Who's side is DeMaurice Smith really on?

TheOak · 06-19-2012, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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.

06-19-2012, 06:47 AM	#3
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	Originally Posted by saintfan 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.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/44689-whos-side-demaurice-smith-really.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Who's side is DeMaurice Smith really on?	This thread	Refback	06-18-2012 04:04 PM	3