Blog Entry

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

Posted on: May 16, 2011 11:16 pm
Edited on: May 16, 2011 11:21 pm
  •  
 
Posted by Josh Katzowitz

Obviously, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith is disappointed with today’s Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that issued a permanent stay of the lockout injunction. But that didn’t stop him from getting off a pretty nice zinger.

"As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game,” Smith told NFL.com. “Congratulations.”

NFL lawyer Jeff Pash was a little more understated.

"You don't resolve things through litigation," he told NFL.com. "We've been clear on that. And what we need to be doing is focusing all our attention on the process that's going on here in this building, with the assistance of the chief judge and in serious discussions with the players.

"We have an opportunity to resolve this matter and get the game back on the field, and that really should be our exclusive focus -- not litigation, not stays or injunctions, things like that. That's not going to solve anything. I'm glad that it came out the way that it did. But it's just one step in a process and we need to focus on negotiation. That's the only way we're going to resolve this."

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
  •  
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 8, 2012 11:35 am
 

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

Your ultimate web-site offers you helped everyone just a bit a smallish present the moment more once more a superb also provide somewhat more confidence in no one. Thanks! I have forever important who's that will help my own, personal affiliates at any one time.


fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 2, 2012 10:38 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 3, 2011 3:54 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



tomlye
Since: Nov 28, 2011
Posted on: November 30, 2011 11:30 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Mar 20, 2010
Posted on: May 22, 2011 9:27 am
 

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

"People act as if the players are not getting anything.  They get ... use of facilities, trainers, equipment, etc." -  (posted on: May 17, 2011 11:20 am)



And who benefits from the players' use of said facilities, trainers, equipment, etc? The owners you idiot. If it were up to the players they would stay away from the facilities, the weights and the trainers and entertain themselves when not playing on Sundays for their paychecks - that's why the owners provide and pay for the noted "benefits". Sheesh.



Since: Mar 20, 2010
Posted on: May 22, 2011 9:14 am
 

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

"Maybe now the players will realize he is not the man for the job and appoint a former player as their leader." - 

 

Yeah - that would be a good strategy in a complicated case involving billions of dollars and hinging on a combinatin of both labor and anti-trust law, and a staked position the advantage of which is utterly dependent on knowledge of the law and the courtroom outcomes likely to result. Who needs lawyers at such times? Nice try, Roger Goodell - coming into this discussion forum and trying to pass yourself off as offering well-intentioned disinterested advice.

That said, I wonder if DeMaurice Smith hasn't assumed too much is in his favor: that the courts will ultimately decide that the NFL is a cartel violating anti-trust laws just because the NFLPA decertifies, and that decertification guarantees that the courts will decide the NFLPA is no longer a union because the players have decertified it. Who says the Court will ultimately decide the NFL ia a cartel and not just an association of individual businesses doing the things a professional sports league must have done in order to conduct business fairly and equitably among all its members? If the NFLPA no longer represents the players, why is it led by the same people after decertification as before? Who's paying DeMaurice Smith's bills now if not the players using the same source of funds as before? Who's he still representing in court if not the players, and why does he show up in court and speak on their behalf if he's not representing them as the head of their union in the matters at hand?

It seems to me that if the players truly wanted to no longer be represented by DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA, they would've rounded up other personnel, if not legal advice, to represent them after decertification. Then again, the players ought to be able to hire whomever they want to represent them going forward following decertification, and who better than the folks who've been negotiating the very matters at hand on their behalf over the last couple of years?

I'm squarely on the side of the players in this matter but I think the courts are unjustly predisposed against  them, so a courtroom strategy may not give them the best results from here on out. The best reult may not be the proper, legally correct result.




Since: Jul 21, 2008
Posted on: May 17, 2011 11:20 am
 

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

I agree with you. D Smith must believe nobody is paying attention.  The NFLPA hired a lawyer to be its lead, not a former player.  The lawyer wanted to go to court.  Negotiations failed probably because neither party was willing to give and D Smith told the players to hedge their bets on the player friendly courts.  D Smith got what he wanted, his day in court.  They lost.  Maybe now the players will realize he is not the man for the job and appoint a former player as their leader.  Then they can get an agreement.  D Smith is now trying to portray this as the NFL wanted to go to court.  No, D Smith the lawyer did.  The NFL did not sue to not play football.  They countered the players suit in order to force the issue to be settled in labor relations.  People act as if the players are not getting anything.  They get per diem in addition to game checks in addition to use of facilities, trainers, equipment, etc.  Then they want profit sharing but also want to determine the profit figure.  I think most people's experience with profit sharing is the company tells you what the profit was and then shares and agreed upon percentage.  Why don't they drop this whole idea of the TV sharing and go to something like a 401k with owner matching of player contributions of their salary?  Fixed retirements have been the downfall of many companies in recent years and now very few offer that option. 

The CBA needs to evolve with the times while also taking care of former players and planning on the retirement and medical expenses of future players.  D Smith would not know anything about this.  He is a lawyer. 



Since: May 17, 2008
Posted on: May 17, 2011 10:37 am
 

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

the problem with the sham defense rule is that the sham waiver only applied upon expiration of the CBA. The NFL hedging its bets actually filed a brief to the NLRB (National labor relations board) a month or two before the hearing
1. You always file briefs BEFORE a hearing.  2.  They did it because the players voted to decertify the union months before they actually officially "decertifed", it was all over the news as each team voted to decertify if they did not get what they wanted before the date the NFL could lock them out--they players did not suddenly become dis-satifisfied with their union and elect to decertify at the 11th hour.  Rather is was a clear, pre-planned sham designed to allow them to sue the NFL for anti-trust violations that do not exist with a union in place and seek an injunction of the anticipated lockout, a perfectly legal labor tactic when dealing with a union.

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game,” Smith told “Congratulations.
Complete BS...the NFL did not sue anybody.  The players sued the NFL.  The NFL is defending the suit.  The NFL did lockout the players -- strikes and lockouts have happened in sports before.  Smith is just trying to play a PR game and, in my opinion, playing it badly with this comment.



Since: Mar 17, 2007
Posted on: May 17, 2011 6:39 am
 

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

While I agree with most of your points the problem with the sham defense rule is that the sham waiver only applied upon expiration of the CBA. The NFL hedging its bets actually filed a brief to the NLRB (National labor relations board) a month or two before the hearing. After hearing Mike Vrabels comments that hint that the former union is still acting like a union, the sham defense may hold more water than it used to. That being said the NRLB takes forever a day to actually hear and rule so it's more likely that the NFL will attempt to bargain with the leverage they've gained.



Since: Jan 22, 2007
Posted on: May 17, 2011 2:52 am
 

DeMaurice Smith, Pash respond to court ruling

The players would be very well served to dump DeMaurice Smith as soon as humanly possible.  It's time for them to consider cutting their losses and taking what they can get before they get too desperately broke, and he's more concerned with upping his own repuatation.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com