Watching the Hart/Michaels rivalry DVD, there's a point where Bret mentions he had already worked well beyond his contractually-obligated dates and could have legally told Vince to take his PPV and shove it, but didn't out of good faith (or something, can't remember exactly why he said he didn't end up doing that).
It's the first I've ever heard of this and, if true, doesn't it give him all the leverage in the world (not even mentioning the creative control clause) to dictate, at least partially, how he wanted to go out? Would he have been black-balled in the business for no-showing, especially in Bret's alleged case where he had already satisfied the terms of his contract and, throughout the years in general, was typically one of the true iron men when it came to working an insane number of dates?
Just curious as to your thoughts on that comment in general since, like I said, I'd never heard that part of it brought up by anyone before, but it seems to possibly paint Bret in a bit of a better light in hindsight.
Well, here’s the tricky thing with that particular contract dispute. Yes, Bret had creative control over his character, and yes, Bret was only obligated to work a certain number of dates and thus had a huge amount of leverage. However, you’ll recall that Bret punched Vince in the face after the events went down, which meant that Vince had a very solid case for assault and they would have spent the next millennium tied up in court counter-suing each other, and in the end both decided that the Mexican standoff wasn’t worth pursuing. Would he have been blackballed? Doubtful, he was already going to WCW, it’s not like Vince could resent him any more. People have done WAY worse and gotten back in Vince’s good graces sooner.