Bret Hart responds to Ric Flair's comments

[chaosrage 0]

According to Bret he stated that the plan was for Hart to go over in Montreal and then for HBK to go over in a fatal fourway the following month. I also think HBK was also referring to not doing the job back for Bret at WM 13.

He wasn't referring to anything about WM13. Shawn's story has always been that he was injured for WM13, not that he refused to job to Bret.

 

Bret wanted to go over at the big PPV, and he wanted Shawn to win at the little insignificant IYH ppv in a 4 WAY MATCH. I don't know why Vince and Shawn didn't jump all over that.

[Scroby 0]

The only Bret wanted to do was be the home-town hero since it was the last time he was gonna be wrestling in Canada for the WWE. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean it didn't hurt anyone with the way the match ended, it would have ended with a double DQ. It wouldn't have hurt Bret or Shawn in any way at all. Also the only reason why Bret talks about the Montrel thing so much is because it was a huge thing on his career and made a huge impact on wrestling itself. I don't see anything wrong with Bret making referance to it, since it was a big thing on his career.

[Guest MikeSC]

According to Bret he stated that the plan was for Hart to go over in Montreal and then for HBK to go over in a fatal fourway the following month. I also think HBK was also referring to not doing the job back for Bret at WM 13.

He wasn't referring to anything about WM13. Shawn's story has always been that he was injured for WM13, not that he refused to job to Bret.

 

Bret wanted to go over at the big PPV, and he wanted Shawn to win at the little insignificant IYH ppv in a 4 WAY MATCH. I don't know why Vince and Shawn didn't jump all over that.

Bret ALSO wanted to not job and FORFEIT the title on RAW --- an even BETTER idea!

 

No chance of that making the title look bad.

The only Bret wanted to do was be the home-town hero since it was the last time he was gonna be wrestling in Canada for the WWE. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Yes, there very much is. He didn't want to drop the belt before Montreal because he felt the match should be for the World Title. The next night, at 8, EB was going to mention Bret's signing.

 

So, if you're Vince, what do you do? EB and Cornette have both said they'd have done the same thing Vince did.

Also the only reason why Bret talks about the Montrel thing so much is because it was a huge thing on his career and made a huge impact on wrestling itself. I don't see anything wrong with Bret making referance to it, since it was a big thing on his career.

His obsession over it killed his career.

-=Mike

[Guest brethart]

This is bullshit there where 30 days left on Brets contract. Vince is a lying son of a bitch. There was no risk of Bret jumping Ship with the title after Survivor Series. Dont use that as a excuse for Vinces actions please. No wonder Bret gets pissed off, about people going on about something they dont understand.

[Guest MikeSC]

This is bullshit there where 30 days left on Brets contract.

Of course, Eric could mention it WHENEVER he wanted to.

There was no risk of Bret jumping Ship with the title after Survivor Series.

If you have WCW announcing they've signed YOUR WORLD CHAMP, it looks REALLY bad. Time, again, was of the essence.

 

Hell, at least Flair OFFERED to job the belt to Windham before he left WCW in 1991 and Herd told him to "fuck off". Hart didn't even offer to job the title away before it could become a problem.

Dont use that as a excuse for Vinces actions please. No wonder Bret gets pissed off, about people going on about something they dont understand.

The problem wasn't Bret.

 

The problem was Bischoff.

-=Mike

[Promoter 0]

He wasn't referring to anything about WM13. Shawn's story has always been that he was injured for WM13, not that he refused to job to Bret.

I'm a huge fan of both stars, but come on. Guys, seriously Shawn could have dropped the title before "losing his smile". I think the irony of the following year illustrated that. He was in some serious pain against Austin and even then Undertaker stated he had to threaten Shawn to do the job. Either Taker's a liar or Shawn is really hated backstage and people make up stories on him. I think Bret took it that Shawn would NOT do the honours for him at all. Please stop the nonsense of Shawn being hurt. We KNOW the man avoids jobbing titles by just looking at his track record. That was the point I was making. Not anything about Montreal and being a Canadian hero. Again, I'm going off how Bret was reacting on OTR follwing the incident. Landsberg showed him the "Bret screwed Bret" interview and Bret really responded with HBK is a guy who had no honour and wouldn't do the same if he was in the position.

