Skip to content

DeMaurice Smith joins PFT Live for double segment

DeMaurice Smith AP

Last week, Eagles tight end Brent Celek told Howard Eskin and Ike Reese of WIP radio in Philly, “Basically, the only way I’m getting my information right now is from ProFootballTalk.”

We’ll have plenty of additional information for Brent and his colleagues on Monday.

NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith will join PFT Live at noon for an extended, two-segment interview.  We’re told that we’ll have De for as long as we want him, and we hope to touch on every issue that’s out there right now.

Watch the show right here live at noon ET.

If there are any issues you specifically want us to address, drop your thoughts into the comments.

Meanwhile, if you missed any PFT Live shows over the past two weeks, you can watch them at the PFT Live home page, or you can listen to them via downloadable iTunes podcasts.  Guests have included Missouri quarterback Blaine Gabbert, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash, Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy, Eagles president Joe Banner, Vikings linebacker (and Brady case plaintiff) Ben Leber, NBC’s Tony Dungy and Peter King, Cardinals kicker Jay Feely, Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald, Ravens safety Tom Zbikowski, and Redskins linebacker London Fletcher.

Permalink 64 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Philadelphia Eagles, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors
64 Responses to “DeMaurice Smith joins PFT Live for double segment”
  1. huskersrock1 says: Mar 20, 2011 6:23 PM

    The answer is simple. The owners need to incorporate as one company, each investing his team and receiving corporate shares back for the value of the team. Then the anti-trust issue is then non-issue, and the owners can tell the players to get bent. Institute a 50 million dollar salary cap, whatever work rules they want and start hiring players. Players that don’t want to play can join the AFL.

    This system would make it easier for owners to liquidate and cash into part of their investment since they can sell stock. Their profits and the liquid nature of their stock would make the value of their shares skyrocket. Each owner of course would be required to maintain a certain number of shares, to maintain their spot on the BoD and their place as corporate president in charge of their team.

    Certainly it would be easier for the owners to come to an agreement amongst themselves than with the players.

  2. mumakata says: Mar 20, 2011 6:27 PM

    You should ask that fool why he thinks the players are entitled to 50% of the revenue without shouldering 50% of the financial burden and risk.

  3. bluepike says: Mar 20, 2011 6:34 PM

    Ask him why he was in such a hurry to decertify instead of extending the mediation process in order to give a counter offer to the owners last offer. Remind him that, even though he thought it was the worst offer ever, that negotiating is “give and take” – and he failed miserably at it at that juncture.

  4. smacklayer says: Mar 20, 2011 6:35 PM

    Nice catch, I will listen. Ask him the big questions:
    1. The the decertification a sham? If not will you oppose or be part of a recertification of the nflpa once an agreement is made.

    2. Why aren’t talks continuing?

    3. Do you have any specific counter proposals to the what the league has offered – other than the usual spew of “we want transparency”

    4. Why is the nflpa recommending that draftees not attend the draft?

    I hope you hold his feet to the fire a little more than you have with other interviews you’ve had.

  5. wryly1 says: Mar 20, 2011 6:36 PM

    Please have them clarify, because obviously most people still don’t understand, that what just ended was NOT negotiation sessions – it was merely non-binding ‘mediation’, which is an entirely different kind of process in labor relations, collective bargaining, and law.

  6. bluepike says: Mar 20, 2011 6:38 PM

    If you have to, remind him that the owners side was also waiting around doing nothing at times as well as the players side. Maybe it had something to do with the mediator or prevailing logistics.

  7. CKL says: Mar 20, 2011 6:42 PM

    So Celek can’t get more detailed info from his association? Strange. Not to knock PFT which has done a great job but that is just…odd.

    PFT:

    PLEASE ask De who is paying for his benefits…much as you did with Pash.

    Also I may have missed it but if you could ask him about his thoughts on the viability of Cornwell’s compensation model that would be great also. I do understand if nothing specific can be said about that by De because it may harm the NFLPA’s position.

  8. bigbigodnarb says: Mar 20, 2011 6:44 PM

    mumakata says:
    Mar 20, 2011 6:27 PM
    You should ask that fool why he thinks the players are entitled to 50% of the revenue without shouldering 50% of the financial burden and risk.

    —————–

    Well since 50% is a reduction of their pay maybe you should ask the owners why players have consistently earned more if they were not worth it.

    Also, perhaps you should learn more about the situation if you think that funds should be allocated solely on the basis of who most burdens the financial risk.

    Lets see how much the owners would be worth if they did not have the best athletes in America playing for their teams.

  9. bigbigodnarb says: Mar 20, 2011 6:45 PM

    If the owners want to make 60+% of the revenue, they should feel free to own an Arena League team.

  10. nnagi says: Mar 20, 2011 6:55 PM

    @mumakata

    my sentiments exactly…demaurice smith is a joke and so is the union – any union for that matter, they always forget that without the golden goose (ownership) there are no gold eggs ( fat paychecks)…

  11. dbellina says: Mar 20, 2011 7:00 PM

    Thank you for the advanced warning. I’ll make sure to not tune in that day.

  12. medtxpack says: Mar 20, 2011 7:02 PM

    seriously yall dont let up, ask him the tough questions and youre gonna have to make them simple for this guy! everyone who writes on here is smarter than this D Smith guy, well maybe not PERVYHARVIN or Rosenthal but anyway, thanks PFT for having him, hopefully some fans questions will get some true answers from this fool….

    most importantly, why isnt legal counsel negotiating…..????

  13. jimphin says: Mar 20, 2011 7:15 PM

    1) How many hats does he own?
    2) Does he believe that the players got the better deal in the last CBA? Why or why not?
    3) Why have they not made any significant counter offers during the negotiation process?
    4) How many times will he say the words “Reggie White”?
    5) Can we see a full audited copy of the NFLPA anual budget?
    6) Why does he describe 120 minutes of additional football as 250,000 helmet to helmet hits?
    7) What is his definition of safer football? And does this mean that he supports tougher fines and suspensions on players that violate the contact rules?
    8) Why does he want to place pressure on the top draftees to disrespect their new employer by not showing up for the draft invitation?
    9) Does he have a federal judge in his pocket?
    10) Does he realize that the lockout is only temporary and is a ploy to get both sides back to the mediation table?

    Please ask all the necessary follow up questions in the no spin zone.

  14. moggy6actual says: Mar 20, 2011 7:22 PM

    As I see it, only the owners have offered concessions, So ask Smith exactly what moves toward the owner’s positions that the players offered.

    Oh, and also ask why he insists on wearing that ridiculous hat!

  15. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 7:22 PM

    mumakata says: Mar 20, 2011 6:27 PM

    “You should ask that fool why he thinks the players are entitled to 50% of the revenue without shouldering 50% of the financial burden and risk.”

    Have Jerry and Dan strap on the pads for a full-contact drill or two, then let’s talk about risk…

  16. WingT says: Mar 20, 2011 7:24 PM

    Hey Mike, ask Mr Smith how long they have been planning the class action suit. Also ask him why isn’t it possible to put a deal together that could last 10 years +

  17. moggy6actual says: Mar 20, 2011 7:24 PM

    Surely some of the players own businesses. Ask Smith if the players that own businesses are willing to open their books.

  18. hobartbaker says: Mar 20, 2011 7:31 PM

    Sympathy for Smith. The company he worked for is out of business. He still works long hours as an unpaid intern. And he grimly acknowledges the sign of the cuckold.

  19. 4jack4 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:35 PM

    Ask him why he’s still in the 70’s ‘dig’ generation, no clue about the world around him in the 21st century

  20. sml1950 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:35 PM

    Questions for Smith:

    1. How can you have a unified player base when one person on a team can be making almost 100 times as much as the player next to him.

