MITB/Cashing In - "They've not done that before!"

[TheBurningRed]

24 minutes ago, wordsfromlee said:

Have they ever had the briefcase holder go the full year all the way to the next years MITB PPV without cashing it in? Then have two people try and cash in at the same time. 

I want someone to forget to cash in. They tease and tease it and then forget the dates coming up and it’s gone. 

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

I always had this idea years ago, where you have someone literally waiting right till the end with the last day being on a ppv.

However the heel champ decides "fuck it", and to just not show up to work the last day.

So on the ppv we see the magic camera man at the champs house. Champ gets up makes a coffee, makes breakfast and has a morning shower. Hes having a lovely morning. However we can see in the window *something* weird going on.

Eventually the sound of hundreds of people turning up to his back garden makes the champ wonder what the fuck is going on.

Hes goes outside and it turns out the mitb holder helicoptered in a ring, an official and even invited loads of fans via social media to gate crash the champs back garden.

The champ, in nothing but his boxers and still brushing his teeth, stands bewildered just as the ring announcer says "... is cashing in his mitb contract... and the following match is for the WWE championship...."

[mim731]

2 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

I always had this idea years ago, where you have someone literally waiting right till the end with the last day being on a ppv.

However the heel champ decides "fuck it", and to just not show up to work the last day.

So on the ppv we see the magic camera man at the champs house. Champ gets up makes a coffee, makes breakfast and has a morning shower. Hes having a lovely morning. However we can see in the window *something* weird going on.

Eventually the sound of hundreds of people turning up to his back garden makes the champ wonder what the fuck is going on.

Hes goes outside and it turns out the mitb holder helicoptered in a ring, an official and even invited loads of fans via social media to gate crash the champs back garden.

The champ, in nothing but his boxers and still brushing his teeth, stands bewildered just as the ring announcer says "... is cashing in his mitb contract... and the following match is for the WWE championship...."

This raises an interesting scenario in my mind at least, with a wrestler cashing in the breifcase during an ongoing Falls count anywhere match/last man standing/non-standard in-ring plunder filled stipulation match, does the contract stipulate it has to be in the ring? Imagine they've done a big silly spot where the champ and challenger go through the stage or something equally ludicrous, why wouldn't a heel champion run out with briefcase and ref to cash in, unless there's some mechanism to prevent that?

 

[Tennessee Moltisanti]

Nothing to do with the briefcase, but I've always wondered whether they could book a Royal Rumble that finishes with everyone eliminated before #30 gets to the ring. Or even have everyone eliminated before #29 and #30 get to the ring. Freshen it up for a change, rather than having the same formula every time.

[air_raid]

13 hours ago, mim731 said:

This raises an interesting scenario in my mind at least, with a wrestler cashing in the breifcase during an ongoing Falls count anywhere match/last man standing/non-standard in-ring plunder filled stipulation match, does the contract stipulate it has to be in the ring? Imagine they've done a big silly spot where the champ and challenger go through the stage or something equally ludicrous, why wouldn't a heel champion run out with briefcase and ref to cash in, unless there's some mechanism to prevent that?

Rollins’ cash in at WrestleMania set a precedent that if you cash in mid match, you are participating as an extra participant in that match, which is why he was permitted to win Brock Lesnar’s title by pinning not Lesnar, but his opponent, Roman Reigns. Logically you’d also inherit any stip of said ongoing match - which takes us back to our ladder/cage match thoughts.

8 hours ago, sukhy said:

Nothing to do with the briefcase, but I've always wondered whether they could book a Royal Rumble that finishes with everyone eliminated before #30 gets to the ring. Or even have everyone eliminated before #29 and #30 get to the ring. Freshen it up for a change, rather than having the same formula every time.

Or have a heel looked favourably upon by management characters shockingly enter at #31. Triple H should have done that in 2016.

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

38 minutes ago, air_raid said:

Or have a heel looked favourably upon by management characters shockingly enter at #31. Triple H should have done that in 2016.

I genuinely thought that was what was going to happen. Coming out as the unheard of number 31 to screw Reigns out of the WWE title. Perfect.

[TheBurningRed]

That’s a good point. I’m surprised they didn’t do it as they were so authority heavy around that time. And you know how WWE love a stat. They would’ve had that in the promo every year.

[air_raid]

5 hours ago, TheBurningRed said:

And you know how WWE love a stat. They would’ve had that in the promo every year.

"Only two men have ever entered the Rumble at #31." Dolph Ziggler in 2011 didn't do as well as Hunter would have.

Although, in the interests of transparency...

16 hours ago, sukhy said:

Nothing to do with the briefcase, but I've always wondered whether they could book a Royal Rumble that finishes with everyone eliminated before #30 gets to the ring. Or even have everyone eliminated before #29 and #30 get to the ring. Freshen it up for a change, rather than having the same formula every time.

In my length scenario described above, there's a part where I kind of adapt something similar to the above AND the "#31" idea, during the "third season" Babyface #2 gets frustrated at not getting the belt back and being overlooked and turns heel by finally accepting corporate help. As the two men who were #1 and #2 teeter on the ropes, looking like a 1995 cliche come back around, the countdown starts again perplexing the crowd. Baddie comes down, calmly shoves the other two to the floor, and wins the Rumble without breaking a sweat, to claim a Mania title shot at Babyface #5.

Sorry @Duke... Ben enters at #31 and eliminates Matt and Sean at the same time, priming him for his big title shot at Dave.

 

[Carbomb]

Scenario: 

Chicken-shit heel wins MITB by hiding under the ring for most of it, essentially taking advantage of everybody being down to climb up the ladder and grab the briefcase.

Fast-forward to a match between the champ and contender, a match for "all the marbles" - World champ who also has the IC, WWE champ (or whatever the fuck it is now) with the US belt and maybe KOTR, then:

On 9/19/2024 at 5:40 AM, air_raid said:

Or a WWE “first to escape” cage match? Both men down on the mat exhausted. Heel saunters down… walks through the door, motions ringside to ref/timekeeper/ring announcer, announcement made…. walks out the door again. Nuclear heat.

Cue a cat-and-mouse for several months where the chicken-shit keeps avoiding his comeuppance either through tactics or luck or "injury", using "Never Challenge Again" clauses on several challenges, including an "I Quit" match where he effectively avoids defeat by jumping in his car and driving off (or he tricks the challenger by playing a Titantron of a made-up wrestler called "Ike Witt", prompting the opponent to say "Who's Ike Witt?" to the referee, who then declares him the loser). Eventually gets an audience-cathartic obliteration in a cage match where no escape through the door is allowed.

[air_raid]

18 hours ago, Carbomb said:

Eventually gets an audience-cathartic obliteration in a cage match where no escape through the door is allowed.

That’s definitely an element I’d use for someone winning it with the briefcase in a cage match to begin with. Poetic justice, live by the sword etc

[Underfaker]

Not so much much Cashing In but after a MITB challenger is successful the former champ uses their rematch clause but this rematch is also under MITB rules so they can have their rematch h at any time.

[air_raid]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:22 PM, Your Fight Site said:

Heel cashes in briefcase after face champion has just defended title. Heel wins title. Face immediately invokes rematch clause to win title back.

The problem I’ve had with this, is the “rematch clause” trope has been completely overdone. I know we’ve come a long way since President Jack Tunney would come out and declare there would be no rematch to Hogan vs Warrior at Mania VI (arguably, the exception that proved the rule to begin with). Or that it needed making explicit there was a no rematch clause in Yokozuna vs Luger at SummerSlam 93. Or since the “championship committee” would base their decision on the next challenger on unseen metrics such as “rankings” or simply an inconclusive finish to a prior match. Which, to be fair, I always preferred compared to that other tired device, the “number one contender” stip match.

You didn’t need to spell out that winning King of the Ring put someone in the queue for a title shot, it was logical. You didn’t have to point to a single match won as to why in October 95 Bret was lined up as next challenger, he’s Bret fucking Hart. That actual period was peak for “declared top contender” … Bulldog was getting the next crack in December regardless of who won at Survivors as he’d not been beaten and won the match in Winnipeg. In Hershey, Diesel entered a strong performance but didn’t win, while Taker did. The committee decided Taker would get the next shot at the Rumble and Kev blew a gasket, costing Taker twice at the PPV and on Raw, by which point he gets granted his return crack for In Your House in February, and you know the rest. It was better when you had to have a title match announced and confirmed more months than not rather than the guys just wrestling for it, in my eyes. Every match is more important when you think there are rankings and any win could get your next title shot and any loss send you plummeting down the ladder. The second you attach “next title shot” stakes to any one match, you indirectly underline “no stakes” to numerous other matches taking place around the same time.

It’s a balance, and I think from 96-98 they got it right. For every occasion of Bret vs Austin at Survivors 96 confirmed on the night as having a title match guaranteed the victor, or the first Hell In A Cell having the extra spice of the title shot in Montreal (oo-er), you had ex champ HBK granted his title shot at the Rumble, Undertaker being made challenger for Mania 13 just because, Bret getting his title match for SummerSlam because his first match back he captained his side to a big win on last at the PPV so it made sense, etc. Probably the “Undertaker dressed as Kane pins Mankind to get his shot at SummerSlam 98” is around the time it started edging towards every PPV having a challenger that ostensibly earned his position by winning a single match on an episode of Raw. I say it’s a balance because while I enjoy the idea of rankings and w/l mattering if it’s invisible, every time ROH or AEW have spelled things out straight into my eyeballs, I’ve hated it.

Fast forward through the last 15 years (I know a lot us quite literally have) and there’s been a massive overdose of wrestlers complaining that they’re entitled to their rematch explicitly or worse actually using the words “invoking my rematch clause” as if it’s a given for every title defence. It’s a bit shit for me that the deposed champion has divine right to another shot, without having to win at least one match in between, much as I’m bored of the “number one contender” match. There’s no semblance of having to “climb the mountain again” is there? It’s so incredibly lazy.

12 hours ago, Underfaker said:

Not so much much Cashing In but after a MITB challenger is successful the former champ uses their rematch clause but this rematch is also under MITB rules so they can have their rematch h at any time.

…. OK, here’s something a bit novel and I’d be willing to entertain. Not such much as a retroactive twist to the “standing rematch clause” as such, but new champion signs a contract to give the dethroned a rematch, only to be victim of a later “cash in” that neither they nor we the viewer are aware is coming - opening things up for a snide “You should read what you sign.” The other thing I like about this is that it’s a cash in without a briefcase required. To be fair, much loved as it clearly is as a plot device and visible cue, you don’t really need a physical token to let the ref know you’re claiming your shot. It’s just what we’ve been conditioned to expect.

As an aside…. I loved Batista getting presented his ad hoc title shot at Elimination Chamber 2010, which felt like a cash in but wasn’t, far more than many actual cash ins.

Edited September 22, 2024 by air_raid
He walked for miles inside this pit of danger.

[JNLister]

Don't know how "real" this is, but this comes inside an official replica briefcase. 

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

Another one I wish they went through with....

Sandow. At one point Sandow's original briefcase was lobbed into a river and he brought out a replacement briefcase.

Now as we all know, Sandow used the replacement briefcase to try and win the WWE Championship from Cena, and failed.

But what if a month later he struck again but with the original case now dripping with water and has a bit of seaweed hanging out of it.

Sandow making everyone think he had lost his shot, and the champ feeling safe, when really it was a dummy case would of been perfectly in line with his character.

[air_raid]

56 minutes ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

Another one I wish they went through with....

Sandow. At one point Sandow's original briefcase was lobbed into a river and he brought out a replacement briefcase.

Now as we all know, Sandow used the replacement briefcase to try and win the WWE Championship from Cena, and failed.

But what if a month later he struck again but with the original case now dripping with water and has a bit of seaweed hanging out of it.

Sandow making everyone think he had lost his shot, and the champ feeling safe, when really it was a dummy case would have been perfectly in line with his character.

Depends how legal you want to get about the whole “deliverance of this agreement” part. Without full understanding of contract law, one could easily think that if he didn’t actually use the case with the contract inside, then it doesn’t count. However, there’s such a thing as “contract by conduct” that stands up in court, if both parties acted a certain way. In this case, Sandow acted by surrendering a briefcase, as though surrendering his right to one and only one shot. The company responded with due consideration and gave him a title shot at the time and location of his choosing. Contract by conduct, they’ve got no obligation to give him another.

It’s one of my favourite utterances that people believe that isn’t actually true when they say “verbal contract - not worth the paper it’s printed on.” Well, actually, it can be. Comes up in civil cases if one partner in a nasty split ends up in debt for bills in their name because they were sending money to their ex who then stopped paying them. The ex thinks they had no obligation to pay the bills if they’re not in their name, it’s not a joint account, there’s nothing down on paper. Actually, dickhead, your own conduct for the previous X months/years established you did have the obligation, so as long as they sent you the money, you should have been paying the bill.

Be a good double twist mind for “intelligent” Sandow to execute this plot then be foiled the week after by lawyers getting involved and rendering his win null and void. Thus has he got a gripe forever - he fought the law and the law won.

Edited September 23, 2024 by air_raid
Sweetest little woman I ever had…