Quote Originally Posted by Rise View Post
You don't see the difference between a union trying to hurt a company because they can't get a foot hold into some of the businesses they own and competing against another company that offers the same product as you ? Really ?
I don't an enormous difference. They're both in business to make money. They're both doing things that are legal.

I'm curious as well how exactly did Dana fuck Fedor's career ? I could see the Strikeforce buy out maybe as being an arguement here but I'm pretty sure that would have happened with or without Fedor there.
I'm not saying dana fucked Fedor's career. I'm saying he did everything he could to fuck his career. Big difference.

When negotiations first failed between Fedor and Zuffa, Fedor was unilaterally considered #1 p4p on the planet. Immediately, dana looked to discredit him every chance he could, saying he wasn't even a top 5 HW. Fedor wasn't nearly as well known as dana, wasn't in front of cameras and microphones as much as dana, and suddenly you have a ton of completely ignorant fans who are repeating dana's assertion that Fedor hadn't beaten a top 10 fighter since 2005. Which is obviously bullshit, if you know anything at all about MMA. But repetition bred belief among an easily impressionable fanbase.

There's more to it than that, but I'm tired of typing about it already.

If they are not being underhanded an actually showing true concern here why are we not hearing this more from them? How many countless entertainers have been through just Las Vegas alone that have had criminal issues that they've probably never given a thought about if they played in a union establishment.
I'm not saying the CU is great and awesome and above criticism.

I'm saying in this case, virtually every point they've brought up is actually valid. They win this round.

I don't have a job in the food service industry. I don't care if Station Casino's ever unionize or not.

But that doesn't change the fact that everything this guy mentioned is accurate.

While it may not be corrupt it's still nothing but blatant PR hypocrisy.
The vast majority of PR is blatant hypocrisy. To hold you to the same standard you'd like to hold the casionos, why aren't you strident and outraged every time dana massages the truth in a statement, or goes back on his word?

Because you care about some things, and you don't care about others. Everybody does.

Right now, the CU has a hard on for zuffa.

I actually see that as a good thing. I see it as pressure for zuffa to tighten up it's game and make fewer mistakes to be exploited in the media. It's not like they're in a position to topple zuffa and there is no UFC. But the pressure can make the product better, and that's what I want.

I agree with everything you said here except the constructive criticism part there is no need for the culinary union to be sticking their nose in here.

If I thought there was an actual true concern behind what they CU said I'd give them more credence. Realistically though we can all form our own opinions without them coming off like a bunch of tattle tales and trying to make problems.
I can't tell if this is someone who is pretending to care, or someone who genuinely takes an interest in these issues and is coincidentally focused on looking for weakness in zuffa. I don't think anyone can.

But ultimately, they're right. To me, it doesn't matter where the information comes from, if it's accurate. I don't care about their agenda, because they're actually right.

Quote Originally Posted by AnchorPunch View Post
Actually it's wildly different. In this case, Stephens is being denied his ability to make a living and a salary. In almost all cases of teacher accusations, the offending teacher is paid until the matter is resolved, regardless of whether or not they can still be in the classroom.
It depends on a lot of different cases.

I've seen teachers/police/politicians suspended without pay in certain cases. I'm not sure that a teacher accused of a brutal beating is going to get paid leave. It would depend on their contract...and that brings up a different point: the teacher chose a job with a contract that would cover them in cases like this, Stephens didn't. It goes back to him, and the choices he's made.

In addition, there is nothing preventing zuffa from choosing to support him and paying him his show money while it's being resolved. If dana really believes in him 100%--and isn't just trying to keep a fighter with a fanbase off of a blacklist he may deserve to be on--he can show that with cash. He's made financial gestures in the past that wouldn't rule this out.

In fact, that makes it much more like what I was saying, innocent until proven guilty, though with a special precaution to protect children from heinous crimes.[/QUOTE]
So when a teacher has an extra glass of wine at kareoke and blows a .09, it's a heinous crime that her students need to be protected from in the classroom? Like she's going to plow her RAV4 through the wall and run over the Glee Club?

What's more heinous, allegedly driving under the influence, or two men allegedly beating one man until he stops breathing? Neither one is great, but one is most often negligence, and the other is outright malicious.

I'm not saying Stephens is guilty--I actually hope he isn't, for his sake and for the sake of MMA in general. But I am saying he shouldn't be fighting for zuffa until the case is resolved.