Originally Posted by WiDDoW_MaKeR
I disagree. I completely understand White's reasoning. If the Casino wants to change their relationship with White as far as gambling (which is business for the Casino)... then White can very well choose to change his relationship with the Casino in regards to MMA events.
My insurance company is the same way. For instance... we spent thousands of dollars and brought in hundreds of people for big conventions/seminars/events in a certain hotel numerous times. After a few years of this... the Owner of the Hotel was approached about how our Insurance company could help his business, which was actually at no cost to the Hotel itself. The Owner didn't even grant us a simple 10 minute sit down in order to explain what we could offer. We explained that all we wanted to do is sit down for 10 minutes to see if what we could offer was even a fit for his company. He refused to meet with us. Needless to say we withdrew every upcoming event from that hotel and scheduled them at a place that actually already does business with us.
Even if the owner would have sat down with us, and decided that it wasn't right for his company... then nothing would have changed. However, the simple fact that he refused to even sit down with us for 10 minutes, after all of the money we brought into his business... it's a matter of respect.
In Dana's point of view... not only is he bringing in great business for the Casino with his MMA cards... it's also apparent that he brings in great business for the Casino with his own gambling, eating, and tips. The Casino repays him by cutting his credit line by 50%? That's a slap in the face and complete disrespect. I'm not surprised at all that he now refuses to put on any more shows there and bring them any more money.
Still that is a business relationship. Dana's issue with the casino seemed to be on an entirely personal level. For all we know, they cut his line of credit in half because he got into a habit of being slow to pay up. Entirely possible - he's a busy man to say the least.
Either way, he had a personal issue with the casino that apparently had nothing at all to do with the UFC in any way, shape or form. Any dispute (and it seems it was a relatively minor dispute) he had with the casino on an entirely personal level should not have cost that casino their lucrative business relationship with the UFC.
However, I might well have done the same if I were Dana. And not having knowledge of anything other than the surface facts, I can't make too strong a judgement one way or the other.