 

Honestly, I don't think that Montreal thing has really tarnished Bret Hart amongst the masses(with some smarks yes). It just comes off as another wrestling storyline which is why I think Bret goes off about it sometimes. There are even people who feel it is all a work. I already stated that Bret wanting to retire the belt was stupid, but that was just another option. He was also willing to drop it to Austin and Shamrock which I also disagree with. He should have dropped the title to Shawn Michaels plain and simple and there was that route with the DX ppv show. When you think about it, the ppv being named after Shawn's group was really something to surround DX behind and HBK winning at the ppv would make sense.

 

I'm glad it has now come down to Vince not wanting Bret to hold the strap the night after Survivor Series because of fear that Eric Bischoff would announce that he signed the WWF Champion and not that crap about Bret leaving with the belt because he was still under contract for 30 days. People act like there isn't laws or something. Even Bischoff announcing Bret Hart and the WWF on his show could have legal implications as Bischoff stated on OTR. They were still under legal hassle from the wwf at the time for the Hall and Nash gimmick infringement. I think it was Vince's own fault in dealing with Bret Hart in the manner he did BEFORE getting the big money rematch under his belt. As I said there are no complete right or wrong on any of the parties. I agree Vince was in a tough spot, but he did put himself there. He went to his WWF CHAMPION and told him about his release. Not a bright move. It happened again with Jeff Jarrett in 1999. This is a business after all. What do you think the men holding the strap would do? I think Shawn would have pulled the same damn power play and rightfully so. You make those business decisions when the "contractor" doesn't have a belt or in a position to screw up the business. I have to ask when Bischoff or Cornette had to do the same thing as Vince?

 

As for the wcw thing again. Look, I'm a wwf mark through and through. However, Vince can't have wcw wrestlers performing in a wwe environment. That just wouldn't work. I do agree about the Viacom thing though. I'm really also just stating that Vince could have used a better approach to this brand split than what has been done. I think the drop in it's stock prices and whatnot are showing that investors were just fed up with Vince and his hair-brain ideas. I just think that if Vince didn't follow through on rebuilding wcw and most likely left it alone he would not have messed up his own product. I think that's a fair assessment. Mixing wcw and the wwf was a mistake that they haven't recovered from since. Maybe I also have a little more confidence in Vince in that he rebuilt his wwf to the monster it once was with attitude. With the wcw product he had more to work with than what he was dealt with in 1995 and his weaker points post Mania 12.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm a huge fan of both stars, but come on. Guys, seriously Shawn could have dropped the title before "losing his smile". I think the irony of the following year illustrated that. He was in some serious pain against Austin and even then Undertaker stated he had to threaten Shawn to do the job.

I've heard this a million times. When did Taker ever say this? He's not exactly big on giving non-kayfabed interviews.

I think Bret took it that Shawn would NOT do the honours for him at all. Please stop the nonsense of Shawn being hurt. We KNOW the man avoids jobbing titles by just looking at his track record.

Shawn's rationale, to me, made sense. He said Vince never asked him to job to Bret and he knew Bret wasn't fond of him. He said he wouldn't feel safe entering the ring with Bret with little ability to protect himself. I can't, honestly, blame him.

There are even people who feel it is all a work. I already stated that Bret wanting to retire the belt was stupid, but that was just another option. He was also willing to drop it to Austin and Shamrock which I also disagree with.

He refused to do it before Montreal. Which is the KEY problem. Either do it before Montreal or in Montreal. He knew why the WWF wanted the belt off of him immediately, and they had a good reason.

I'm glad it has now come down to Vince not wanting Bret to hold the strap the night after Survivor Series because of fear that Eric Bischoff would announce that he signed the WWF Champion and not that crap about Bret leaving with the belt because he was still under contract for 30 days.

I'm sure there was SOME concern about Bret doing that (Madusa didn't have a record of unprofessionalism before she did it), but from everything I've read, EB was the cause of concern.

People act like there isn't laws or something. Even Bischoff announcing Bret Hart and the WWF on his show could have legal implications as Bischoff stated on OTR.

What laws are there? No law would have been violated by that.

I agree Vince was in a tough spot, but he did put himself there. He went to his WWF CHAMPION and told him about his release. Not a bright move.

He actually showed Bret a ton of respect. "I can't afford your deal --- so go to WCW who will offer you a ton of money".

It happened again with Jeff Jarrett in 1999. This is a business after all. What do you think the men holding the strap would do? I think Shawn would have pulled the same damn power play and rightfully so.

He absolutely would have. But he would have far fewer people defending his actions.

You make those business decisions when the "contractor" doesn't have a belt or in a position to screw up the business. I have to ask when Bischoff or Cornette had to do the same thing as Vince?

They never had to. The situation is rather rare. But BOTH have said that if they were faced with the same situation, they would've done the same thing.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I've heard this a million times. When did Taker ever say this? He's not exactly big on giving non-kayfabed interviews.

 

Off the Record on TSN.

 

On Bret/Montreal 97 - Vince wanted a certain outcome and he got it. It wasn't Bischoff, it wasn't Bret, it wasn't even Shawn - it was Vince. He had full control over the situation and he got the controversy he wanted and his company got an immediate boost from it, IIRC.

[Promoter 0]

 

I've heard this a million times. When did Taker ever say this? He's not exactly big on giving non-kayfabed interviews.

 

This is no bullshit rumour. I SEEN AND HEARD the man say this on LIVE TELEVISION. He said so on Off The Record the week of WrestleMania 18 in Toronto's skydome to be exact. Michael Landsberg even stated that the interview was unique because Undertaker had never done an interview in this fashion(out of kayfabe). It will probably be the only interview he will do in this fashion now that he's back to his old persona.

 

Shawn's rationale, to me, made sense. He said Vince never asked him to job to Bret and he knew Bret wasn't fond of him. He said he wouldn't feel safe entering the ring with Bret with little ability to protect himself. I can't, honestly, blame him.

 

I guess some could see it that way, but when I think about it I don't think Bret is dumb enough to think he didn't have to job on his way out of the company. This is why I think the thing was really about not jobbing to HBK. I do see where concern was about Bret and Shawn's grievances causing each other not to job to one another.

 

 

 

He refused to do it before Montreal. Which is the KEY problem. Either do it before Montreal or in Montreal. He knew why the WWF wanted the belt off of him immediately, and they had a good reason.

 

This is all well and good, but when did Vince ask Bret to job the title before Montreal? Bret came on OTR just before the whole "sold out" propaganda(before the ppv to hype the show) started and he stated that he wondered how Detroit fans at a house show knew he sold out when no one in the company was suppose to even know about the situation. If this is true then where did Vince ask Bret to put another wrestler over before the stuff leaked? Bret was even skirting some of the questions for legal reasons, but it seemed as if Bret was even surprised that people knew of the situation. Why would he be surprised if he knew other wrestlers were told about the situation and the wwf wanted to get the strap off of him? You see, you have to see the OTR interviews to get the whole story. Vince Mcmahon was on the show and even admitted to LYING to Bret and screwing him. The man testified and said he screwed Bret. When Steve Austin came on the show a few weeks later and Landsberg asked Austin why Vince lied and Austin did the usual PR by saying he didn't and Landsberg said Vince said so on this very show he did and Austin just nodded in shock that Vince admitted it.

 

I'm sure there was SOME concern about Bret doing that (Madusa didn't have a record of unprofessionalism before she did it), but from everything I've read, EB was the cause of concern.

 

I agree with Vince having every right for concern, but again Bret was under contract for 30 days and did have the reasonable creative control written in the contract. It wasn't like he wasn't still under Vince Mcmahon. He wasn't free as a bird for wcw until 30 days later. Why do you think they were allowed to promote Bret well past the Montreal screwjob and even ran a storyline that Bret's last monday night raw appearance would be a rematch with HBK? Vince legally could have done so because Bret was still contracted under him.

 

 

What laws are there? No law would have been violated by that.

 

Did you notice the night after Survivor Series on nitro that Bischoff did not say the word wwf? Did you also not notice that Bischoff didn't say anything about having Bret SIGNED? All Bischoff did was allude to someone getting knocked out and the nWo were singing "Oh Canada". There was no mention of a screwjob. The closest thing mentioned to the wwf was Rude saying he glad he got off the TITANIC(Titan Sports) since it was a sinking ship. WCW was careful not to draw any more POSSIBLE legal problems.

 

He actually showed Bret a ton of respect. "I can't afford your deal --- so go to WCW who will offer you a ton of money".

 

That is not how it went. Vince told Bret he had to break his contract. Bret stated a deal was a deal and Vince stated he could go see if wcw would still offer him the same money he turned down the previous year. Even not taking that into account, Bret was slowly being phased and he knew it, but Vince did not tell him straight up. That was another reason why Bret was suspicious with what Vince's motives were with his character. Bret stated that he noticed stuff like being taken off video box covers and ads out of nowhere. That things like his match with Undertaker was not included on video releases domestically. That he was slowly being portrayed as a racist in his character. Then the man is told he is being released and his contract would be broken. He had been with the company for 14 years and SEEN how Vince treated stars on their way out and don't you think that is why he put that 1 year out with the creative control in the contract?

I do see why Vince has to job out his stars before leaving, but sometimes he humiliates them as well. Bret probably felt Vince wanted to kill the Hitman character and I think being fair it was believable for him to think so. Remember, his character had changed to the Canadian hero who turned on America. Now he was told he was released and would job in Canada. It's reasonable to think Vince might have ulterior motives to kill the character. However, I also do see Vince's side that Bret was the champ and he has to be the one to put over the man that was going to lead the company. As I said it was just a messy situation any way you put it. I can't see it being any worse because you had HBK and Bret who didn't like each other. You had Vince sending one home, but he also had legal rights with his some vague "reasonable creative control" in the contract. You had things going down in Canada and you are losing in a war with Ted Turner's wcw where Bischoff was a jackass with every chance he got. You have HBK in a tough spot because obviously he has to keep himself employed and can't do what's right by not stabbing a fellow co-worker in the back. I don't even blame Vince for doing what he did, but I can see where all parties can blame the next for the situation. I just can't see anyone in the complete right in this whole ordeal. It was just a terrible snowball effect.

[Guest Brian]

Scott Bowden's New Column

 

"Hart managed to avoid dragging Lawler into the argument this time; however, ironically enough, I have to mention that the King backs Hart’s assessment of Flair. On two occasions in the mid-’90s, talking directly to me, Lawler described his September 30, 1985, NWA World title bout with Flair at the Mid-South Coliseum as a match “that nearly killed the territory. He did those same goofy spots he’s done in every match he’s ever been in on cable. And those chops?! Who chops anyone in a fight when you can punch somebody? I let him call the match, and I wish I hadn’t; it was the drizzling shits.” Imagine how disappointed I was with Lawler’s book, IT’S GOOD TO BE THE KING…SOMETIMES, when he put Flair over, saying that “Ric Flair was great…” at playing the role of the World champion."

[chaosrage 0]

The only Bret wanted to do was be the home-town hero since it was the last time he was gonna be wrestling in Canada for the WWE. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean it didn't hurt anyone with the way the match ended, it would have ended with a double DQ. It wouldn't have hurt Bret or Shawn in any way at all.

Well the main thing wrong with it is if Bret dropped the title the next night, then WCW would've had their UNDEFEATED WORLD CHAMPION. Also they would have to do a tournament to get the belt on Shawn. A real pointless waste of time just to accomodate a guy (that's LEAVING btw) who doesn't want to lose his pretend fight because he doesn't like his opponent.

 

The biggest bullshit though is him not wanting to lose because it's in his country and he'd be letting his fans down. I'm pretty sure the US fans were let down when Hart Foundation won the Canadian Stampede, when they won both flag matches, when the Patriot got his little ass handed to him by Bret, and when Bret beat the Undertaker at Summerslam for the title. In fact, Canada always seemed to end up winning. So I don't see how it's too much to ask of Bret for him to lose big ONCE that year, especially considering Shawn would be around after, and Bret wouldn't. It didn't even have to be clean. Bret wouldn't even go with a screw job ending that would give the title to Shawn. What was wrong with that?

[chaosrage 0]

I'm a huge fan of both stars, but come on. Guys, seriously Shawn could have dropped the title before "losing his smile". I think the irony of the following year illustrated that. He was in some serious pain against Austin and even then Undertaker stated he had to threaten Shawn to do the job. Either Taker's a liar or Shawn is really hated backstage and people make up stories on him. I think Bret took it that Shawn would NOT do the honours for him at all.

If Shawn didn't want to lose to Austin, why didn't they ever have any problems with each other? It seems like Austin would've had a big problem with Shawn after that. In Shawn's shoot tape, he explained that one of the reasons he thought Russo was an idiot, was because he wanted Shawn to win that match at WM. Taker was probably just still pissed about Bret and wanted to make sure something like that didn't happen again.

 

Please stop the nonsense of Shawn being hurt. We KNOW the man avoids jobbing titles by just looking at his track record. That was the point I was making. Not anything about Montreal and being a Canadian hero. Again, I'm going off how Bret was reacting on OTR follwing the incident. Landsberg showed him the "Bret screwed Bret" interview and Bret really responded with HBK is a guy who had no honour and wouldn't do the same if he was in the position.

 

How do you know he wasn't hurt? How would Bret know?

 

That is not how it went. Vince told Bret he had to break his contract. Bret stated a deal was a deal and Vince stated he could go see if wcw would still offer him the same money he turned down the previous year.

 

Then Vince told Bret that he changed his mind and now he could afford his ENTIRE contract. But Bret still took the WCW deal anyway. He didn't get kicked out, he left on his own.

[KTID 0]

Please stop the nonsense of Shawn being hurt. We KNOW the man avoids jobbing titles by just looking at his track record. That was the point I was making. Not anything about Montreal and being a Canadian hero. Again, I'm going off how Bret was reacting on OTR follwing the incident. Landsberg showed him the "Bret screwed Bret" interview and Bret really responded with HBK is a guy who had no honour and wouldn't do the same if he was in the position.

 

How do you know he wasn't hurt? How would Bret know?

 

 

Well, none of us really know for sure. However, i think its a not unreasonable assumption that he probably could have done the match if he wanted.

[Guest Brian]

That is not how it went. Vince told Bret he had to break his contract. Bret stated a deal was a deal and Vince stated he could go see if wcw would still offer him the same money he turned down the previous year.

 

Then Vince told Bret that he changed his mind and now he could afford his ENTIRE contract. But Bret still took the WCW deal anyway. He didn't get kicked out, he left on his own.

Fromn the Observer 11/17/97 discussing the deadline to renew Hart's contract:

 

"At 9 p.m., McMahon called and, reversing fields once again, urged him to take the WCW offer." And this was after Vince's CFO couldn't get the extension for the deadline in writing to Hart on time.

[Guest Brian]

The only Bret wanted to do was be the home-town hero since it was the last time he was gonna be wrestling in Canada for the WWE. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean it didn't hurt anyone with the way the match ended, it would have ended with a double DQ. It wouldn't have hurt Bret or Shawn in any way at all.

Well the main thing wrong with it is if Bret dropped the title the next night, then WCW would've had their UNDEFEATED WORLD CHAMPION. Also they would have to do a tournament to get the belt on Shawn. A real pointless waste of time just to accomodate a guy (that's LEAVING btw) who doesn't want to lose his pretend fight because he doesn't like his opponent.

 

The biggest bullshit though is him not wanting to lose because it's in his country and he'd be letting his fans down. I'm pretty sure the US fans were let down when Hart Foundation won the Canadian Stampede, when they won both flag matches, when the Patriot got his little ass handed to him by Bret, and when Bret beat the Undertaker at Summerslam for the title. In fact, Canada always seemed to end up winning. So I don't see how it's too much to ask of Bret for him to lose big ONCE that year, especially considering Shawn would be around after, and Bret wouldn't. It didn't even have to be clean. Bret wouldn't even go with a screw job ending that would give the title to Shawn. What was wrong with that?

I'm not going to take sides in the Montreal situation, but you have to remember the circumstances on Bret's side. Bret was being treated as a hero in Canada. Just look at the media he got when people got wind that he was going to leave, almost a week before the show. There were ALOT of people who knew he was leaving either way. Vince had almost a month to get the title of him, and the only time he recommended him losing was the day before Survivor Series in Detroit. Everything else on the table from McMahon was Montreal or later. And in fact, Hart had said anyone but Michaels.

 

And like you said, it's pretend, so why the big deal if he goes undefeated. You really can't have it both ways

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

 

Come on guys, let's not get too carried away with Montreal, which has been done to death. I'm still shocked about so much outrage about one of Vince's less-than-great angles.

 

I mean, come on, who really believed that Canada is America's biggest enemy anyway?

[KTID 0]

That raises another point which is rarely made. Bret refusing to lose the title in Canada to Michaels is greeted with "he takes himself far too seriously" whereas any suggestion that he either forfeit or lose it the following month is greeted with "but the title is serious, that ruins its credibility". Its fairly hypocritical, to be honest.

[chaosrage 0]

Fromn the Observer 11/17/97 discussing the deadline to renew Hart's contract:

 

"At 9 p.m., McMahon called and, reversing fields once again, urged him to take the WCW offer." And this was after Vince's CFO couldn't get the extension for the deadline in writing to Hart on time.

Right, urged him to take it, not telling him he had to do it. Bret didn't like the new direction of the WWF, he didn't like the guy Vince wanted to be champion, and he would be making way more money in WCW. Even Bret said that the deal they offered "would be insane not to be taken. So why should Vince try to make him stay? All you have to do is look at his documentary to see how miserable he was in the WWF that year. Boohoo, they're turning me heel. Boohoo, Shawn is going to take my spot. Boohoo, the WWF is turning into smut TV. Boohoo, they want to make my CHARACTER look like a racist.

[chaosrage 0]

I'm not going to take sides in the Montreal situation, but you have to remember the circumstances on Bret's side. Bret was being treated as a hero in Canada. Just look at the media he got when people got wind that he was going to leave, almost a week before the show. There were ALOT of people who knew he was leaving either way. Vince had almost a month to get the title of him, and the only time he recommended him losing was the day before Survivor Series in Detroit. Everything else on the table from McMahon was Montreal or later. And in fact, Hart had said anyone but Michaels.

 

And like you said, it's pretend, so why the big deal if he goes undefeated. You really can't have it both ways

Because it's a business, and WCW getting to say they have WWF's world champion would be a huge blow to the company, which was already struggling. Bret's a hero to Canada and doesn't want to lose? Tough shit. It's professional wrestling, heros lose sometimes, it happens. If Bret wanted to win all the time, maybe he should have picked a real competitive sport. Seriously, this would be like Hogan refusing to lose the Warrior because he'd let all his hulkamaniacs down, or refuse to lose the Rock because he'd let down all the NWO-ites. "Well you know something Vince, I don't think my hulkamaniacs would like if I lost to Warrior at wrestlemania. Let me win against the Warrior, brother. I can lose the belt the next month against Brutus Beefcake, and he can drop it to Warrior. See, it all works out dude."

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

That raises another point which is rarely made. Bret refusing to lose the title in Canada to Michaels is greeted with "he takes himself far too seriously" whereas any suggestion that he either forfeit or lose it the following month is greeted with "but the title is serious, that ruins its credibility". Its fairly hypocritical, to be honest.

You know, I've read countless Montreal 97 debates (which sound _exactly_ like this one, btw) and that's the first original thing I've read in a long time.

 

... Why was Flair even bringing up Montreal 97 in the first place?

[Guest JMA]

... Why was Flair even bringing up Montreal 97 in the first place?

Simple. He did it to suck-up to Vince, Hunter, and Shawn.

[chaosrage 0]

You know, I've read countless Montreal 97 debates (which sound _exactly_ like this one, btw) and that's the first original thing I've read in a long time.

 

... Why was Flair even bringing up Montreal 97 in the first place?

Same thing for Owen. What does the way Bret acted about his brother dying have to do with Flair's life?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That raises another point which is rarely made. Bret refusing to lose the title in Canada to Michaels is greeted with "he takes himself far too seriously" whereas any suggestion that he either forfeit or lose it the following month is greeted with "but the title is serious, that ruins its credibility". Its fairly hypocritical, to be honest.

I don't know how losing the following month would make the title lose credibility. However, I don't think he'd be around in a month's time.

 

The title, though, is just a prop. A poor feud building around it is worse than who's jobbing to who for it. For instance, the Katie Vick angle probably did more damage to Raw's title than the crappy match that blew that feud off.

 

Simply forefiting it before leaving would have made it look like he was too good for it, and too good for the company. Yes, even steven booking originally dictated that this would be the point where Bret would score one back from Shawn, but then this became his whole going away angle and IMHO it wasn't very important for him to save face in it, since Uncle Eric would be wiping the slate clean and starting completely over with him anyway.

[Hektik 0]

Here is an excerpt from this weeks Observer that I think is very interesting.

 

In my opinion, Flair's comments regarding Bret being more mad about getting screwed out of the title more than his brothers death were his opinion, and I can see where he got them based on who he is close to today.  Hart had made alot of powerful enemies, and they are the people in power in WWE today, and were very happy to see Hart get ripped in the book, and Flair was happy to do so.  The truth is, while some seem to enjoy Foley being bent out of shape more than they should, and Hart, it's also it's Hogan being ripped that the McMahons themselves enjoyed the most, to the point they had Flair cut a sound bite ripping Hogan and politics that aired on the 7/12 Raw show.

 

I think it is pretty much safe to say that "who he is close to" and "people in power today" are really HHH and Shawn Michaels.

[Guest Brian]

Fromn the Observer 11/17/97 discussing the deadline to renew Hart's contract:

 

"At 9 p.m., McMahon called and, reversing fields once again, urged him to take the WCW offer." And this was after Vince's CFO couldn't get the extension for the deadline in writing to Hart on time.

Right, urged him to take it, not telling him he had to do it. Bret didn't like the new direction of the WWF, he didn't like the guy Vince wanted to be champion, and he would be making way more money in WCW. Even Bret said that the deal they offered "would be insane not to be taken. So why should Vince try to make him stay? All you have to do is look at his documentary to see how miserable he was in the WWF that year. Boohoo, they're turning me heel. Boohoo, Shawn is going to take my spot. Boohoo, the WWF is turning into smut TV. Boohoo, they want to make my CHARACTER look like a racist.

If they were interested in keeping him that night, they would have gotten him a written extension. Which they weren't going to.

