Montreal Screwjob: Who do you side with?

[DR Ackermann]

The people who are saying Vince McMahon was in the right coincidentally seem to be the ones who know the least about the details surrounding what actually happened.

[Shining Wiz]

 

 

Regarding creative control, it was defined as no booking decision over the last 30 days of the contract could be made without the agreement of both parties. People have been trying to hang onto the word reasonable as a defense, and forgetting there was a definition given of the word.

 

-Dave Meltzer

 

Here is where such a clause falls apart. Vince tells Bret to lose by pin fall. Bret says he'll lose by dq. They don't agree, so what happens?

Really hard to enforce such a weird clause in a weird business.

Then it doesn't happen. You don't enforce it by compelling action, you enforce it by prohibiting action. In effect, if Vince doesn't want this to happen he shouldn't put the title on Bret in Bret's last 30 days, otherwise he's at a legal standstill.

I'm just thinking of a finish as a booking decision, not so much dropping the title. If one guy wants to do x, and one wants to do y, and they never agree, what use is the clause. Seems to me, by your reckoning, that reasonable control defaults essentially to near full control for Bret. And I think in practice you're probably right.

[Shining Wiz]

Anyone want to take bets as to how long this argument over things that nobody is changing their mind on goes on?

 

As long as we're talking definitions, let's define the word "troll". Does one have to intentionally be engaging in "trolling" to actually be doing just that? Or at a certain point does an argument over something that comes down to how you personally feel about something (something like, say, who was right in the Bret vs. Vince situation), is there mutual egging on going on by both sides because they refuse to quit?

 

Also, I question whether a certain poster is, in fact, unintentionally trolling. And i'm not talking about jvk.

 

Sadly, I'm not trolling. I just appear to have unpopular opinions.

[Steenalized]

In essence, it does mean full control for Bret. That's a fine job by him and his attorney getting Vince to agree to that. That doesn't invalidate the clause. It also does bind Bret in that if he offered up a finish and Vince didn't like it, then it doesn't go through. Hogan is a prime example of having full creative control with the ability to override anyone else.

[JerryvonKramer]

While I do somewhat regret starting this thread and did so originally in bad faith, I think it has had the positive outcome of giving some of the newer members of the forum a place to flex their argumentative muscles. And I think that's a good thing.

 

The truth about this is that I only really side with Vince and against Bret because I like Vince and dislike Bret. That's all there is to it. Everything else is window dressing. Bret was in the right legally and probably morally. We can debate whether or not what Vince did was best for business (with or without hindsight bias). But all it boils down to ultimately is that I think Bret is a dick and instinctively side against him. The brutal and honest truth. Tell me yours.

[Childs]

I think it's weird to "like" Vince. I can see appreciating Vince, respecting Vince, enjoying Vince, thinking Bret is a speck in Vince's elephantine legacy. But liking him? I don't get that.

[JerryvonKramer]

Just think he's hilarious, completely bonkers, visionary, lives for the business, etc. So I guess all of what you said. If I appreciate, respect, and and enjoy someone the net result is that I generally like them. Do you dislike Vince?

[DR Ackermann]

Yeah, why would you say that you don't like Bret because he's a dick but give Vince a pass? I'd call Bret whiny and bitter, but Vince is way more of a dick than Bret.

[JerryvonKramer]

I quite like Vince's brand of dickery though, it's acceptable to me because I find it entertaining. We are quite far off topic here.

[Loss]

The End.