View Full Version : Shawn Michaels signs new 5 year contract
Ben Rodrigues
08-13-2006, 08:43 AM
Shawn Michaels has signed a new 5 year deal with WWE, according to the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. The contract guarantees him a whopping $1.5 million per year.
Many within WWE were said to be "shocked" at how high of a contract was given to Michaels, especially with WWE offering most talent lower money contracts these days. Michaels himself was expecting a lower money contract, and even he was said to be shocked at how large the contract offered to him was.
Over the past few months, Michaels was contemplating working a lighter schedule and lessening his role in the company. However, when he received this new contract and signed it, he changed his mind on that.
Interesting. :y:
Impact!
08-13-2006, 09:01 AM
Cool
Londoner
08-13-2006, 09:03 AM
How weird. But i'm fine with it cause he entertains me every week and is one of the few reasons left to watch Raw at the moment.
Pinnacle Charisma
08-13-2006, 09:07 AM
I dont know. I have never been a fan of Shawn Michaels personally but he has probally been one of the best performed wrestlers in the last two years.
Even one derserves a long well paying contract on the wwe rooster its him
Ben Rodrigues
08-13-2006, 09:15 AM
I dont know. I have never been a fan of Shawn Michaels personally but he has probally been one of the best performed wrestlers in the last two years.
Even one derserves a long well paying contract on the wwe rooster its him
Angle is killing himself everytime he gets into the ring. He deserves a huge contract.
shawn is one of the greatest performers of all time and i'm glad vince is finally showing him the respect he deserves
Chavo Classic
08-13-2006, 11:02 AM
shawn is one of the greatest performers of all time and i'm glad vince is finally showing him the respect he deserves
:wtf:
I guess all those main events and title runs didn't qualify.
Shadow
08-13-2006, 12:32 PM
shawn is one of the greatest performers of all time and i'm glad vince is finally showing him the respect he deserves
You've been on the moon the past 20 years eh?
SecretDesire
08-13-2006, 12:58 PM
He really deserves it. With the recent DX angle and even before that he has held his own ever since he's been back. Hell if I was given that contract I'd take it too!
He mine as well wrestling while his kids are still relatively young. I honestly think after this 5 years he'll be done.
Anybody Thrilla
08-13-2006, 01:03 PM
The new DX is pretty terrible, but whatever, good for him. How old will he be in five years?
Also, remember when Bret Hart was gonna sign a 20 year contract or something? That didn't quite work out.
Kane Knight
08-13-2006, 01:11 PM
Michaels is one of the only WWE legends who can still cut-it in-ring. Him being a cock aside, he's probably the best performer on Raw, and more than makes the show.
Evil Vito
08-13-2006, 01:12 PM
<font color=goldenrod>Shawn will be 46 in 5 years :o
Anyways, good signing</font>
Just John
08-13-2006, 01:14 PM
1.5 mil? Nice to hear he's doing well for himself :y:
Pepsi Man
08-13-2006, 01:38 PM
The new DX is pretty terrible, but whatever, good for him. How old will he be in five years?
Also, remember when Bret Hart was gonna sign a 20 year contract or something? That didn't quite work out.
He did sign the 20 year contract. Vince breeched it by not paying him according to the terms of the contract.
The MAC
08-13-2006, 01:47 PM
somewhere bret hart just shat himself.. (can believe Im saying that)
You've been on the moon the past 20 years eh?
what i'm saying is from the past few years shawn has been put into some shit that he should'nt have been put in
he should have never had to job to hogan
shawn made hogan look like a million bucks that night....he carried the whole damn match....thats worth 1.5 million alone
i know shawn has had huge title runs but i dont think vince ever truely showed shawn the respect he deserved until now
thats where i was coming from
He did sign the 20 year contract. Vince breeched it by not paying him according to the terms of the contract.
So Shawn's getting screwed?
Well, that explains why the Series is in Montreal next year.
Zen v.W.o.
08-13-2006, 02:47 PM
somewhere bret hart just shat himself.. (can believe Im saying that)
Why? When Bret was 40 in the wwf he was making great money, the most in the company.
Then he went to wcw and got paid 3 mill per year.
Anybody Thrilla
08-13-2006, 03:07 PM
what i'm saying is from the past few years shawn has been put into some shit that he should'nt have been put in
he should have never had to job to hogan
shawn made hogan look like a million bucks that night....he carried the whole damn match....thats worth 1.5 million alone
i know shawn has had huge title runs but i dont think vince ever truely showed shawn the respect he deserved until now
thats where i was coming from
Are you kidding? Tell me you're kidding.
