Rants

Contractually-obligated dates

By Scott Keith on February 19, 2014

Hey Scott,

According to Bret Hart's latest DVD, the Dungeon Collection, he mentions how before the Montreal Screwjob he had already worked well over his contractually-obligated dates, much like the current CM Punk situation.

If true, like Punk, doesn't this absolve Bret of any "blame" for the Montreal Screwjob, since he didn't actually have to show up for the match against Michaels at all?

There, now the Punk and Hart issues have become one. Can we work Daniel Bryan in here somehow?

Cheers!

*slow clap*
But yeah, Bret had fulfilled all his yearly dates in 1997, and in fact was under no obligation to even show up and drop the title, which makes it all the weirder that Vince put it on him in the first place. Not to mention that Vince was already willfully in breach of contract, so it gave Bret double reason to not show up. However, I think we've already unanimously agreed that Bret was 100% in the right with the whole thing, so there should be no need for this thread to go 1000 messages. Especially now that Stennick is gone.

Comments are disable in preview.