    2. How do you negotiate for all when more than 60% are making minimum (or thereabouts) and only the remaining smaller % will even participate in the % of revenue debate. You seem to be fixated on the higher paid players. When will you include higher minimums as part of the package.

    3. At what point are you (or can ) be required to take a proposal to the members for a vote.

  21. allinblindsevenduece says: Mar 20, 2011 7:37 PM

    Well that should help pick up site traffic for the next few days. After your post earlier I was starting to worry about you guys.

  22. bigbigodnarb says: Mar 20, 2011 7:37 PM

    medtxpack says:
    Mar 20, 2011 7:02 PM
    seriously yall dont let up, ask him the tough questions and youre gonna have to make them simple for this guy! everyone who writes on here is smarter than this D Smith guy, well maybe not PERVYHARVIN or Rosenthal but anyway, thanks PFT for having him, hopefully some fans questions will get some true answers from this fool….

    most importantly, why isnt legal counsel negotiating…..????
    —————-

    Did you graduate from one of the best law schools in the nation? did you go on to work for some of the top law firms? If not, kindly STFU. You’re likely nowhere near his intellect and accomplishments.

  23. steelergold says: Mar 20, 2011 7:37 PM

    All I ask is that don’t let him dodge the questions.

  24. thefiesty1 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:41 PM

    Who cares, go ahead and give this jerk another 15 minutes of fame. He’s already done enough to make a bad situation worse.

  25. saberstud75 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:41 PM

    How about asking Smith what options are out there for making the live game experience more affordable for the fans.

    I know this is not a popular subject since the players and owners have turned this into a huge money-grab. However, the CBA can be structured to prevent the over-valueing of players, which leads to the owners raising the costs of tickets and consessions which all get passed down to the fans.

    I don’t know about everyone else, but I am tired of my trips to the stadium funding these players’ trips to the strip club and escalade collections.

  26. lt2369 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:57 PM

    1. What is his quest?
    2. What is his favorite color?
    3. Boxers or Briefs?
    4. Hang to the left or right?
    5. What is the airspeed velocity of a laden swallow?
    6. Does he really believe that all teams should have to pool all their resources despite having different income levels, different business structures, and different values?
    7. If the answer to #6 is yes, why wouldn’t he think it’s a good idea for all players to pool their earnings (including endorsement deals too) and divide that equally among themselves?
    8. Do you think the rank and file would approve of a deal more quickly that way if the players all pooled their resources as well?
    9. Why doesn’t your objection to #7 and #8 apply to the owners?
    10. Who invented liquid soap and why?

  27. chapnastier says: Mar 20, 2011 8:02 PM

    Can’t wait. Just ask him what offers they had proposed since we haven’t heard a single one yet from the players.

  28. doncornelious says: Mar 20, 2011 8:09 PM

    Ask him how he pronounces his first name? Is it “Dee” or “Duh”?

  29. smellmyface says: Mar 20, 2011 8:16 PM

    I see we have a couple people on here who side with the players thinking they should make more money without investing in anything. The NFL is no different than any other job, I go out everyday and make money for my company over 800k in sales last year and i have enough common sense to know i shouldnt get over 50% of the profits.

    you say the players make the NFL…well players come and go all the time. The ones who think the players should make most of the money call Mcdonalds tomorrow and tell the boss that without you they wouldnt sell half the apple pies they do now and your deserve 57% of all company revenue.

  30. t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 8:19 PM

    1) What compromises have the PA* offered the owners from what they got in the last CBA WITHOUT demanding financial info in return or the benefits going directly back to them (ie less rookie salaries=more vet salaries)?

    2) Is the PA* willing to compromise from it’s demand of 10 years audited financial info if it gets the ball rolling again? Ex: independent 3rd party auditing, sworn to secrecy so info stays in the negotiations, lumping of costs into very broad categories by the auditing firm.

    and most importantly, why is he such a tool?

  31. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: Mar 20, 2011 8:29 PM

    Ask for a copy of every proposal and counter proposal the NFLPA* made during the mediation. The post them on PFT. Let the truth be told!

  32. vomitingliberals says: Mar 20, 2011 8:30 PM

    If you don’t want to pay…

    $8 beer
    $6 Hotdogs
    $5 Bags of peanuts
    $300 Direct TV: MONOPOLY
    Over priced merchandise
    PSL’s

    Then don’t allow the players to keep robbing their respective franchises blind! These costs are necessary to continue funding player salaries! The owners have no choice but to pass the cost of doing business to you the paying customer. If the players are forced to take less, prices will come down. Economics 101 people, wake up!

  33. blantoncollier says: Mar 20, 2011 8:51 PM

    So earlier today there was a post about PFTs stake in this battle, basically stating they have none..implying they are fair and balanced (like Fox News). Yet they have De for two segements or as long as they want him. When was the last time they had an owner or owners rep for a double segment? I’m just saying…

  34. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 9:08 PM

    I thought the players offer to share 50:50 of gross revenue would be an excellent start to negotiations because it neatly sidestepped the issue of opening the books.

    And as PFT has pointed out on several occasions, that is less than they’ve received over the past few years.

    Maybe if they had started down that path the deal would have been struck at 45:55 or 40:60 but surely the process to get there would have been simple.

    Then the talks could have moved onto non-financial issues like player safety etc.

    So can you ask him why the owners flat refused to discuss any financial deal that was based on splitting total actual revenue?

  35. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 9:11 PM

    @saberstud75

    Huh? The players set seat prices?? that’s a new one.

    Nearly as good as the comments yesterday that blamed the players for wanting to reduce rookie contracts.

    Are you holding your script upside down??

  36. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 9:14 PM

    @blantoncollier

    If PFT could find an owner willing, they’d have him on for 2 hours every day this week.

    Can you arrange that with your owner? I’m guessing you have the contacts.

  37. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 9:22 PM

    @timmy10

    Why do they owners want their expenses grouped into “broad categories”?

    Is it because it was proved in a court of law during the last labor dispute that some owners tried to conceal profits by awarding themselves and their relatives large salaries for doing nothing?

    The fact is, if the owners are not doing anything illegal or unethical, they have zero reason for hiding their books. They are not in a competitive business so they stand to lose exactly and precisely nothing.

    But then again, maybe they do have shady financials to hide. Hard though that may be to believe with such upright citizens as Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.

  38. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 9:25 PM

    @vomitingliberals

    Players set the price of peanuts, beer & Direct TV???

    Errr no.

    Script upside down again.

  39. Canyonero says: Mar 20, 2011 9:37 PM

    The post by sml1950 says it all.

    I’m pretty sure the Brady half of the lawsuit will make out just fine. How about the non-super stars not making the celestial salaries?

    And if Smith wants to keep using the “we the people” theme music, how about some attention for the fans who pay through the nose in parking, food, drink & concessions every single game?

  40. egls7 says: Mar 20, 2011 9:44 PM

    Please hold him hostage until he agrees to go back to the negotiating table

  41. jb49ers80 says: Mar 20, 2011 10:04 PM

    Ask him about the simple solution you mentioned earlier today (i.e. Determine which expenses are shared, and then split the rest of the revenue).

    The players keep complaining about the owners’ offer. What are the details of their counter proposal?

    Is he willing to accept a deal that gives players less than the CBA which was agreed to in 2006?

    Which does he think is more important, the salary cap or the salary floor?

    If the lockout is lifted, how does he think 6 year restricted free agents will feel about not being able to hit the open market?

  42. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 10:33 PM

    @canyonero

    It’s the owners that have cancelled the games by locking out the players.

    It’s the players that are taking the owners to court to force them to allow games to play.