Kane Knight
08-13-2006, 03:59 PM
what i'm saying is from the past few years shawn has been put into some shit that he should'nt have been put in
he should have never had to job to hogan
shawn made hogan look like a million bucks that night....he carried the whole damn match....thats worth 1.5 million alone
i know shawn has had huge title runs but i dont think vince ever truely showed shawn the respect he deserved until now
thats where i was coming from
Okay, Michaels willingly went into a contract where Hogan had creative control, hoping to out-politic him. Don't blame Vince or anyone else that Shawn Michaels opted into a contract with Hogan and got fucked. When you dance with the Devil, expect to get burned.
Michaels screwed Michaels. By way of being stupid enough to think that he could beat Hogan backstage.
Kane Knight
08-13-2006, 04:03 PM
Why? When Bret was 40 in the wwf he was making great money, the most in the company.
Then he went to wcw and got paid 3 mill per year.
That wasn't the point.
addy2hotty
08-13-2006, 04:26 PM
Just 500k more a year than what Mark Henry was getting?
Cheap at half the price.
Zen v.W.o.
08-13-2006, 04:30 PM
That wasn't the point.
What was the point? I dont see how Bret had to get mentioned again in a thread seemingly unrelated to him.
Kane Knight
08-13-2006, 04:35 PM
Hart will be mentioned in almost any thread on Michaels. Surely you, proud patriot and wiper of the Royal Hart ass, must be aware of this.
Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels go together in a thread like Peanut Butter and Jelly in a sandwich.
Zen v.W.o.
08-13-2006, 05:44 PM
Hart will be mentioned in almost any thread on Michaels. Surely you, proud patriot and wiper of the Royal Hart ass, must be aware of this.
Noted and definitely aware.
St. Jimmy
08-13-2006, 08:50 PM
1.5 Mil? Damn.
NeanderCarl
08-13-2006, 10:34 PM
Mark Henry isn't on $1m a year, and never has been, addy.
As for HBK... GUARANTEED $1.5m a year?? Cue another injury and a long sitout, much like back in 1998. HBK only (miraculously) returned to action when his last contract was due to expire, having raked in his rather considerable downside for the 4 years he was out of action. He's smart if nothing else.
Personally, I agree he's one of the highlights of WWE, but for another FIVE years? He came out of retirement in 2002 talking about "one more match". He started bleating on about a "reduced schedule" over a year ago. I think the WWE has made a mistake. A 2 year contract? Yes, I'd say go for it. A five year contract, but with a lower downside should he stop wrestling? Also agreeable. This will end up costing WWE a ton of money with no return on their investment, you wait and see!
Ben Rodrigues
08-13-2006, 10:38 PM
Mark Henry isn't on $1m a year, and never has been, addy.
As for HBK... GUARANTEED $1.5m a year?? Cue another injury and a long sitout, much like back in 1998. HBK only (miraculously) returned to action when his last contract was due to expire, having raked in his rather considerable downside for the 4 years he was out of action. He's smart if nothing else.
Personally, I agree he's one of the highlights of WWE, but for another FIVE years? He came out of retirement in 2002 talking about "one more match". He started bleating on about a "reduced schedule" over a year ago. I think the WWE has made a mistake. A 2 year contract? Yes, I'd say go for it. A five year contract, but with a lower downside should he stop wrestling? Also agreeable. This will end up costing WWE a ton of money with no return on their investment, you wait and see!
Henry signed a water tight 10 year contract in 1996 for $1 million a year.
NeanderCarl
08-13-2006, 10:49 PM
No, that's a common misconception. Henry earned around £250K per year on a downside throughout that 10 years.
I'd almost guarantee that the extention he signed earlier this year was for a lot lower than that, too.
Ben Rodrigues
08-13-2006, 10:57 PM
My bad.
Kane Knight
08-13-2006, 11:25 PM
Henry signed a water tight 10 year contract in 1996 for $1 million a year.
It was refered to as a Million Dollar contract, people then ran with a rumour that it was 1mil/year.
Jaded-Dragon
08-14-2006, 02:38 AM
I'm sorry, if anyone is guilty of the "Same old Shit", it's Michaels. He has done the same shit every single match for the last 2 years, the only thing seperating any of them is that he throws in a different high spot in every PPV match. Flying forearm, nip up, punches, body slam, elbow from the top, SCM. Really, didn't see that one comming.
I respect Michaels and he does seem to carry every one he wrestles with to a decent match. But getting your ass beat for 15 minutes then doing the aforementioned move list isn't exactly worth 1.5 mil in my book.
Sadly enough, even though I feel that way about the current Michaels, he is the best performer on RAW right now, but that's really not saying much when you think about it.
FourFifty
08-14-2006, 02:41 AM
Why? When Bret was 40 in the wwf he was making great money, the most in the company.
Then he went to wcw and got paid 3 mill per year.
How much was El Dandy getting paid? Who are you to doubt El Dandy?
Aussie Skier
08-14-2006, 04:17 AM
Shawn is awesome...and I was abret fan so it was hard to win me over.
