UFC LHW Champ Jon Jones Apologises And Accepts Full Responsibility For UFC 151 Cancellation

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » UFC LHW Champ Jon Jones Apologises And Accepts Full Responsibility For UFC 151 Cancellation
Next Page »
MMAcca
8/25/12 4:49:03PM
Two days after the atomic bomb was dropped on MMA fans with UFC 151 going down the tubes, UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones has taken to Twitter to address his role in the event being canceled. As you absolutely have to know by now, Jones' original opponent Dan Henderson pulled out due to injury, and Jones refused a short-notice title fight with Chael Sonnen, causing Dana White to go on a tirade towards Jones and Greg Jackson. Jones apologized and accepted full responsibility for the UFC canceling a card for the first time ever.






LINk
MMAcca
8/25/12 4:50:19PM
The tweets:


Carrying the cross for my company's decision. If someone has to take the blame, I will accept full responsibility for the way UFC 151
— Jon Bones Jones (@JonnyBones) August 25, 2012



was canceled. I want to sincerely apologize to all the other athletes/fans who's time and money was waisted.
— Jon Bones Jones (@JonnyBones) August 25, 2012



I feel terrible about the way that was handled.
— Jon Bones Jones (@JonnyBones) August 25, 2012
Shawn91111
8/25/12 4:52:24PM
If anyone its the UFC's fault
george112
8/25/12 5:09:01PM
UFCs fault for cancelling

Jones fault for not saving
tuvok500
8/25/12 5:20:43PM

Posted by Shawn91111

If anyone its the UFC's fault



what ?? in the pass the main event fighter that was not hurt always accepted to fight a new guy on short notice, they may had some trouble to find a replacement but they always found a relatively good replacement and the main event was saved, sometimes the co- main event was promoted if for example it was the champ that was injured and of course the title fight was out of question.

But here the fully healthy Jones refused basically to fight anybody on 8 days notice like if he didn't has a full camp, wasn't fully prepare for a 5 rds fight or wasn't the guy holding the belt !!!

Some card are more packed than other, it always been like that, it depend on many factors, so this card was no exception, the only exception was Jones's attitude.
You can't always have a co-main event that would give you an acceptable PPV in a case of main event cancelled, shit happen.



telnights
8/25/12 7:37:21PM
1. Did the UFC even ask anyone else other than a Sonnen? If so who did they ask and what did they say?
Sure doesn't seam like Zuffa did. If Zuffa did offer the fight to a bunch of real LHWs aren't they just as guilty as Jones by some peoples logic.

2. On what planet is Sonnen deserving of a shot at the LHW belt? Who has he beat at LHW?
If they didn't ask every top 10 LHW in the UFC before asking Sonnen then Zuffa is just making a joke out of the rankings and the hole earning a title shot system. Say the fight did happen and Sonnen was beat down what is he going to do now talk trash about HW champ and get a shot at that belt to or hell why not WW.

3. Why would the UFC cancel a hole event after one fight being canceled?
They feel the under card was so weak that it wasn't worth putting on. The UFC should have made a better under card.
Shawn91111
8/25/12 8:07:10PM

Posted by tuvok500


Posted by Shawn91111

If anyone its the UFC's fault



what ?? in the pass the main event fighter that was not hurt always accepted to fight a new guy on short notice, they may had some trouble to find a replacement but they always found a relatively good replacement and the main event was saved, sometimes the co- main event was promoted if for example it was the champ that was injured and of course the title fight was out of question.

But here the fully healthy Jones refused basically to fight anybody on 8 days notice like if he didn't has a full camp, wasn't fully prepare for a 5 rds fight or wasn't the guy holding the belt !!!

Some card are more packed than other, it always been like that, it depend on many factors, so this card was no exception, the only exception was Jones's attitude.
You can't always have a co-main event that would give you an acceptable PPV in a case of main event cancelled, shit happen.






I said if anyone. Jones has a right to refuse a fight whether you agree with it or not. Its the UFC's fault they stretched the card so thin that they couldn't move fights around which has happened in the past. Of course Jones should shoulder some of the blame.
george112
8/25/12 8:25:24PM

Posted by telnights

1. Did the UFC even ask anyone else other than a Sonnen? If so who did they ask and what did they say?
Sure doesn't seam like Zuffa did. If Zuffa did offer the fight to a bunch of real LHWs aren't they just as guilty as Jones by some peoples logic.

