DeMaurice Smith "apologizes" to the fans

[Rob0729]

Smith was on Sirius NFL radio last night (on Maurice Jones-Drew's Late Hits so he wasn't going to be called on his BS) and apologized to the fans for the league suing to not play games. Another completely false statement. Here are more:

“First league in the history of sports that has ever sued to not play their game,” Smith said. “When we reach a time or a moment in history when a professional sports league is suing to not play football, we’re in a bad spot.”

“What do you think as a fan when you learn that the league that you write a check to, the teams that you’ve done nothing but cheer for for years are now suing to not play the game that we all love?”

More misplaced rhetoric from De Smith | ProFootballTalk

I guess when a league actually does sue to not play football, we might have a historic moment.

Here's more from Florio's article:

Indeed, Smith explained that he called the league’s March 11 offer the “worst deal in the history of sports” because it would have cut the players’ share from 50 percent to something less than 50 percent. “It was an easy call to say that it was the worst deal in history because from the day that we would have taken their offer it would have forever severed the players of the National Football League from a fair share of the revenue that we all know that they generate,” Smith said.

Smith continues to overlook the fact that, even if the percentages shrink, the total dollars paid to the players will continue to grow. So why doesn’t Smith ever acknowledge that? Probably because he fears that more than a few players would respond by saying, “So we’re still going to make more money each year? OK, we’re fine with that.”

Not surprisingly, Peter King and Ross Tucker are killing Smith for being a joke and the callers are joining in for the ride. Albert Breer is saying he gets the sense that some players are getting frustrated with Smith turning the players into the bad guys.

Whether you are on the players' side or not, you gotta admit this guy is clearly not the right guy to be negotiating a labor deal. He is perfect to be first chair on an antitrust suit, but it is clear that was his objective all along. You don't keep on making up lies and spreading them in the media with an organization you are trying to get a deal done with.

I am getting more and more convinced that Smith is THE PROBLEM here and if the NFLPA actually hired someone with labor experience, things might not have gotten to this point. Yes, the owners' current proposal is unacceptable to the players, but the players never tried to counter. Smith wants to do what he does and litigate over negotiate.

 

[signbabybrady]

You know what? F Smith and F Goodell.

 

[Tunescribe]

You know what? F Smith and F Goodell.

Agreed. No real-world perspective on either side. I think all the owners and all the players should be forced, for one month, to work menial jobs at minimum wage and live in one-room efficiency apartments. Take the bus to work, etc. They have no concept of reality.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Smith was on Sirius NFL radio last night (on Maurice Jones-Drew's Late Hits so he wasn't going to be called on his BS) and apologized to the fans for the league suing to not play games. Another completely false statement. Here are more:






More misplaced rhetoric from De Smith | ProFootballTalk

I guess when a league actually does sue to not play football, we might have a historic moment.

Here's more from Florio's article:




Not surprisingly, Peter King and Ross Tucker are killing Smith for being a joke and the callers are joining in for the ride. Albert Breer is saying he gets the sense that some players are getting frustrated with Smith turning the players into the bad guys.

Whether you are on the players' side or not, you gotta admit this guy is clearly not the right guy to be negotiating a labor deal. He is perfect to be first chair on an antitrust suit, but it is clear that was his objective all along. You don't keep on making up lies and spreading them in the media with an organization you are trying to get a deal done with.

I am getting more and more convinced that Smith is THE PROBLEM here and if the NFLPA actually hired someone with labor experience, things might not have gotten to this point. Yes, the owners' current proposal is unacceptable to the players, but the players never tried to counter. Smith wants to do what he does and litigate over negotiate.

The players shoulder responsibility for the decision to hire Smith because they allowed the egotistical hotheads among them to talk them into this approach to begin with by ceding to unemployed guys with bruised egos and too much time on their hands like Mawae and Vrabel the authority to make that decision for them via their seats on the Executive Committee. Disgruntled guys who think they are smarter than their peers and to prove it didn't want another player heading their union after Gene died. They wanted an ambitious climber who was better educated than them and had lofty career aspirations of his own who wasn't going to waste time developing a rapore with management because he had bigger fish to fry. They wanted a guy who would push their players play and talent wins and we are the league agenda to the front because it meshed with his own agenda which was pushing De Smith's image as a mover and shaker to the forefront.

They already had that guy on their roster in Kessler, although Gene had the sense to keep the pit bull on a short leash and periodically muzzled - until of course 2006. DeMaurice was supposed to be smart enough to keep Kessler chained up out back. De wouldn't need abrasion, he was the charasmatic, silver tongued orator who so bedazzled them they couldn't imagine he wouldn't similarly bedazzle ownership and management and fans into seeing the light. They hired this clown because they thought he was a brilliant public speaker, the guy who swayed judge and jury. They are a dumb as their critics always contended they were. They got bamboozled by the smarmy pitchman.

They needed the careful, brilliant, behind the scenes tactician capable of putting them in position to win. They gravitated to the flamboyant, limelight seeking blowhard who convinced them they would win because they deserved to and he believed in them. They needed a Belichick and they hired a Ryan.

 

[blackglass3]

I've said it before, but I'll repeat...if Gene Upshaw were still alive or another person ended up elected to the NFLPA head, we'd be discussing what teams DeAngelo Williams or Vincent Jackson ended up on and how good some players looked or didn't look at the OTA's/Rookie Camp.

DeMaurice Smith is out to make a name for himself and get as much press as he can. Just like Goodell, Smith wants to be seen as "The Sherrif" and bring the owners to their knees.

 

[fair catch fryar]

I couldn't agree more with you and "signbabybrady". At the beginning I sided with the players, feeling that the owners were the ones who were being sneaky and couldn't trust along with my dislike for anything Goodell. Smith has done nothing for the players except give me the idea that he's nothing more than a snake oil salesman doing it only for publicity and notoriety for future personal gain. I actually liked Jim Irsay's quote from the other day saying how he and Jeff Saturday could probably get a deal done on ****tail napkins while having drinks and lunch together. I honestly believe this is the only way it will get done. The lawyers need to be locked out and the real players need to sit down and compromise.

 

[dhamz]

There is clearly no doubt at this point that "the owners sued to stop football" is the new talking point. It is a complete lie and insults the intelligence of both his players and the fans of the game but Smith probably (and likely correctly) assumes many if not most don't know the difference.

 

[BlueThunder]

Did the owners submit another proposal per the courtsd request on Monday?

If so, what was the player's reaction after reading?

Did they return with any counter proposal?

You know...back and forth to find a middle ground?

It's called NEGOTIATING for a reason..

 

[signbabybrady]

True story when I googled pictures of Demaurice Smith. The second picture I found and clicked the link was him but when I clicked the link for full size image it was a vagina. Aside from scaring the **** out of me because I am at work I got really good laugh out of it because I figure someone did that on purpose.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I couldn't agree more with you and "signbabybrady". At the beginning I sided with the players, feeling that the owners were the ones who were being sneaky and couldn't trust along with my dislike for anything Goodell. Smith has done nothing for the players except give me the idea that he's nothing more than a snake oil salesman doing it only for publicity and notoriety for future personal gain. I actually liked Jim Irsay's quote from the other day saying how he and Jeff Saturday could probably get a deal done on ****tail napkins while having drinks and lunch together. I honestly believe this is the only way it will get done. The lawyers need to be locked out and the real players need to sit down and compromise.

Robert Kraft keeps saying if we get the lawyers out of the room we could get a deal done in no time. The lawyers with their egos are whats ruining this negotiating process. They should get some owners led by Kraft and some of the players in a room together and hammer this thing out, then stiff all the lawyers of their bills since they just running up tabs.
Jonatahn Kraft mentioned on his radio spot a couple weeks ago thats lawyers dont always have the best interest of their client at th forefront and you have to be smart enough to know when they do and when they dont.

 

[townes]

Smith was on Sirius NFL radio last night (on Maurice Jones-Drew's Late Hits so he wasn't going to be called on his BS) and apologized to the fans for the league suing to not play games. Another completely false statement. Here are more:






More misplaced rhetoric from De Smith | ProFootballTalk

I guess when a league actually does sue to not play football, we might have a historic moment.

Here's more from Florio's article:




Not surprisingly, Peter King and Ross Tucker are killing Smith for being a joke and the callers are joining in for the ride. Albert Breer is saying he gets the sense that some players are getting frustrated with Smith turning the players into the bad guys.

Whether you are on the players' side or not, you gotta admit this guy is clearly not the right guy to be negotiating a labor deal. He is perfect to be first chair on an antitrust suit, but it is clear that was his objective all along. You don't keep on making up lies and spreading them in the media with an organization you are trying to get a deal done with.

I am getting more and more convinced that Smith is THE PROBLEM here and if the NFLPA actually hired someone with labor experience, things might not have gotten to this point. Yes, the owners' current proposal is unacceptable to the players, but the players never tried to counter. Smith wants to do what he does and litigate over negotiate.

If a lawsuit was their goal all along then why did they offer to keep playing while negotiating under the 2010 rules?


D. Smith is a tool, no doubt, but none of you blaming him also point the finger at jeff Pash, who spent the last few years structuring illegal deals to make the lockout prosperous for the owners and who has been gearing up to stop football for years.

And Smith is right, the owners are suing to force the players to remain in a union so they can lock them out, which is suing to stop football from being played.

The owners forced the players to form a union to maintain a CBA, the owners then opted out of that CBA leaving the players alone in it, the players then opted out of the union that owners forced upon them as a condition of that CBA, now the owners are suing to force the players to stay in the union the forced upon them as part of the CBA they opted out of. That's as idiotic and warped as it gets and there is simply no logic to it whatsoever.

 

[DaBruinz]

If a lawsuit was their goal all along then why did they offer to keep playing while negotiating under the 2010 rules?


D. Smith is a tool, no doubt, but none of you blaming him also point the finger at jeff Pash, who spent the last few years structuring illegal deals to make the lockout prosperous for the owners and who has been gearing up to stop football for years.

How would the lockout have been prosperous for the owners?? You mean because the new contracts stated that they'd have to repay money to the Networks for any games that weren't televised??? Yeah, I can see how the league would make a profit on that.

And Smith is right, the owners are suing to force the players to remain in a union so they can lock them out, which is suing to stop football from being played.

The owners forced the players to form a union to maintain a CBA, the owners then opted out of that CBA leaving the players alone in it, the players then opted out of the union that owners forced upon them as a condition of that CBA, now the owners are suing to force the players to stay in the union the forced upon them as part of the CBA they opted out of. That's as idiotic and warped as it gets and there is simply no logic to it whatsoever.

WRONG. The owners are suing the players because the players decertified prior to the end of the CBA. And the players decertified so they could file their anti-trust lawsuits AND be able to re-certify on a moments notice, instead of having to wait 6 months.

When the owners "opted out" of the CBA, it did NOT leave the players as the sole entity in it. That is a mis-representation on your part. When the owners "opted out", it cut the last 2 years off the CBA. The owners were still bound by the rules of the CBA until the CBA expired on the new expiration date.

You clearly don't understand that, for a CBA to exist, a UNION has to exist.

The players want the best of both worlds. They want all the benefits that a union brings them but they don't want to be bound by any of the cons that come with being in a union.

They then want to be able to file an anti-trust lawsuit anytime they don't get the "millions" on a new contract they feel they deserve.

There is greed on both sides. But the players haven't shown they are willing to bargain in good faith. And you haven't shown a single proposal of theirs other than "lets play by the 2010 rules". Rules which the league already said weren't acceptable.

 

[mgcolby]

If a lawsuit was their goal all along then why did they offer to keep playing while negotiating under the 2010 rules?


D. Smith is a tool, no doubt, but none of you blaming him also point the finger at jeff Pash, who spent the last few years structuring illegal deals to make the lockout prosperous for the owners and who has been gearing up to stop football for years.

And Smith is right, the owners are suing to force the players to remain in a union so they can lock them out, which is suing to stop football from being played.

The owners forced the players to form a union to maintain a CBA, the owners then opted out of that CBA leaving the players alone in it, the players then opted out of the union that owners forced upon them as a condition of that CBA, now the owners are suing to force the players to stay in the union the forced upon them as part of the CBA they opted out of. That's as idiotic and warped as it gets and there is simply no logic to it whatsoever.

You really need to stop throwing this blatant falsehood out about the TV deals. The owners wouldn't make the "lockout" prosperous, they would have received aprox 4 billion in rights fees, with all but 435 million (DirectTV) of it to be repaid, essentially they worked out a built in loan from the TV deals. I don't think 435 million would make the league prosperous in 2011.

And how is it any different then the Union setting up a lock out fund for the players? Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how a union can set up a lockout fund, decertify, sue the owners over their "lockout" fund and then put in motion the plans to dish out the payments to the members of a union that no longer exists.

And to be clear I think Doty ruled correctly on the TV deal issue. The league clearly could have recieved more money in 09' and 10' had it not worked in the clause for a loan in the case of a lockout.

And to the part about D Smith, last I checked the Owners appealed the initial ruling in a law suit initiated by the NFLPA*. So how exactly is it true? And according to CBA laws both parties need to negotiate in good faith and so far the Players haven't negotiated at all. Hell they're not even a union anymore and to the best of my knowledge you need a Union to have a CBA.

 

[PATSNUTme]

If both were serious about getting this done they would agree to binding arbitration. This mediation crap is for the birds. The mediator has no real authority to bring them together. And the court rulings can just be appealed.

Just get someone in there who had experience with negotiations and has the best interest of football at heart.

I have a person in mind but would not type the name as it could set off a political debate. From some past statements, this person should be agreeable to both sides.

 

[Rob0729]

If a lawsuit was their goal all along then why did they offer to keep playing while negotiating under the 2010 rules?


D. Smith is a tool, no doubt, but none of you blaming him also point the finger at jeff Pash, who spent the last few years structuring illegal deals to make the lockout prosperous for the owners and who has been gearing up to stop football for years.

And Smith is right, the owners are suing to force the players to remain in a union so they can lock them out, which is suing to stop football from being played.

The owners forced the players to form a union to maintain a CBA, the owners then opted out of that CBA leaving the players alone in it, the players then opted out of the union that owners forced upon them as a condition of that CBA, now the owners are suing to force the players to stay in the union the forced upon them as part of the CBA they opted out of. That's as idiotic and warped as it gets and there is simply no logic to it whatsoever.

First, the players never said they were willing to play under the 2010 rules. They are fighting to keep the doors open, but there are no guarantees that that if they win the lockout injuction battle that they don't turn around and sue that things like franchise tags, RFA tenders, etc. are antitrust violations without a CBA. They have never said how they want the NFL to be run without a CBA. Odds are they will sue to make it a free market system because that would benefit them in leverage and is actually the preferred outcome of Jeffrey Kessler.

Second, Smith is 100% wrong. The owners have not submitted one lawsuit. I will play Michael Felger here and ask is it possible to sue to not play games without actually suing to play games? They appealed a court decising in a case that they are the defendant. They are not a plantiff in any case vs. the players right now which is a key requirement in actually suing for something. Besides, we are 16 weeks away from the football season. No games are even in jeapodary of being missed at this point.

Third, the owners stood to make $13.6 million per team on the TV deal if there is no 2011 season after they pay back the loan from DirecTV and others. That is gross and not net. That probably won't cover expenses of most of the teams over a year. They are not making a lot of money because they have to give free games in compensation for most of the money paid out in 2011 during a lockout.

Fourth, the owners never forced the players to form a union to sign a CBA. The federal government and antitrust laws forced the players to form a union to benefit from collective bargaining just like every other union in this country that benefit from collective bargaining. The players benefitted for years by collective bargaining. Collective bargaining gave them free agency, retirement benefits, protection from unreasonable fines and punishments, etc. Typically unionizing benefits the employee more than the employer because it gives the workers collective bargaining power and much more leverage than individual bargaining power.

Fifth, the players signed the agreement to allow the owners to opt out of the CBA. They even agreed to penalities for opting out of the CBA. It isn't like the owners did anything that the players didn't agree to when they opted out.

Sixth, the owners never forced the players to adher to the conditions of the CBA when they decertified. The CBA doesn't have a provision for locking out. There is a question on whether a lock out violates antitrust laws and it may, but it has nothing to do with the CBA at all.

Seventh, I think Jeff Pash deserves his share of the blame. But at least the owners have made two consecutive offers with no counter offer. The owners are publically trying to reconcil while Smith still going with the scorced earth strategy. Right now, I feel the owners are more right than the players at least in the area of actually trying to get a deal done. Next week it could be different.

 

[Rob0729]

If both were serious about getting this done they would agree to binding arbitration. This mediation crap is for the birds. The mediator has no real authority to bring them together. And the court rulings can just be appealed.

Just get someone in there who had experience with negotiations and has the best interest of football at heart.

I have a person in mind but would not type the name as it could set off a political debate. From some past statements, this person should be agreeable to both sides.

No business is going to agree to binding arbitration on a deal that is worth billions of dollars a year. That is foolish and I can understand why neither would agree to it.

 

[PATSNUTme]

No business is going to agree to binding arbitration on a deal that is worth billions of dollars a year. That is foolish and I can understand why neither would agree to it.

In most cases you are right.

But in this case, if the person they agreed to had the confidence of both sides, and they knew that person would be fair and not impose a deal that one party could not live with, then that would better than dragging it through the court system and losing billions that they may never be able to recover.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The owners aren't suing anyone. They are being sued...

The owners filed a grievance with the NLRB. That isn't a lawsuit.

The owners didn't lock the players out until the union decertified in order to facilitate the players filing a lawsuit. That triggered the lockout. Players were precluded under the terms of the CBA from filing a lawsuit against the owners as long as they were represented by a union that was collectively bargaining with the owners on their behalf. That same CBA further stipulated that if the union decertified after the expiration of the CBA the players would be precluded from filing suit against the owners for 6 months. The owners and the union extended the CBA twice at the request of the NLRB based on the owners having filed that grievance. The union walked away from the table 4 hours after the owners placed a new and significant proposal on the table to form the framework for a new CBA. They did so because the 5PM deadline to file a suit in Minneapolis, where they assumed their personal protector Judge Doty would be handed the case, before the upcoming weekend was fast approaching. And that was all the NFLPA and the players cared about because they were intent on timing their suit early enough in the off season so it would theoretically do the rank and file the least damage while providing them apparently much desired leverage. They at the same time filed for a pre-emptive injunction against any lockout. They requested an expedited hearing on that motion and although they didn't get Judge Doty they got the desired result. Unfortunately for them it doesn't appear to be holding up under equally expeditious appellate scrutiny.

If they want to play they can drop the lawsuit any time they choose and recertify their union and hammer out a deal. There going to end up doing that eventually anyway. If they aren't willing to do it now it's because what they really want is to win the CBA leverage battle more than they want to play.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If a lawsuit was their goal all along then why did they offer to keep playing while negotiating under the 2010 rules?

Because they are disingenuous skanks who knew that bs rehtoric would play well with folks who can't grasp when they're being played for fools. The NFLPA had already filed a grievance before the 2010 regular season ended that will eventually wend it's way to Judge Doty's sympathetic chambers claiming collusion on the part of NFL owners because the uncapped season didn't pan out the way they led impending FA to believe it would...

 

[dhamz]

First, the players never said they were willing to play under the 2010 rules. They are fighting to keep the doors open, but there are no guarantees that that if they win the lockout injuction battle that they don't turn around and sue that things like franchise tags, RFA tenders, etc. are antitrust violations without a CBA. They have never said how they want the NFL to be run without a CBA. Odds are they will sue to make it a free market system because that would benefit them in leverage and is actually the preferred outcome of Jeffrey Kessler.

One point to clarify, the players in their suit Brady V NFL are already suing the league over all the things you say they may turn around and sue for if they win the injunction. The injunction is just the first part of a broad suit against the NFL.

Brady v. NFL: a primer | National Football Post

The players lawsuit requests:
An injunction to stop the NFL lockout and force teams to open their facilities to players and transact business;

Restraints on their earning ability (lockout, draft, salary cap, franchise/transition tag) declared illegal;

Players currently under contract to be immediately paid;

Treble (triple) damages for all players due to these restraints, as well as costs and attorneys fees.

A declaration that the NFL has waived its right to assert any “sham” defense – meaning that the NFL cannot contest the NFLPA’s decertification as illegitimate.