sent to prison would you side with the burglar? He was just acting in the interest of self-preservation. Does that justify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Bret had creative control in his contract, it's just that simple. No matter what else you think about the situation, Bret was within his contractual rights to do what he did. Did it potentially make things more complicated for Vince? Sure, but it's his fault for giving Bret that control in his contract. It's been funny to watch Meltzer every two to three months have to respond to someone who says Vince had no choice but to screw Bret. I think a lot of people still believe that there was a very real danger of Bret showing up on Nitro with the WWF Championship, or that Bret refused to lose the title at all, period. Both those points have been debunked countless times, which makes Vince's case for doing it even flimsier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Who do you side with? I categorically side with Vince. 100%. Arguments here. Bret's contract said he had reasonable creative control. Reasonable creative control was defined as something agreed upon by both sides. So... Vince is in the wrong 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I lean to Bret but without a ton of sympathy. I also don't believe for a second that Vince saw the whole future of the Mr. McMahon character when he did it, though he probably believed it would create a useful stir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I still think, wrestling being not a legitimately competitive sport, when the guy who owns the company says you're losing the belt here to this guy, why whine so much about it? Once it came down to Bret thinking handing the belt over on raw and giving a speech about why he was leaving was a legit option, all bets were off. Bret's argument is basically "not in my home country, not to a guy I dislike." I could MAYBE see if it was in Calgary, but big whoop about Montreal. Even then though......you're being asked to lose a fake fight before you go work somewhere else. As it was, the end result of Montreal was fantastic for the WWF, and should have been for Bret but WCW messed that up royally. So, I think I second the "Bret everyday in 97, except Vince for this one." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 The creative control issue is completely and totally irrelevant to the matter of why Vince is wrong. Bret could be and may have been a delusional mark for himself, but that is also irrelevant. The bottom line is that Vince signed Bret to a contract, then told Bret "oops, I can't pay you, go ahead and go to WCW and take their money." Everything else is just excess, the real issue is that Vince signed Bret to a contract he reneged on. At that point he's lucky Bret didn't just walk out as champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 The creative control issue is completely and totally irrelevant to the matter of why Vince is wrong. Bret could be and may have been a delusional mark for himself, but that is also irrelevant. The bottom line is that Vince signed Bret to a contract, then told Bret "oops, I can't pay you, go ahead and go to WCW and take their money." Everything else is just excess, the real issue is that Vince signed Bret to a contract he reneged on. At that point he's lucky Bret didn't just walk out as champion Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 The creative control issue is completely and totally irrelevant to the matter of why Vince is wrong. Bret could be and may have been a delusional mark for himself, but that is also irrelevant. The bottom line is that Vince signed Bret to a contract, then told Bret "oops, I can't pay you, go ahead and go to WCW and take their money." Everything else is just excess, the real issue is that Vince signed Bret to a contract he reneged on. At that point he's lucky Bret didn't just walk out as champion Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 It doesn't matter what excuse Vince had for why he couldn't pay Bret. He signed him to a contract. He couldn't afford to pay him and told him to go look elsewhere, after he had effectively killed his negotiating leverage by signing him to contract he couldn't honor. I personally think the argument that Vince couldn't afford him is transparently absurd and laughable on the face of it,but even if you accept it it's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Seems like Vince is the bad guy legally. If Bret hadn't been such a douche about things I'd say he was 100% in the right morally. As it is, I'd side with Bret, but not have any sympathy at all for what happened to him given his behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I was just thinking there is a big difference between an actual breach of contract, and agreeing to allow someone a window to negotiate with third parties. And if Bret continued to work with the WWF after a breach, that would likely be viewed as acquiescence which can essentially remedy such a breach. All of which is to say, while McMahon may have handled business badly, Bret was still under a binding contract at the time of the PPV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 What is the big difference between saying "I refuse to honor the terms of your contract" and a breach of contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 The creative control issue is completely and totally irrelevant to the matter of why Vince is wrong. Bret could be and may have been a delusional mark for himself, but that is also irrelevant. The bottom line is that Vince signed Bret to a contract, then told Bret "oops, I can't pay you, go ahead and go to WCW and take their money." Everything else is just excess, the real issue is that Vince signed Bret to a contract he reneged on. At that point he's lucky Bret didn't just walk out as champion Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who. Allowing him to negotiate with a third party is not a breach. And, legally speaking, "reasonable creative control" is meaningless unless it was further defined in the contract. But it seems like Bret wanted closer to full creative control by dictating how/when he would or would not lose the title, and full control may not have been reasonable, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Framing the debate as "allowing him to negotiate with a third party" is a stretch so massive Jerry McDevitt wouldn't even make it. Vince told Bret he would be breaching his contract. This literally occurred. He literally said to him "I cannot and will not hold up my end of the bargain." This isn't even disputed. At that point to then say "hey don't worry, he can go negotiate with these other guys" is irrelevant - he'd already told Bret he wasn't going to honor his deal and (at least arguably) hurt his position in terms of negotiations compared to where Bret had been the year prior when he actually was a free agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts