|
||||||||
World Wrestling Entertainment Discussion 41 (Spoilers) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Quote:
You say it like they did the business in the knowledge that over a year later they couldn't honour it anymore. Unless that is what happened?
What basically happened was Bret became disillusioned with WWF's move towards the Attitude Era and WCW offered him a large contract to jump ship. Hart ultimately remained loyal to the WWF and signed a huge 20 year contract. When WWF started to lose money due to getting stomped in the ratings, Vince told Bret to go to WCW as they couldn't actually afford his contract. Bret didn't want to go to WCW and rightfully wanted to go out on his own terms. He certainly didn't want to drop the title to Michaels, who he had major heat with in real life. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Bret's contract was 20 years, 3 years as a wrestler and 17 as office staff IIRC. It's possible in 1997 he was single-handedly drawing more money for WWF in Canada than they were paying him, but there's no real way to know.
Off topic but Big Damo won the ICW belt tonight, so congrats to him. |
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,165
|
Where is Raw this Monday? I know Taker is back and Cena posted a pic of him on Instagram, but Cena also posted a pic of Punk and there's a Raw in Chicago so I'm thinking that's a hit that he returns there as Shane's man.
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
Where is Raw this Monday? I know Taker is back and Cena posted a pic of him on Instagram, but Cena also posted a pic of Punk and there's a Raw in Chicago so I'm thinking that's a hit that he returns there as Shane's man.
Cena be trolling, most likely. |
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,365
|
Quote:
Absolutely. If Vince refused to honour a contract, Bret should have sued him.
I still don't believe anybody would allow their top champion out of that building holding their belt knowing he was signing with WCW. And I'd say exactly the same thing if somebody refused to job to anybody the company wanted him to in their final match. If Bischoff, Heyman or even Dixie Carter (who am I kidding, she'd have gift wrapped the title and paid for the airfare to Raw) had done the same thing. Id have been more happier Bret putting Austin over at Mania to end their feud that had been established since 1996. Quote:
You'd have allowed Eric Bischoff announce on Nitro an hour before Raw even went on the air that the current WWF Champion was coming to WCW?
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,365
|
Quote:
And if you were Vince McMahon you wouldn't have wanted an outgoing Bret Hart holding your title on his way out.
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,365
|
Quote:
I suggest you watch Wrestling With Shadows if you haven't already, it's an excellent documentary about Bret's final year in the WWF, leading up to Survivor Series. All from his point of view (but of course at the time, it's the only point of view we had as Vince McMahon stayed quiet about the whole affair.)
What basically happened was Bret became disillusioned with WWF's move towards the Attitude Era and WCW offered him a large contract to jump ship. Hart ultimately remained loyal to the WWF and signed a huge 20 year contract. When WWF started to lose money due to getting stomped in the ratings, Vince told Bret to go to WCW as they couldn't actually afford his contract. Bret didn't want to go to WCW and rightfully wanted to go out on his own terms. He certainly didn't want to drop the title to Michaels, who he had major heat with in real life. But the DVD is fantastic and wonderful, the special edition is even better cos it has a Owen documentary. |
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 14,316
|
Shiny new thread. Quote:
Prepare for WWE to once again ruin something those on the internet like. Quote:
Rumor is that it will be a triple threat HHH vs Lesnar vs Wyatt.
Wyatt undoubtedly there to take the pin of course Also - as is thread tradition - post counts from the previous thread: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/misc....sted&t=2109523 |
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: london-essex
Posts: 8,811
|
if it wasn't for the shock return of Shane there would not be a single reason to watch wrestlemania.... and as he is not doing a one off, there isnt still.
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 4,837
|
Quote:
Where is Raw this Monday? I know Taker is back and Cena posted a pic of him on Instagram, but Cena also posted a pic of Punk and there's a Raw in Chicago so I'm thinking that's a hit that he returns there as Shane's man.
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Could we see a situation tonight where Taker refuses to fight for Vince and instead sides with Shane leading McMahon to bring in a club of the Bullet variety?
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,929
|
Quote:
Could we see a situation tonight where Taker refuses to fight for Vince and instead sides with Shane leading McMahon to bring in a club of the Bullet variety?
As it is, I reckon Taker will initially refuse and Vince will mention he's upped the stakes/forgot to mention the career of The Undertaker is on the line also. Many have been under the assumption it was his last match, which it still could be. Like the WWE to play on that. It would be fitting in a way if it's a McMahon who ends the gimmick onscreen/offscreen as it was a McMahon who created it. |
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,669
|
Meltzer posted this on the observer board last year about Montreal. Quote:
Getting the belt off Bret was not an issue in Montreal or ever an issue.
Bret's position was that he would lose the title to anyone at any time after November 11th. He felt the way the Michaels-Hart angle was scripted, that him coming in without the belt would weaken the show and he wasn't going to lose the title in Canada. He was under contract through Nov. 30, and Bischoff agreed to give him until after the the following PPV to drop the title. It was agreed to all he'd lose Dec. 7 in Springfield, MA at the next PPV before Montreal in a four-way with he, Shawn, Shamrock & Taker. They wanted to beat him in Canada to hurt his drawing power in Canada because they were still ahead in that market while behind in the U.S., and Bret was the biggest draw at the time in Canada. He had a clause in his contract that stated all booking in his last 30 days would have to be mutually agreed upon. Vince had no legal right to say I'm the boss, they had to both sign off on anything at that point. Bret turned down every idea that involved losing it in Canada or before Montreal. And agreed to anything after, although in a letter his lawyer sent where he specifically stated he was willing to lose the title any time, anywhere to anyone, he suggested losing to Austin and asked to do so, but it was clear that wasn't a demand. So yeah, not only was getting the belt off him not an issue, but he asked to lose the belt to Austin. |
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
|
Bret should have dropped it before Montreal.
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 23,152
|
Quote:
Possible, but it would be a bit unusual for them to use wrestlers unknown to casuals in a setup which seems like a homage to the late 90s. Austin, Rock are more likely to make cameos on Shane's part.
As it is, I reckon Taker will initially refuse and Vince will mention he's upped the stakes/forgot to mention the career of The Undertaker is on the line also. Many have been under the assumption it was his last match, which it still could be. Like the WWE to play on that. It would be fitting in a way if it's a McMahon who ends the gimmick onscreen/offscreen as it was a McMahon who created it. |
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 23,152
|
I think I've mentioned this before, but I'd really like to see Lesnar doing more moves. The only moves he does these days are suplexes, Kimoura Locks and F5s. I'd like to see him do more submissions, spinebusters, DDTs, powerslams and powerbombs. Anything to freshen up his moveset rather than brawling, suplexing and F5ing.
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,165
|
Quote:
Isn't Punk under contract elsewhere so probably can't fight in WWE, Plus he just had back surgery so not likely
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,165
|
Also, Meltzer was tweeting something earlier in the week about a guest referee so I think Austin will be involved in Mania in that capacity.
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,444
|
Quote:
Shiny new thread.
Cue mass mark-out lol. Prepare for WWE to once again ruin something those on the internet like. What a random match if true, And a waste of a Lesnar appearance - they really are burning through those at the moment. Also - as is thread tradition - post counts from the previous thread: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/misc....sted&t=2109523 .
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Quote:
I think I've mentioned this before, but I'd really like to see Lesnar doing more moves. The only moves he does these days are suplexes, Kimoura Locks and F5s. I'd like to see him do more submissions, spinebusters, DDTs, powerslams and powerbombs. Anything to freshen up his moveset rather than brawling, suplexing and F5ing.
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,178
|
Quote:
I think I've mentioned this before, but I'd really like to see Lesnar doing more moves. The only moves he does these days are suplexes, Kimoura Locks and F5s. I'd like to see him do more submissions, spinebusters, DDTs, powerslams and powerbombs. Anything to freshen up his moveset rather than brawling, suplexing and F5ing.
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 733
|
Quote:
Isn't Punk under contract elsewhere so probably can't fight in WWE, Plus he just had back surgery so not likely
I realise that if he came back on Raw in Chicago, the IWC would literally shit themselves, but it's not happening. |
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Quote:
For the absolute final time as I am sick of telling people this, CM Punk back in WWE? Won't happen, he QUIT 2 years ago, took his ball and went home, resigned, walked out.
I realise that if he came back on Raw in Chicago, the IWC would literally shit themselves, but it's not happening. |
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,929
|
Quote:
I didn't think of a career threatening match for Taker. It would be the right time and place to do it, but I'd rather it not be against Shane. Also, Taker on the side of a heel McMahon is very weird. I'm sure that we won't actually get Shane vs Taker at WM. Unless...an Undertaker heel turn? Is that even possible?
If in kayfabe Shane did win (albeit help from someone) and take control of WWE, it would be quite symbolic if to do he had to retire one of his dad's era's greatest creations. Like you I'm not keen on his career threatening match being against a middle aged non wrestler. But then I can't think of a better scenario running in the background. Only a career match against a heel Cena would top it, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,365
|
Quote:
Bret should have dropped it before Montreal.
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:59.




.