    It’s the owners that keep raising the prices of seats, parking, food & drink.

    It’s the owners that introduced PSL’s so we have to put down 10’s of thousands of dollars for the ability to buy tickets.

    It’s the owners that ripped up the contract with the players they signed two years ago. Two freakin’ years!!!

    It’s the owners that took games off the free networks to force us to pay for their NFL channel.

    So who is causing fans to miss games? Who is causing games to be so expensive?

    hint: it’s probably the same folks that persuaded you to join this blog and comment.

    Apologies if you really are a fan posting your opinion.

  43. t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 10:43 PM

    realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 9:22 PM @t1mmy10

    Why do they owners want their expenses grouped into “broad categories”?…Is it because it was proved in a court of law during the last labor dispute that some owners tried to conceal profits by awarding themselves and their relatives large salaries for doing nothing?…The fact is, if the owners are not doing anything illegal or unethical, they have zero reason for hiding their books. They are not in a competitive business so they stand to lose exactly and precisely nothing….But then again, maybe they do have shady financials to hide. Hard though that may be to believe with such upright citizens as Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.
    =================================
    you’re a joke. go and read my comments under the post “solving the philosophical debate.”

    any absurd charges the owners have should be counted as profit by the firm when it audits them (aka paul brown’s GM salary when he’s not really a GM or paying an immediate relative when he doesn’t do anything). any salaries they get for actual jobs they do (ex jerry jones being an actual GM) should be compared to salaries for similar experience & expertise levels to others in the league with the same position to see if they’re grossly over paid.

    there are plenty of legit reasons the owners don’t want to share that info that you and the PA* refuse to acknowledge 1) the teams ARE in competition with each other in certain aspects (hence the antitrust lawsuit possibly being valid) and the owners don’t want to share that level of info with each other. the nfl said the very basic level of info it offered to share with the league was more than the owners had even ever shared with each other.
    2) IF they share how they spent every single dime with the PA* & it’s legit, then the PA*’s response isn’t going to be “well here’s your money back.” they’re going to tell the owners how to run their business so the players’ salaries aren’t cut. and the last thing ANY private business owner wants is it’s employees telling it how to function. plus, the players will expect that level of info every time from then on.

    if things are kept confidential & broad then jones won’t know how synder spends his money meanwhile smith & company will get their proof the owners are legitimately making less money. as for your conspiracy theories, i seriously doubt the IRS is going to poke their head into things because if they had any suspicions they would have already audited the team.

  44. mrpowers88 says: Mar 20, 2011 11:16 PM

    1. Who’s idea was it to put Brady’s name at the top of the lawsuit, while he was carnival-ing it up when mediation/negotiation sessions were going on?

    2. Don’t ask him if “10 years of complete financial records” is posturing, tell him it is. They would only need 5 years to get what they’re looking for, 6, maybe 7 at the most.

    3. If a “players welcoming rookies” draft day event is so important, why hasn’t the NFLPA(*) conducted a similar event before? Also, how far along are they in planning the event, considering they’re probably trying to get sponsors to foot the bill for the event (and they’re really not doing anything else right now)?

    4. What benefits does he want to see added to the compensation package that justifies the players taking a smaller revenue share? The league outlined the benefits they were offering, what did he see wrong with them, other than that the PA(*) didn’t want to give up much money for those benefits?

    5. Hypocrisy Check: Some players don’t want to see the League’s council (Pash) involved in the negotiations, (other than being decertified and having to redirect to council whenever approached about negotiations,) why do/did the players keep having their own lawyers in the room?

    6. What exactly is he looking to get the players out of this round of collective bargaining? Yes they have enjoyed the sweet deal Upshaw got them, but what exactly is Smith trying to get out of this? He wants to get more for the players, but when the owners ask for some give from the players, he suddenly forgets what the owners have already offered to give and asks them to prove why he has to give up anything.

    7. Can he acknowledge that he should shoulder some/most of the blame for this situation?

    Players will always be players, owners will be owners, and lawyers will be lawyers, but the only changing parts in this process seem to be the Commish and the NFLPA(*)ED and, even though he’s had his job longer, Goodell has proven that he has good intentions for the game with everything he does (even if he does seem like he’s being pushed around by the owners). Smith has seemed to only antagonize the owners since he took office.

  45. Canyonero says: Mar 20, 2011 11:39 PM

    @ realfann

    Thanks for the benefit of the doubt I’m a real person.

    I hoped it was clear I posted as a frustrated fan of the game. I feel I “know” the players better, but the owners conspired the awesome world of the NFL, and it’s tough to throw them to the wolves just yet.

    I think the negotiation has gotten over-legalesed, and both sides need to take a breath and listen to us — the fans. They may be the mind and muscle, but we are the heart.

  46. bayouboy2 says: Mar 20, 2011 11:40 PM

    Please…..PLEASE…..ask that clown what the futre of the NFLPA is. Does he plan on it recertifying as the union represntation for the players when a new CBA is agreed upon or if the lockout is lifted?……that is the real question here.

  47. mick730 says: Mar 20, 2011 11:43 PM

    realfann, you need to go back to your local SEIU or AFL-CIO office and ask them to help you out with the talking points, because you’ve screwed up each and every one of them.

    1. No games have been cancelled.

    2. The CBA was signed in 2006, which even someone in a union should be able to figure out, was more than two years ago.

    3. The owners gave notice to the players, which was part of the CBA, two years ago, that they were going to opt out. Again, that arrangement was agreed to by the players in the CBA. Can you comprehend that realfann? The players agreed that either party, the OWNERS and the EMPLOYEES both, could opt out of the CBA with a two year notice.

    4. Owners have to raise ticket prices, and the prices of everything else, because players salaries are skyrocketing.

    5. The net profit of the Green Bay Packers went from over 35 million dollars in 2006 to 5.2 million dollars for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010. As Mark Murphy told shareholders two years ago, the financial path of the Packers was unsustainable. realfann, I realize that as a union member, you are either a government employee, an assembly line worker, or a janitor, and since none of these occupations require an ounce of intelligence, I would suggest that you have somebody at your union headquarters explain to you what UNSUSTAINABLE means.

    You might learn something; although I doubt it.

  48. medtxpack says: Mar 21, 2011 12:29 AM

    @bigbigodnarb

    whats your beef? on your period or something?

    like the article says, leave in the comments the things you want to ask….i followed directions. but since you want to pick and play…

    at what point did i pass myself off as a top lawyer from one of the best?

    cmon dude, im just like every other hard working person on here (except you) that wants football back, not more satisfaction from wowing some trolls in a comment section on an article.

    i guess this is the point where i say you STFU and get a life but i wont cause i want you back on here. deep down i do think you have something to say about football…hopefully.

    unless you getting your post approved and posted on here ranks enough to suffice your , “intellect and accomplishments.”

  49. drkknght2000 says: Mar 21, 2011 7:34 AM

    Is it just me or do you think the players are regretting hiring this D Smith idiot, instead of Troy Vincent or Trace Armstrong? I am not siding with the owners, but the players decided to go fight a war with a guy carrying a BB gun. He has no clue what he’s doing when it comes to football. Of course that is my opinion I could be wrong.

  50. davem23 says: Mar 21, 2011 8:01 AM

    Please ask him how long he plans to hold our game hostage for his own political gain?

  51. davem23 says: Mar 21, 2011 8:16 AM

    palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says:
    Mar 20, 2011 8:29 PM
    Ask for a copy of every proposal and counter proposal the NFLPA* made during the mediation. The post them on PFT. Let the truth be told!

    ——————————————–
    From what I understand there was no counter proposal from the players.

