New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com (http://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (http://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Who's side is DeMaurice Smith really on? (http://blackandgold.com/saints/44689-whos-side-demaurice-smith-really.html)

TheOak 06-18-2012 03:48 PM

Who's side is DeMaurice Smith really on?
 
Possible conspiracy theory... But these can be fun AND interesting some times.

Actually it is a conspiracy theory, but it makes more sense than the player punishments.

So with Goodell's absolute power granted by the NFLPA... I keep asking my self, who in the hell thought that was a good idea?

Enter DeMaurice Smith the Player Union's executive director.

DeMaurice Smith is incapable of managing the NFLPA as it needs to be managed. He is a combination of two career paths that are on their own not considered either transparent or remotely honest. He is a lawyer with a Bachelors in Political Science. Lawyer/politician. (no disrespect to any of the lawyers here)... ambulance chasing scum has ruined the names of the good.

I understand he was elected unanimously... by a group of people not exactly known for intelligent choices... If they were, there wouldn't be all the whining from once millionaires that are now broke.

Especially when I read that the Union awarded him a $1M bonus LOL
Union awards $1 million bonus to DeMaurice Smith - The Washington Post

So the NFLPA has the money to give Smith a $1M bonus but not to give retired players investment advice?

So in essence... DeMaurice Smith was given $1,000,000.00 to give complete control to Roger Goodell.

Over simplified... The head of the Union was given $1M to grant total authority to the Commissioner of the NFL.

Am I the only one that finds all of this just a bit troublesome?


And Louisiana is called corrupt.

saintfan 06-18-2012 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 412944)
Possible conspiracy theory... But these can be fun AND interesting some times.

Actually it is a conspiracy theory, but it makes more sense than the player punishments.

So with Goodell's absolute power granted by the NFLPA... I keep asking my self, who in the hell thought that was a good idea?

Enter DeMaurice Smith the Player Union's executive director.

DeMaurice Smith is incapable of managing the NFLPA as it needs to be managed. He is a combination of two career paths that are on their own not considered either transparent or remotely honest. He is a lawyer with a Bachelors in Political Science. Lawyer/politician. (no disrespect to any of the lawyers here)... ambulance chasing scum has ruined the names of the good.

I understand he was elected unanimously... by a group of people not exactly known for intelligent choices... If they were, there wouldn't be all the whining from once millionaires that are now broke.

Especially when I read that the Union awarded him a $1M bonus LOL
Union awards $1 million bonus to DeMaurice Smith - The Washington Post

So the NFLPA has the money to give Smith a $1M bonus but not to give retired players investment advice?

So in essence... DeMaurice Smith was given $1,000,000.00 to give complete control to Roger Goodell.

Over simplified... The head of the Union was given $1M to grant total authority to the Commissioner of the NFL.

Am I the only one that finds all of this just a bit troublesome?


And Louisiana is called corrupt.

To be fair to Smith (and I love your theory by the way), who could have seen THIS coming? I mean, I guess, maybe, with all the players lining up to sue the NFL, maybe there is a stink in the air, but...

Did anyone see Roger doing this? I mean, who saw Roger Goodell doing this when the CBA was being negotiated? The hot topic at the time was the player's desire to prevent the owners from going to 18 games.

Was an all-powerful Goodell ever even really a concern? I mean, yeah, he's come down hard on people, but there was at least some smidgen of evidence against people - game tapes of hits that Roger either fined or suspended for...

...but to spin, manipulate, leak info, operating on pure semantics, taking things so far as to cripple an entire organization for the sole purpose of looking good in a courtroom...I know I didn't see THAT coming.

Now, I'd give Smith a WHOLE lot of credit if he started talking strike over the whole thing, but I don't guess I'm ready to throw him under the bus just yet, which isn't to say I can't be convinced.

hagan714 06-18-2012 04:37 PM

he can be bought and sold time and time again IMO

Crusader 06-18-2012 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagan714 (Post 412954)
he can be bought and sold time and time again IMO

Exactly, I mean he is union...

TheOak 06-19-2012 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 412952)
To be fair to Smith (and I love your theory by the way), who could have seen THIS coming? I mean, I guess, maybe, with all the players lining up to sue the NFL, maybe there is a stink in the air, but...

Did anyone see Roger doing this? I mean, who saw Roger Goodell doing this when the CBA was being negotiated? The hot topic at the time was the player's desire to prevent the owners from going to 18 games.

Was an all-powerful Goodell ever even really a concern? I mean, yeah, he's come down hard on people, but there was at least some smidgen of evidence against people - game tapes of hits that Roger either fined or suspended for...