2. On what planet is Sonnen deserving of a shot at the LHW belt? Who has he beat at LHW?
If they didn't ask every top 10 LHW in the UFC before asking Sonnen then Zuffa is just making a joke out of the rankings and the hole earning a title shot system. Say the fight did happen and Sonnen was beat down what is he going to do now talk trash about HW champ and get a shot at that belt to or hell why not WW.

3. Why would the UFC cancel a hole event after one fight being canceled?
They feel the under card was so weak that it wasn't worth putting on. The UFC should have made a better under card.



There has been plenty of situations where title shots were definitely questionable.

It just so happened in this situation that Sonnen already had beef with Jones from previous social media encounters. Making it a FAN fueled fight. Fans wanted to see that fight . Plain and simple imo.

As for cancelling the event its already been said . The rest of the card was weak. UFCs fault.
JLS1980
8/25/12 8:45:35PM
Jon Jones couldn't fight at UFC 151 because he didn't have a ride.
jlock003
8/25/12 8:47:38PM
I don't know if the guy is sincere or not and it's not my place to judge, but props to Jones for making the statement. It at least l who looks like he cares about the guys who are in the same kind of position he was in two years ago. Now where is that dead horse everybody always posts???
postman
8/25/12 9:22:35PM

Posted by george112

UFCs fault for cancelling

Jones fault for not saving



SWaving the event would have been going above and beyond. I can't stand Jones but I have no problem with him not taking the fight. I think he would win rather easy and with talks of Chael moving up a larger payday would be a fight down the road with the weeks of build up infront of it.
george112
8/25/12 9:31:21PM

Posted by postman


Posted by george112

UFCs fault for cancelling

Jones fault for not saving



SWaving the event would have been going above and beyond. I can't stand Jones but I have no problem with him not taking the fight. I think he would win rather easy and with talks of Chael moving up a larger payday would be a fight down the road with the weeks of build up infront of it.




There really is no legitimate reason to turn down the fight. Of course it would be a bigger payday down the road but Jones makes plenty of money. More so then the majority of the UFC roster. For the sake of the other fighters and the fans I personally would have taken the fight just for those reasons alone. I would take a little bit less money (would have been a big payday regardless) and be made out to be the good guy. Seems like all of his motivation seems to be for money so idk it just doesn't make sense to not want to look good. To not want to be the good guy.

He's trying to be the good guy right now with this apology but unfortunately for him its a little too late for that.

So yes he succeeded in preserving his possibility for a huge payday fight with Sonnen
prozacnation1978
8/25/12 9:42:00PM
Too late dude. You should have apologized thur
We all know Greg Jackson is making you say this to make more fans
aussiemma
8/25/12 10:08:27PM
jon jones is carrying the cross for us all...all hail the second coming, i knew he was the one.
postman
8/25/12 10:23:11PM

Posted by george112


Posted by postman


Posted by george112

UFCs fault for cancelling

Jones fault for not saving



SWaving the event would have been going above and beyond. I can't stand Jones but I have no problem with him not taking the fight. I think he would win rather easy and with talks of Chael moving up a larger payday would be a fight down the road with the weeks of build up infront of it.




There really is no legitimate reason to turn down the fight. Of course it would be a bigger payday down the road but Jones makes plenty of money. More so then the majority of the UFC roster. For the sake of the other fighters and the fans I personally would have taken the fight just for those reasons alone. I would take a little bit less money (would have been a big payday regardless) and be made out to be the good guy. Seems like all of his motivation seems to be for money so idk it just doesn't make sense to not want to look good. To not want to be the good guy.

He's trying to be the good guy right now with this apology but unfortunately for him its a little too late for that.

So yes he succeeded in preserving his possibility for a huge payday fight with Sonnen



I mean he has said many times he fights for the money. I think its foolish for any of us to expect him to do anything more then worry about that. We will see more and more of this as the sport grows, the money at stake is just too big. It would have been great for him to save the PPV and take the fight but the days of Matt Hughes working on the farm instead of preparing for his title fight in england are gone.

