papazoid Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) The 58-year-old Susan Richard Nelson is no stranger to the spotlight or to complex cases. The native of Buffalo, N.Y., has 22 years of litigation experience, and from 1994 through 1998 she worked with Ciresi and others in a landmark antitrust case against the tobacco industry - winning a $6.1 billion settlement for the state of Minnesota. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/02/lockout.judge.ap/index.html#ixzz1IOgmGlN3'>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/02/lockout.judge.ap/index.html#ixzz1IOgmGlN3 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/02/lockout.judge.ap/index.html Edited July 13, 2011 by papazoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketan Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I hope that she is a diehard bills fan and does everything in her power to force an agreement-so their will be football played asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Being a successful lawyer does not mean she will get to decide the fate of the NFL. In fact, there is strong evidence that she doesn't have authority to rule on an injunction. The arrogant comments of the union representatives are going to hurt them in this case. It's obvious they are going to pull the same bad faith move they did the last time: decertify, file lawsuits, then recertify. This is not something you can get away with more than once. They are on shakey ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I think she has the power to force the two sides back into negotiations. Won't happen, but it would be something to see and likely the only way a shortened season is avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Being a successful lawyer does not mean she will get to decide the fate of the NFL. no, but being a judge, she does get to decide the ruling of this case. She is NOT a successful lawyer. She WAS, but now she is a judge. The two are very different. You might not think it (for some reason) that these cases are going to impact the fate of the nfl season, but they will. The two sides aren't doing anything until they see the rulings of the case(s) to decide their next move. how the cases turn out could decide how quickly, or slowly, things move forward. Edited April 3, 2011 by DanInUticaTampa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Being a successful lawyer does not mean she will get to decide the fate of the NFL. In fact, there is strong evidence that she doesn't have authority to rule on an injunction. The arrogant comments of the union representatives are going to hurt them in this case. It's obvious they are going to pull the same bad faith move they did the last time: decertify, file lawsuits, then recertify. This is not something you can get away with more than once. They are on shakey ground. ??? Not sure where you're getting the highlighted information--she's the judge assigned to the case on the lockout, after two others recused themselves due to conflicts. She will have a huge impact on how all of this plays out since she's the trial judge hearing the case as to whether the NFL has the power to lock the players out. BTW, doesn't look good for the owners, as she's an Obama appointee and thus probably more likely to be pro-union/employee, but apparently also has a reputation for general fairness (probably also not good for the owners). Remember, though, that Judge Doty, a Reagan appointee, found for the players on most matters, including that the "lockout fund" they'd negotiated for themselves in the latest TV deals was a breach of duty the owners had to the players. You toss around "bad faith" about the players move to decertify, but seem to forget that a judge (a conservative one at that) actually found the owners to be guilty of bad faith and breach of duty--based on the facts I've read, probably one of the easiest decisions he ever had to make. Remember that the next time you toss "bad faith" allegations around about the players union. Personally, I hope that whatever she does gets the sides closer together to reach an acceptable agreement, one that includes both a salary cap and a salary floor fairly close to that cap. The last thing fans of teams like the Bills need is a cap set high enough that it creates a de facto competitive disadvantage to us, a la the NHL, for ex...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I hope that she is a diehard bills fan and does everything in her power to force an agreement-so their will be football played asap. I think she has the power to force the two sides back into negotiations. Won't happen, but it would be something to see and likely the only way a shortened season is avoided. She can't "force an agreement". Nor can she force negotiations. The owners aren't the ones who need to forced back tho the table, by the way. She is going to decide to issue an injunction against the lockout. What happens after that is not something she can control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Soooo, How come she didn't stay in WNY????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noma Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Soooo, How come she didn't stay in WNY????? she probably wanted a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammie65 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 she probably wanted a job. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Being a successful lawyer does not mean she will get to decide the fate of the NFL. In fact, there is strong evidence that she doesn't have authority to rule on an injunction. The arrogant comments of the union representatives are going to hurt them in this case. It's obvious they are going to pull the same bad faith move they did the last time: decertify, file lawsuits, then recertify. This is not something you can get away with more than once. They are on shakey ground. While the "de-certification" move by the NFLPA is exactly what is is, a move, a ploy, a strategy, but one cannot in all honesty not bring into the same conversation that the owners planned for a lockout over two years ago. If you feel this was a positive bargaining tool to bring both parties together to find common ground and form an agreement, you are woefully mistaken. The owners opted out of a current CBA, they planned for a lockout and secured funds from Television Networks, over two years ago, and they are defended as having been bargaining in good faith? This is precisely what is wrong with the American people, too many memories are about as long as one of their arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 While the "de-certification" move by the NFLPA is exactly what is is, a move, a ploy, a strategy, but one cannot in all honesty not bring into the same conversation that the owners planned for a lockout over two years ago. If you feel this was a positive bargaining tool to bring both parties together to find common ground and form an agreement, you are woefully mistaken. The owners opted out of a current CBA, they planned for a lockout and secured funds from Television Networks, over two years ago, and they are defended as having been bargaining in good faith? This is precisely what is wrong with the American people, too many memories are about as long as one of their arms. Dude, this "woe is the American Worker" act is getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Dude, this "woe is the American Worker" act is getting old. I think that the American worker should be paid as little as possible. There are over 3 billion people living in absolute poverty in this world. If we could start importing these guys to compete against the Mexicans I say do it. The modern Mexican border jumpers are a little to Americanized for my taste. The going rate on day laborers is getting to be a little much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 You toss around "bad faith" about the players move to decertify, but seem to forget that a judge (a conservative one at that) actually found the owners to be guilty of bad faith and breach of duty--based on the facts I've read, probably one of the easiest decisions he ever had to make. Remember that the next time you toss "bad faith" allegations around about the players union. Easy to see your bias. For your info, an allegation is something that may or may not have happened. The decertify, file lawsuits, recertify happened already. Therefore, it is a fact. And players are openly making comments that they will be a union again after trying this lawsuit strategy. That is also a fact. I never said the owners were innocent of bad faith moves. I'm just pointing out that this judge will not decide the future of the NFL, and that I doubt that she will even be able to get a ruling on the injunction to stick because of jurisdictional issues. It's an opinion based on fact, not emotion or allegiance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 first reports from the antitrust hearing: Greg A. Bedard of the Boston Globe reports that the hearing took a break around 12:15 p.m. ET after starting at 10:30 a.m. this morning. Bedard has a few other interesting nuggets from the morning sessions. The most eye-opening: “Only 1 mention of irreparable harm and [Judge Susan] Nelson said it ‘appears players have strong case.”‘ http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/we-have-our-first-reports-from-the-antitrust-hearing/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 first reports from the antitrust hearing: Greg A. Bedard of the Boston Globe reports that the hearing took a break around 12:15 p.m. ET after starting at 10:30 a.m. this morning. Bedard has a few other interesting nuggets from the morning sessions. The most eye-opening: “Only 1 mention of irreparable harm and [Judge Susan] Nelson said it ‘appears players have strong case.”‘ http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/we-have-our-first-reports-from-the-antitrust-hearing/ Of course they do, which is why the owners should have never let it get this far ... but then again, the owners have a strong case that the decertification isn't legit. Still, hopefully it'll scare both sides back to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richNjoisy Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 first reports from the antitrust hearing: Greg A. Bedard of the Boston Globe reports that the hearing took a break around 12:15 p.m. ET after starting at 10:30 a.m. this morning. Bedard has a few other interesting nuggets from the morning sessions. The most eye-opening: “Only 1 mention of irreparable harm and [Judge Susan] Nelson said it ‘appears players have strong case.”‘ http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/we-have-our-first-reports-from-the-antitrust-hearing/ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/06/lockout-court.ap/index.html This story (see what the judge asked the NFL lawyer) also suggests strongly that the judge is leaning towards the players side. Let's all hope when the players win the case that they still make a deal that involves a salary cap and (I hope too) a rookie salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is also a Buffalo native AND a Bills fan. Should this case make it that far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 court adjourned.....ruling may take weeks: U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, however, urged the two sides not to wait that long. "It seems to me both sides are at risk, and now is a good time to come back to the table," Nelson said, noting her willingness to facilitate the resumption of talks toward a new collective bargaining agreement that would put pro football back on track. http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6301016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Interesting speculation Again, there are strong denials to this, but according to sources, some owners are slightly fidgety about what happened before judge Susan Nelson during the federal court hearing in Minneapolis on Wednesday. This is good news if it's true. Force the owners to back down a bit, get the players back to the table and end this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts