Thread: Bret Hart's response to Flairs comments
View Single Post
Old 07-14-2004, 10:27 PM   #33
loopydate
FIT Challenge Slag People
 
loopydate's Avatar
 
Posts: 13,816
loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)loopydate makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excellance of Execution
There's a big difference between Bret and Triple H. Bret had creative control for the last month of his contract, so his name wouldn't be ruined before he left the company (which was Vince's choice). Triple H doesn't have creative control in his contract, his power is all political because of who he's married to. There's a big difference between creative control and politic's. All i need to say is look at Hogan during the 80's or the Clique during the mid 90's.
Who gives a shit if Vince ruined his name over the course of a month with the legacy he'd built up in ten+ years with the company? WCW would have just built it back up again. They'd gotten pretty good at it.

Whether it's written or not, it's using your position in the company to make demands that are unfair of your employer.

And you asked if you're the property of your employer? Yes. Yes, you are. If your employer is paying you to, say, write legal briefs for a living, but you decide that for whatever reason you don't want to write one particular legal brief, your employer has every right to take your job and give it to someone else.

Now, before you jump back with a "But Shawn Michaels--" argument, let me say again that I'm not condoning Michaels. Frankly, he should probably have gotten the same treatment that Bret got, because some of the shit he's pulled over the years has put WWF/E in awkward positions. The double standard is unfair.

But the actions of others don't excuse Bret Hart for not doing what was best for the company and dropping the gold on the show that people paid money to watch. Even if he didn't do that, if he'd been professional, swallowed his pride, and concentrated on establishing a legacy in WCW, rather than bitching about what Vince had done to the one he had in the WWF, I'd like him more.

The fact is, he didn't do either of those things and that's why I personally don't give a shit about Bret Hart anymore. Fantastic wrestler, for sure, but also the kind of person that I can't stand.

BTW, I think you probably could have stopped after one sentence. Your name is, after all "Excellance (sic) of Execution," which makes your view pretty clear on all this.
loopydate is offline   Reply With Quote