Court Cancels Mediation, Settlement Negotiations Continue

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The lawyers get the boot, again | ProFootballTalk

I just have one question... isn't D.Smith a lawyer? So when the owners walk into the meetings with out any lawyers to negotiate why would they want to even talk to D.Smith? He's a lawyer and would obviously look out for the players. What I'm getting at is the owners might feel like they are getting screwed if they are only being able to talk to D.Smith (lawyer) but they don't have a lawyer looking after their best interest.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I just have one question... isn't D.Smith a lawyer? So when the owners walk into the meetings with out any lawyers to negotiate why would they want to even talk to D.Smith? He's a lawyer and would obviously look out for the players. What I'm getting at is the owners might feel like they are getting screwed if they are only being able to talk to D.Smith (lawyer) but they don't have a lawyer looking after their best interest.

They certainly want to have DSmith in there, simply for the case that they believe he will be the Union head when and if it ever re-certifies. Last thing they want is to negotiate a new CBA/settlement with Vrabek et al, and then have DSmith convince the rank and file that it is a bad deal.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I just have one question... isn't D.Smith a lawyer? So when the owners walk into the meetings with out any lawyers to negotiate why would they want to even talk to D.Smith? He's a lawyer and would obviously look out for the players. What I'm getting at is the owners might feel like they are getting screwed if they are only being able to talk to D.Smith (lawyer) but they don't have a lawyer looking after their best interest.

D. Smith is a lawyer. But he is not wearing his lawyer hat in the proceedings. Instead, he is there as a player rep, not a legal counsel. And apparently the other day he was instrumental in calling off the lawyer dogs like Kessler.

I realize there is slipperiness in the idea that D. Smith is a lawyer but isn't a lawyer. But if he backs up the not-a-lawyer angle with actions, as he apparently has done, then there is no reason for owners to get overly ruffled.