Seriously, look back at Shawn's matches over the past few years:
2005 - MOTY; VS Kurt Angle - WM21
2004 - MOTY; VS Chris Benoit and Triple H - WM20
2003 - 2nd best MOTY; VS Chris Jericho - WM19
2002 - MOTY; VS Triple H - Summerslam (i think, or suvivor series)
Plus, in that time, he's had tremendous feuds with:
Chris Jericho
Kurt Angle
Triple H
Edge
And good feuds with:
Hulk Hogan
Kane
Randy Orton
Vince McMahon.
The only thing he deserves now is another title run!
Corkscrewed
08-14-2006, 03:37 PM
Well, at least HBK had decided to keep up with the regular schedule now that he's got a big contract. If he was Hogan, he'd prolly take the money and leave.
The Naitch
08-14-2006, 04:22 PM
HE'LL PROBABLY JOB TO HOGAN AGAIN. THAT'S THE WHOLE MASTERPLAN
Kane Knight
08-14-2006, 05:21 PM
I'm sorry, if anyone is guilty of the "Same old Shit", it's Michaels. He has done the same shit every single match for the last 2 years, the only thing seperating any of them is that he throws in a different high spot in every PPV match. Flying forearm, nip up, punches, body slam, elbow from the top, SCM. Really, didn't see that one comming.
I respect Michaels and he does seem to carry every one he wrestles with to a decent match. But getting your ass beat for 15 minutes then doing the aforementioned move list isn't exactly worth 1.5 mil in my book.
Sadly enough, even though I feel that way about the current Michaels, he is the best performer on RAW right now, but that's really not saying much when you think about it.
Wow. He finishes hsi matches in a predictable fashion. That negates everything else in the match.
redoneja
08-14-2006, 06:43 PM
The only thing he deserves now is another title run!
No. HBK does not need another title run. He's above the title. Winning the title does nothing for Micheals at this point. If he did win the big one again, he should be a transitional champion. 4 month reign at best, ending with him cleanly putting over the next big star.
Aussie Skier
08-14-2006, 09:41 PM
No. HBK does not need another title run. He's above the title. Winning the title does nothing for Micheals at this point. If he did win the big one again, he should be a transitional champion. 4 month reign at best, ending with him cleanly putting over the next big star.
but HHH and Shawn Michaels r at a similar age right?
So, is this idea for HBK the same as for HHH, cos i'm pretty sure HHH still has a few (long) title reigns left in him
The main difference is that HBK is a legend, and HHH has not yet come even close to that title.
When you consider longevity in a wrestler, you don't consider their age, you consider how long they've been on top and how much exposure they've had to wrestling fans.
HBK has been "on top" since the mid-90's. He won his first World Title at WrestleMania 12, while HHH didn't win his first belt until 1999, and even then, he was merely another face amongst a sea of highly touted main eventers (Rock, Foley, Undertaker, etc). HBK, on the other hand, was champion during a time when the WWF was lacking true stars. The "new breed" so-to-speak, which included HHH, emerged after HBK was injured.
In short, HBK has been around for a long, long time. Triple H, while being around for a long time as well, hasn't had nearly the amount of Main Event longevity as Shawn has. Many would argue that both HHH and HBK don't need to win the belt anymore, but surely, HBK is more in that boat than HHH is.
NeanderCarl
08-14-2006, 10:31 PM
No. HBK does not need another title run. He's above the title. Winning the title does nothing for Micheals at this point. If he did win the big one again, he should be a transitional champion. 4 month reign at best, ending with him cleanly putting over the next big star.
And that's bad thing, why?
In short, HBK has been around for a long, long time. Triple H, while being around for a long time as well, hasn't had nearly the amount of Main Event longevity as Shawn has. Many would argue that both HHH and HBK don't need to win the belt anymore, but surely, HBK is more in that boat than HHH is.
I disagree. If using your logic, Shawn is already as over and as a set-in-stone legend as someone like Hogan.
They shouldn't be giving someone like Michaels a title, because it would only mean, at best, that he's a "transitional enhancement champion" (yes, I just coined that phrase), meaning that he's only winning the title to give the rub to someone else. While that's all fine and dandy, at the end of the day someone else who needed the title to be pushed wouldn't have had it.
So with that in mind, it makes more sense to solidify Triple H in history by having head the WWE again as the champion. Because, after his run, I think that a rub from someone like Hunter, who is more fresh in everyone's minds in terms of accomplishments, would help someone in the long run than a rub from someone like Hogan or HBK.
Remember, this is using your own logic. I don't necessarily agree with it.
addy2hotty
08-15-2006, 03:35 PM
No, that's a common misconception. Henry earned around £250K per year on a downside throughout that 10 years.
I'd almost guarantee that the extention he signed earlier this year was for a lot lower than that, too.
Indeed, my bad.
Just $1.25m more than Mark Henry a year....cheap at half the price. :cool:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.