...but to spin, manipulate, leak info, operating on pure semantics, taking things so far as to cripple an entire organization for the sole purpose of looking good in a courtroom...I know I didn't see THAT coming.

Now, I'd give Smith a WHOLE lot of credit if he started talking strike over the whole thing, but I don't guess I'm ready to throw him under the bus just yet, which isn't to say I can't be convinced.

That is a very fair question.... ANY contractual lawyer worth his salt, would have seen the problems with this... I look at tenders and contracts as part of my job for liability issues just like this a few times a year.

1. Smith had the insight to add verbiage that addressed an appellate, but not enough sense to know you do not make the appellate the same person who made the ruling? This guy is a frikken practiced attorney, if you asked him if it was a good idea that he appeal his case to the same judge that gave him a losing verdict he would probably laugh and say hell no.

2. He is "doing it all wrong", it is pretty apparent that something did indeed happen... If I had to wager a years salary on an answer under polygraph, I would have to admit that inside I know something did happen.. Bounty's are systemic in the NFL and date back 3 decades... to think there is no chance that we partook in this is just foolish. However.... What I would ask the NFL for is not proof that something happened... I would approach this arguing against their main point of justification...

Show me proof that the players were notified in 2009 to stop... Goodell. This little bit has never surfaced because the NFL notified the coaches and front office but never the players. <--- This is the key to taking this to court, and winning.



Contracts are written in such a way that it removes personal trust from the equation... Someone may have thought Goodell was beyond this but if Goodell had a heart attack, a successor would take his place and the contract would need to protect the NFLPA from his successor. That is why it is written in terms of "The NFL Commissioner", and does not name Roger specifically.

Smith and the NFLPA can not strike... That is why you have not seen mention of a strike. There has been zero breach of contract, and if the NFLPA went on strike with out cause the NFL could have that union decertified. Thus putting Smith out of a job, and losing the power to collectively bargain.

saintfan 06-19-2012 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 413070)
That is a very fair question.... ANY contractual lawyer worth his salt, would have seen the problems with this... I look at tenders and contracts as part of my job for liability issues just like this a few times a year.

1. Smith had the insight to add verbiage that addressed an appellate, but not enough sense to know you do not make the appellate the same person who made the ruling? This guy is a frikken practiced attorney, if you asked him if it was a good idea that he appeal his case to the same judge that gave him a losing verdict he would probably laugh and say hell no.

2. He is "doing it all wrong", it is pretty apparent that something did indeed happen... If I had to wager a years salary on an answer under polygraph, I would have to admit that inside I know something did happen.. Bounty's are systemic in the NFL and date back 3 decades... to think there is no chance that we partook in this is just foolish. However.... What I would ask the NFL for is not proof that something happened... I would approach this arguing against their main point of justification...

Show me proof that the players were notified in 2009 to stop... Goodell. This little bit has never surfaced because the NFL notified the coaches and front office but never the players. <--- This is the key to taking this to court, and winning.



Contracts are written in such a way that it removes personal trust from the equation... Someone may have thought Goodell was beyond this but if Goodell had a heart attack, a successor would take his place and the contract would need to protect the NFLPA from his successor. That is why it is written in terms of "The NFL Commissioner", and does not name Roger specifically.

Smith and the NFLPA can not strike... That is why you have not seen mention of a strike. There has been zero breach of contract, and if the NFLPA went on strike with out cause the NFL could have that union decertified. Thus putting Smith out of a job, and losing the power to collectively bargain.

So here's my question then: Was granting the 'office of commissioner' unilateral control unprecedented or was this just business as usual? What I mean is, in the old CBA, didn't Roger have the same judge, jury, executioner powers that he has in the new one? I don't know. I think so, but I'm asking.

Because that's my assumption when I cut Smith a little slack. If the commissioner has historically had this power then it's business as usual. I mean, Roger has been pretty heavy-handed with fines as we all know, but he can point to something on the field and can say it is unacceptable.

But this, is, I mean, there is no precedent for what Roger is doing, is there? I could be wrong - I'm not NFL historian to be sure, but that Roger has this kind of power through the CBA isn't new to THIS CBA (I don't think), and Smith had no reason to think Roger would abuse it as he clearly has, right?

Now, clearly you have more knowledge of Unions than me. Still, I'm going to strike or I'm going to make everybody think it. Why not?

TheOak 06-19-2012 01:35 PM

I actually have zero knowledge of unions other than what I have seen or read.... I do have a fair bit of experience with "risk management" however.

B. Personal Conduct Policy
The Policy received a wholesale revision when then-new NFL
Commissioner Roger Goodell overhauled the existing player conduct policy to
include off the field conduct.43 The Policy states, "[a]ll persons associated
with the NFL are required to avoid 'conduct detrimental to the integrity of and
public confidence in the National Football League." ' 44 The Policy gives the
Commissioner the ultimate authority to discipline any violator of the Policy
and the power to review any appeal. 45 The Commissioner's absolute authority
over the discipline and appeals of players may be a hot topic at the bargaining
table.


The way I read this ... This was new verbiage put into the new CBA. I believe I also read somewhere that Goodell demanded it... Which should have raised a big ole red flag for the NFLPA.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...text=sportslaw

Marquette's Sports Law Review apparently identified as a problem before the CBA was signed.


Its risk management, planning for the forecasted and the unforeseen. Smith was paid handsomely to make sure the players were not put in a bad spot... and he has failed miserably.

You never put any one person in absolute control, there must always be checks and balances.

People go batsh1t crazy everyday and protection from that is a must in any legally binding document.

saintfan 06-19-2012 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 413157)
I actually have zero knowledge of unions other than what I have seen or read.... I do have a fair bit of experience with "risk management" however.

B. Personal Conduct Policy
The Policy received a wholesale revision when then-new NFL
Commissioner Roger Goodell overhauled the existing player conduct policy to
include off the field conduct.43 The Policy states, "[a]ll persons associated
with the NFL are required to avoid 'conduct detrimental to the integrity of and
public confidence in the National Football League." ' 44 The Policy gives the
Commissioner the ultimate authority to discipline any violator of the Policy
and the power to review any appeal. 45 The Commissioner's absolute authority
over the discipline and appeals of players may be a hot topic at the bargaining
table.


The way I read this ... This was new verbiage put into the new CBA. I believe I also read somewhere that Goodell demanded it... Which should have raised a big ole red flag for the NFLPA.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...text=sportslaw

Marquette's Sports Law Review apparently identified as a problem before the CBA was signed.


Its risk management, planning for the forecasted and the unforeseen. Smith was paid handsomely to make sure the players were not put in a bad spot... and he has failed miserably.

You never put any one person in absolute control, there must always be checks and balances.

People go batsh1t crazy everyday and protection from that is a must in any legally binding document.

Well then if this unilateral control is new then I agree 100% that Smith has failed 100% and the NFLPA should replace him immediately. AND they should strike...just sayin... :argue:

TheOak 06-19-2012 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 413158)
Well then if this unilateral control is new then I agree 100% that Smith has failed 100% and the NFLPA should replace him immediately. AND they should strike...just sayin... :argue:

They can't strike with out being decertified as a union at this point, they can replace him though...


Once you have the opinion that the CBA is the reason Goodell has all of this power, then in essence you agree that it is the NFLPA that caused this and the players can not take it out on the NFL, they have to take it out on their illustrious leader.

A strike is only justified if the terms of the CBA are not met.

A point to ponder is that ex-players are not getting what they need from the NFLPA but Smith received a $1m bonus...

BIGEASY504 06-20-2012 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 412944)
Possible conspiracy theory... But these can be fun AND interesting some times.

Actually it is a conspiracy theory, but it makes more sense than the player punishments.

So with Goodell's absolute power granted by the NFLPA... I keep asking my self, who in the hell thought that was a good idea?

Enter DeMaurice Smith the Player Union's executive director.

DeMaurice Smith is incapable of managing the NFLPA as it needs to be managed. He is a combination of two career paths that are on their own not considered either transparent or remotely honest. He is a lawyer with a Bachelors in Political Science. Lawyer/politician. (no disrespect to any of the lawyers here)... ambulance chasing scum has ruined the names of the good.

I understand he was elected unanimously... by a group of people not exactly known for intelligent choices... If they were, there wouldn't be all the whining from once millionaires that are now broke.

Especially when I read that the Union awarded him a $1M bonus LOL
Union awards $1 million bonus to DeMaurice Smith - The Washington Post

So the NFLPA has the money to give Smith a $1M bonus but not to give retired players investment advice?

So in essence... DeMaurice Smith was given $1,000,000.00 to give complete control to Roger Goodell.

Over simplified... The head of the Union was given $1M to grant total authority to the Commissioner of the NFL.

Am I the only one that finds all of this just a bit troublesome?


And Louisiana is called corrupt.

No your not the only one who has thought this; he should be attacking Roger G like a pit bull on crank (not crack he'd be useless)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com