  52. 2011to2020lions says: Mar 21, 2011 11:47 AM

    1. We as fans don’t want any changes to OUR NFL, so leave the draft as it is Please!!

    2. In the end a deal will be done by negotiations, so why didn’t he extend the talks a couple days and counter the NFL’s offer? Even if it was bad you have to start somewhere.

    3. The NFL is like our Government, but that is not everything for everyone. Why make fans suffer to try and get it.

    4. You all knew the date was coming why wait til the last minute to start. Did you want to decertify? How can this help anyone involved?

    THE BIGGEST QUESTION OF ALL

    What is your benefit with desertification? I know it is something, is it billable hours? or something else? The fans are not the beneficiaries , and the players are not the beneficiaries, so who is??????

  53. kellyb9 says: Mar 21, 2011 11:49 AM

    @mrpowers88 – “1. Who’s idea was it to put Brady’s name at the top of the lawsuit, while he was carnival-ing it up when mediation/negotiation sessions were going on?” I believe he is listed because his name is literally alphabetically first. I’m not a lawyer, but there are other people on the lawsuit.

  54. oumoonunit says: Mar 21, 2011 11:55 AM

    If the owners TV contract, paying them for games not played, is used to show that their negotiations were not in good faith. Isn’t the players vote, earlier in the year, to decertify if they felt it advantageous after failed negotiations just as much proof that they weren’t going to negotiate in good faith?

  55. lucky5927 says: Mar 21, 2011 12:03 PM

    I would like to know where he bought that hat everyone was talking about a few weeks ago? That hat was hip.

  56. lucky5927 says: Mar 21, 2011 12:05 PM

    I would also like to know who he is referring to with the finger measurement in the picture above? I’m assuming it is soneone from the NFL since the microphone is in his face.

  57. jcnuk says: Mar 21, 2011 12:10 PM

    1. Now that the NFLPA is the NFLPA* what is happening to all the funds and dues collected?

    2. Where do these go if the union chooses not to recertify? There’s got to be millions piled up somewhere?

    3. If the union chooses not to recertify what will DeSmith be doing next year?

    What I don’t understand is that the players union hired DeSmith to be the Head of the union. Now that there is no union. How can he drop his salary to $0 if he’s head of nothing?

  58. MichaelEdits says: Mar 21, 2011 12:19 PM

    Don’t let him leave until he signs something

  59. MichaelEdits says: Mar 21, 2011 12:22 PM

    Ask him why he inspires blog comments that are longer than your original post.

  60. blackshirtz says: Mar 21, 2011 12:27 PM

    Ask him why the players and the NFLPA* did not make a counter offer?

  61. thevikes85 says: Mar 21, 2011 12:35 PM

    Mike for all of us,that love football and support your site,absolutely blast this turd.for us all!!!

  62. eagleswin says: Mar 21, 2011 12:39 PM

    blantoncollier says:
    Mar 20, 2011 8:51 PM
    So earlier today there was a post about PFTs stake in this battle, basically stating they have none..implying they are fair and balanced (like Fox News). Yet they have De for two segements or as long as they want him. When was the last time they had an owner or owners rep for a double segment? I’m just saying…

    ===================

    He said in that open letter that he has a vested interest in the players winning because that is that is the quickest way to get the lockout lifted. If the lockout is lifted he has more football news to post on his website which drives traffic which drives revenues.

  63. mikejonesforum says: Mar 21, 2011 12:41 PM

    DeMaurice Smith is seeking maximum leverage against owners. Decertifying will only take them so far and litigation will bring the players back to reality. Look out players, you took a risk with your employer that just handed the owners all of the leverage against you. The employers will show the employees the way it’s done.

  64. mpg22387 says: Mar 21, 2011 12:45 PM

    Two questions:

    1) What is his take on the ethical ramifications of simply decertifying to pursue litigation and presumably re-form the union after the re-negotiation?

    2) If the NFLPA* is advocating complete transparency for financial information, why not look to the Packers? As the only public team, are they not the lowest common denominator?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!