 

All Bret was looking for was something decent in terms of future booking, for his character which dictates how he does in that business. And he had reasonable creative control in his contract. Hart was saying, throughout the time, that he didn't want to leave and he was feeling guilty. All Vince had to do was give Hart a decent booking. But McMahon offered four big losses over five months, where he would stay a heel, and more along the lines of racist angles.

[chaosrage 0]

If they were interested in keeping him that night, they would have gotten him a written extension. Which they weren't going to.

 

All Bret was looking for was something decent in terms of future booking, for his character which dictates how he does in that business. And he had reasonable creative control in his contract. Hart was saying, throughout the time, that he didn't want to leave and he was feeling guilty. All Vince had to do was give Hart a decent booking. But McMahon offered four big losses over five months, where he would stay a heel, and more along the lines of racist angles.

I think Vince wanted him to be a face and feud with Michaels. He gave him a scenario where he would win the blow off match with Shawn and be in the main event of Wrestlemania. How could he have a problem with that? You know the matches Shawn won wouldn't be clean. None of Shawn's matches were clean when he was in DX. They wouldn't even let him beat Shamrock. So the only one he'd really be putting over was.. Austin. Which is fair because Bret beat Austin every time they fought, including the Wrestlemania the year before.

[Guest Rrrsh]

The only Bret wanted to do was be the home-town hero since it was the last time he was gonna be wrestling in Canada for the WWE. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean it didn't hurt anyone with the way the match ended, it would have ended with a double DQ. It wouldn't have hurt Bret or Shawn in any way at all. Also the only reason why Bret talks about the Montrel thing so much is because it was a huge thing on his career and made a huge impact on wrestling itself. I don't see anything wrong with Bret making referance to it, since it was a big thing on his career.

Bret is from Edmontin, not Montreal. Its not all one big city up here. Sure, he got a big pop, but that was his angle. The work-shoot line is blured WAY too much in this arguement.

[Guest Brian]

He was a heavy draw in all of Canada and playing a patriot. It's alot different than most other arguments, especially considering within the business Canada is treated as a single territory.

[Guest Brian]

If they were interested in keeping him that night, they would have gotten him a written extension. Which they weren't going to.

 

All Bret was looking for was something decent in terms of future booking, for his character which dictates how he does in that business. And he had reasonable creative control in his contract. Hart was saying, throughout the time, that he didn't want to leave and he was feeling guilty. All Vince had to do was give Hart a decent booking. But McMahon offered four big losses over five months, where he would stay a heel, and more along the lines of racist angles.

I think Vince wanted him to be a face and feud with Michaels. He gave him a scenario where he would win the blow off match with Shawn and be in the main event of Wrestlemania. How could he have a problem with that? You know the matches Shawn won wouldn't be clean. None of Shawn's matches were clean when he was in DX. They wouldn't even let him beat Shamrock. So the only one he'd really be putting over was.. Austin. Which is fair because Bret beat Austin every time they fought, including the Wrestlemania the year before.

Which would make him fodder. Continuing to lose to a guy who refused vto lay down for him, and quite frankly openly said that he wouldn't lie down for anyone, is not the kind of guy you want to continue working with. And then he gets a short reign to be unseated by Austin, at which point he would become a number two guy.

 

And as far as I can tell, the face talks were only mildly discussed when talking about match scenarios, the most prominent of which was the Hart Foundation interfering and costing him the match.

 

And either way, I think most of the blame needs to go to Vince.

[Guest Rrrsh]

He was a heavy draw in all of Canada and playing a patriot. It's alot different than most other arguments, especially considering within the business Canada is treated as a single territory.

That was his gimmick tho, that wasn't him. His reasoning was like he was a hoemtown hero. The Patriot was an American Hero, aso was Kurt Angle. It would be ridiculous to say they wouldnt job in the US. Ur hometown is one thing, but Bret was just relying on his angle to get what he wanted, and it backfired.