You've misunderstood Couture's words. He's actually been quite public with his doubts about the union being the right way forward. Indeed the very quote you've selected makes clear that he doesn't want their to be a Union, which makes sense given his Republican politics. And he certainly isn't organising for a union, which is what Jesse Ventura and others were doing in the mid-eighties only for Vince to but kabosh on it after getting a tip-off from Hogan. No one has made any moves to unionize fighters. Now do I think the UFC wants a fighters union? Of course not, no business wants workers to stand together. And I'm sure things like the insurance scheme are in part ways to kill it with kindness. But that's very different from actively suppressing or disrupting an attempt to form the union. They haven't done that because there's been no attempt.
I haven't misunderstood anything. Randy has been always vocal about fighters rights. Hence why he and Dana went to court only for them to settle out of court. And it's painfully obvious that any attempt at a fighters union WOULD be suppressed. Which fighter is going to bite the hand that feeds them?
First of all, he was taken to court because he was trying to get out of his contract. Secondly, you didn't say that Randy has been vocal for fighters rights. You said that "Randy Couture has been VERY vocal about a fighters union". And that's simply not true. He's been clear that he doesn't want one. In the quote you included, he made it clear he doesn't want one. I've spoken to his autobiographer who was disappointed that he wouldn't push for a Union but given his political philosophy he just doesn't believe thereshould be one.
No. It was over a pay dispute over comp. Funny to think 'you're' interpretation of Randy encouraging a Union is clearly different to the assumption of many others. Hardly surprising though...
What is wrong with you? How can you twist these words to suggest he wants a union? "There’s going to be a battle. I’d rather sit down with the UFC, [president] Dana White and [CEO] Lorenzo Fertitta and figure out a way to implement some things with their blessing" "There’s a whole bunch of issues when you start unionizing ... There’s a give and take there. [Unions] can sometimes get carried away. It would be great to sit down and figure out a way to take care of the guys in this company so that everybody feels good about it and no one is in a position to have too much power or for a fighter to take advantage of a union and hold out" That to me is clearly someone who doesn't want the fighters to unions, but would rather work with management to improve fighter conditions. And the fact that the example he cites (accident insurance) did happen in a non-union context is telling.
And edited out of the quote you gave us: “There’s a whole bunch of issues when you start unionizing,” Couture said. “Look at football. The players are looking at a lockout because they might have to play two more games in a season and not increase their pay. I mean, why are you in the sport? Because you love to play the game, right?"
Stop chatting ****. I didnt edit out anything. I lifted it from google. Seeing as you're such a dab hand with copy and paste why don't you include the sites that came to the same conclusion as me? Instead of adding your bull**** spin. :roll:
Where did I say you edited it out? I said IT was edited out of the quote. And sources that say Couture wasn't advocating a union, let alone pushing for one to be created: http://blogs.thescore.com/mma/2011/04/21/randy-couture-dances-around-union-talk/ http://www.mmamania.com/2011/4/20/2...c-can-avoid-a-fighters-union-by-resolving-key http://espn.go.com/blog/mma/post/_/id/1342/couture-zuffa-fighters-can-have-meeting-of-minds http://www.yardbarker.com/mma/artic...may_not_be_the_right_course_of_action/4597013 That enough for you?
Good boy!!!!! :thumbsup So you spent 4-5 summi posts rankling over a point that i already acknowledge just so you could prove a non existent point. Certainly there are no flys on you.