by SonnyBlackstein » Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:12 pm
johnny_scootch wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:14 am
At the one meeting with the full admin they decide Russo will continue as boss which shows the admin wasn’t gathering to only speak about this Union extortion but also that it was ‘at least 10k a month’. And this ‘10k at least’ was something new they were extorting from the benefits fund and separate from whatever they had been getting for the previous 20 years. Most importantly no signs of anyone fighting or arguing over any of this at all. Maybe there are other articles showing that? I searched and can’t find anything like that.
Johnny, dude, stop. The semantics.
You got me dead to rights. There was no quoted fighting or nit picking. These were Sonny's conclusions. I take them back. There is no evidence of fighting over a single racket.
I want to remove this stupid point as a contention of argument. Cool?
What my LARGER point, was that having this number of mgmt, ie the whole admin, AND 30-40% of your captains involved, in a singular 10k racket, indicates, TO ME, a likely sign of financial stress. I want to debate that point. How is it not, in your reasoned opinion?
So you've won the 'in fighting' argument, can you address the larger point I'm trying to make?
Be better than Tommy and contribute an evidence based supposition vs being a baseless negative.
[quote=johnny_scootch post_id=264921 time=1690200852]
At the one meeting with the full admin they decide Russo will continue as boss which shows the admin wasn’t gathering to only speak about this Union extortion but also that it was ‘at least 10k a month’. And this ‘10k at least’ was something new they were extorting from the benefits fund and separate from whatever they had been getting for the previous 20 years. Most importantly no signs of anyone fighting or arguing over any of this at all. Maybe there are other articles showing that? I searched and can’t find anything like that.
[/quote]
Johnny, dude, stop. The semantics.
You got me dead to rights. There was no quoted fighting or nit picking. These were Sonny's conclusions. I take them back. There is no evidence of fighting over a single racket.
I want to remove this stupid point as a contention of argument. Cool?
What my LARGER point, was that having this number of mgmt, ie the whole admin, AND 30-40% of your captains involved, in a singular 10k racket, indicates, TO ME, a likely sign of financial stress. I want to debate that point. How is it not, in your reasoned opinion?
So you've won the 'in fighting' argument, can you address the larger point I'm trying to make?
Be better than Tommy and contribute an evidence based supposition vs being a baseless negative.