I too would have gained respect for him had he taken the fight but I can't say I lost anymore for him doing what he and his coach thought was the right thing to do.
Dberntson
8/25/12 10:32:41PM
Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.
Aether
8/25/12 10:49:54PM

Posted by telnights

1. Did the UFC even ask anyone else other than a Sonnen? If so who did they ask and what did they say?
Sure doesn't seam like Zuffa did. If Zuffa did offer the fight to a bunch of real LHWs aren't they just as guilty as Jones by some peoples logic.

2. On what planet is Sonnen deserving of a shot at the LHW belt? Who has he beat at LHW?
If they didn't ask every top 10 LHW in the UFC before asking Sonnen then Zuffa is just making a joke out of the rankings and the hole earning a title shot system. Say the fight did happen and Sonnen was beat down what is he going to do now talk trash about HW champ and get a shot at that belt to or hell why not WW.

3. Why would the UFC cancel a hole event after one fight being canceled?
They feel the under card was so weak that it wasn't worth putting on. The UFC should have made a better under card.



Yeah, I more or less agree with this. I can understand blaming Jones to a certain degree, but surely the UFC has to shoulder at least some of the blame for not having a contingency plan for what is obviously an inevitable situation. The UFC's only backup plans shouldn't be to frantically call people and ask them to fill in or cancel the card. Plan ahead, injuries happen, get ready for them and don't expect your fighters to risk their belts against someone they haven't trained for on a week's notice.
Poor_Franklin
8/25/12 10:54:37PM
dont like him using the cross reference. im not religious. just don like the whole "i'm a martyr" thing, no matter the circumstance.
Chael_Sonnen
8/25/12 10:58:12PM
Hey kid,

Apology NOT ACCEPTED!

- - - Now, fix me a drink, non-alcoholic
Aether
8/25/12 10:58:26PM

Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.
prophecy033
8/25/12 11:29:16PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

Dude, my boss can fire me for sneezing in his direction. He can fire me for whatever he wants because he is the owner of the company and not a union. If it was union then yeah, you would be right but since I'm not a union member I can get fired for whatever he wants to fire me for. Truth
Chael_Sonnen
8/25/12 11:34:49PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.



After reading this garble, I'm offering you a FREE Jon Jones Pizza Special - - - loaded with extra CHEESE for ya!
Image Attachment(s):
Photo Attachment 1
Aether
8/25/12 11:50:32PM

Posted by prophecy033


Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

Dude, my boss can fire me for sneezing in his direction. He can fire me for whatever he wants because he is the owner of the company and not a union. If it was union then yeah, you would be right but since I'm not a union member I can get fired for whatever he wants to fire me for. Truth



It's not truth. There are governmental labour laws that employers have to follow. It doesn't matter if you have a union or not.

It is far easier to be compliant than to complain to a labour board 99% of the time, but the point is that his blanket statement about "do what you're told or get fired" is not true. There are pretty clearly defined limits for what an employer can and can't demand of their employees, especially with regards to safety.
george112
8/25/12 11:55:27PM

Posted by prophecy033


Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

Dude, my boss can fire me for sneezing in his direction. He can fire me for whatever he wants because he is the owner of the company and not a union. If it was union then yeah, you would be right but since I'm not a union member I can get fired for whatever he wants to fire me for. Truth



Proph is right.

The UFC isn't the NFL NBA or MLB.

How do you think guys get cut so easily. Jones being champion saved his ass. Had he not been champion I feel Dana would have been pretty close to letting him go. But then again if he wasn't champion we wouldn't be arguing about this.

prophecy033
8/25/12 11:58:14PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by prophecy033


Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

Dude, my boss can fire me for sneezing in his direction. He can fire me for whatever he wants because he is the owner of the company and not a union. If it was union then yeah, you would be right but since I'm not a union member I can get fired for whatever he wants to fire me for. Truth



It's not truth. There are governmental labour laws that employers have to follow. It doesn't matter if you have a union or not.

It is far easier to be compliant than to complain to a labour board 99% of the time, but the point is that his blanket statement about "do what you're told or get fired" is not true. There are pretty clearly defined limits for what an employer can and can't demand of their employees, especially with regards to safety.

you obviously have no idea how things work in Oregon bro. I've had dudes I worked with try and file claims against my current employer and their told they have no case. Sure, he can't tell you to clean the shitter with your tongue or else but if he doesn't like you he has every right to fire you on the spot. That's from the Oregon labor union
Dberntson
8/25/12 11:58:49PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as
evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

You live in canada, so maybe the labor laws are different, but in the States the majority of the states are employment at will, meaning both the employer and the employee can terminate employment for any reason other than race, religion or sex orientation.

The other explaination is you are either in high school or college and have never had a real job.

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

george112
8/25/12 11:59:37PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by prophecy033


Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

Dude, my boss can fire me for sneezing in his direction. He can fire me for whatever he wants because he is the owner of the company and not a union. If it was union then yeah, you would be right but since I'm not a union member I can get fired for whatever he wants to fire me for. Truth





It's not truth. There are governmental labour laws that employers have to follow. It doesn't matter if you have a union or not.

It is far easier to be compliant than to complain to a labour board 99% of the time, but the point is that his blanket statement about "do what you're told or get fired" is not true. There are pretty clearly defined limits for what an employer can and can't demand of their employees, especially with regards to safety.



You are referring to OSHA and its not as definitive and played by the book as you make it out to be. Being part of s union has a lot to do with it. Also unless you know what the grounds of termination are in Jones' UFC contract we can both never be right about this.

You are right. And Prophecy is right.


Yes there are laws. BUT not everyone plays by the rules.

Anyone with a large job history could tell you that
Aether
8/26/12 12:02:21AM

Posted by prophecy033


Posted by Aether


Posted by prophecy033


Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

Dude, my boss can fire me for sneezing in his direction. He can fire me for whatever he wants because he is the owner of the company and not a union. If it was union then yeah, you would be right but since I'm not a union member I can get fired for whatever he wants to fire me for. Truth



It's not truth. There are governmental labour laws that employers have to follow. It doesn't matter if you have a union or not.

It is far easier to be compliant than to complain to a labour board 99% of the time, but the point is that his blanket statement about "do what you're told or get fired" is not true. There are pretty clearly defined limits for what an employer can and can't demand of their employees, especially with regards to safety.

you obviously have no idea how things work in Oregon bro. I've had dudes I worked with try and file claims against my current employer and their told they have no case. Sure, he can't tell you to clean the shitter with your tongue or else but if he doesn't like you he has every right to fire you on the spot. That's from the Oregon labor union



So your friends had no case, what's your point? Are you trying to say that there aren't governmental labour laws? Like I said, 99% of the time, compliance is the easiest route, this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that there are clearly defined limits to what an employer can demand, which is all that I said. This isn't an arguable point. There are plenty of examples of people who HAVE won wrongful termination cases, the fact that you know some people who didn't have a case doesn't mean anything.
Dberntson
8/26/12 12:04:27AM
To aether:


You live in canada, so maybe the labor laws are different, but in the States the majority of the states are employment at will, meaning both the employer and the employee can terminate employment for any reason other than race, religion or sex orientation.

The other explaination is you are either in high school or college and have never had a real job.

Aether
8/26/12 12:04:32AM

Posted by george112


Posted by prophecy033


Posted by Aether


Posted by Dberntson

Heres the deal, if you are employed by a company every once in a while you have to take jobs/assignments you don't like. Example, my coworker quit. As a esult I have been covering his workload and mine for the last two months. We hired a new guy, but I am still covering the majority of the work. Here were my options: accept the extra work and keep my job or refuse to work late and get fired. The employer makes the rules. If you accept the paycheck, do the job.



That's not true at all. He doesn't have to take the fight, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't take the fight and still has his job. The employer makes some of the rules, and labour boards and courts make others that the employer has to follow, otherwise any employer could make all kinds of ridiculous demands of their workers and just say "don't like it? fuck off and we won't pay you."

The options are not do whatever your employer tells you or get fired. That's a false assertion that you made and based your argument off of. The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts. Employers don't get to tell you to do things you didn't agree to do when you accepted the job and fire you when you refuse.

Dude, my boss can fire me for sneezing in his direction. He can fire me for whatever he wants because he is the owner of the company and not a union. If it was union then yeah, you would be right but since I'm not a union member I can get fired for whatever he wants to fire me for. Truth



Proph is right.

The UFC isn't the NFL NBA or MLB.

How do you think guys get cut so easily. Jones being champion saved his ass. Had he not been champion I feel Dana would have been pretty close to letting him go. But then again if he wasn't champion we wouldn't be arguing about this.




Because they have something called an "escape clause" in the contracts they sign. Which is why I said:

"The parameters of "the job" are outlined clearly from the beginning, that's why they sign contracts."
Pages: [1] 2