Skip to content

The hot potato gets passed to Judge Susan Nelson

nelson-susan-judge

The Tom Brady antitrust case is getting passed around like a brick-sized Christmas fruitcake.

Judge Richard Kyle dumped the case on Friday.  Judge Patrick Schiltz has now done the same.

According to Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, the case has now landed on the docket of Judge Susan Nelson.

Kaplan reports that Judge Nelson presided over the Dryer v. NFL case until December 2010, at which time she received a promotion from the position of “magistrate judge” to full judge.  The Dryer case arises from claims that the NFL has used the identities of former players without compensation.

Kaplan believes that the players will file a motion to shift the Brady case to Judge Doty.  This assumes, of course, that Judge Nelson won’t find a way to pass the potato back to the clerk’s office for another random reassignment to a shrinking pool of judges not named Doty.

Permalink 41 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
41 Responses to “The hot potato gets passed to Judge Susan Nelson”
  1. bonniebengal says: Mar 14, 2011 10:12 AM

    This is such a farce.

  2. dolphan343 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:14 AM

    Did this have to be filed in Minnesota? Seems there is a high degree of conflict of interest there. lol

  3. brownsfn says: Mar 14, 2011 10:14 AM

    SO we can look forward to 6-9 months of articles just like this one…GREAT….

  4. mick730 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:14 AM

    Banana Republic anybody? Or is this just the “Chicago Way” as applied to the federal judiciary?

  5. qbanbuc5 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:24 AM

    This is getting soooo annoying…

  6. cappa662 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:25 AM

    Why so much sympathy for the owners (billionaires which the majority have had everything handed to them)? I doubt that majority of you guys own anything.

  7. chapnastier says: Mar 14, 2011 10:29 AM

    Um it is supposed to be random selection right? So how in the name of everything that is fair can one party involved in the case be able to decide who their judge is?

  8. MichaelEdits says: Mar 14, 2011 10:29 AM

    I’m sure she’ll do fine, but I’d rather give it to Judge Judy.

  9. Caldon says: Mar 14, 2011 10:34 AM

    Can the NFL complain about this process? It seems appearent to all that this is going to Doty who the NFL has claimed in the past is biased. Between the players wanting Doty and all the other justices dropping the case so that it goes to Doty is all seems very contrived and rigged. Any legal standing or wiggle room here for the NFL or do they just have to endure and then appeal once Doty rules in favor of the players like everyone knows he will.

  10. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Mar 14, 2011 10:34 AM

    It’s a shame, but I think this antitrust labor exemption defense by the NFL asserting that the NFLPA’s decertification is a “sham” will NOT succeed. Don’t get me wrong. On the merits, the NFL’s argument that the “decertification” is a “sham” is, I think, persuasive. But something tells me that the court will rule that the owners effectively waived that defense [NFL CBA (2006-2012), Article LVII, Section 3(b)], and that the waiver STILL applies, even despite the NFL’s technical argument that the NFLPA needed to wait until the CBA expired to decertify.

    My guess: The federal district court judge will then likely grant the players’ prayer for preliminary injunctive relief. The lockout will be lifted. Advantage, players.

    Let’s hope I’m wrong. Why? Because then collective bargaining would resume, and the NFLPA—without the asterisk—will be compelled to do what they have not yet done: Take it seriously.

  11. ducksmith says: Mar 14, 2011 10:37 AM

    Majority had everything handed to them? What the heck des that matter? Jealous? Sheesh. BTW, check out how Wayne Weaver, Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Jerry Richardson EARNED their money. I guess if someone has a lot more money than I do, I’m supposed to hate ‘em. Sorry to disappoint you.

  12. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 14, 2011 10:39 AM

    chapnastier says: Mar 14, 2011 10:29 AM

    “Um it is supposed to be random selection right? So how in the name of everything that is fair…”

    What does “fair” have to do with the American judicial system? Having actually been in a courtroom on more than one occasion I can tell you, “not much”.

    It all comes down to who has the better lawyer, and nothing else, iow, like everything else in this country, money.

  13. hendawg21 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:39 AM

    The joke which use to be the NFL…if this circus continues then no wonder there may not be an NFL season! But with each passing day I could care less i’ll find other ways to entertain myself!

  14. rightwingfan says: Mar 14, 2011 10:43 AM

    In the business of being a player what kind of overhead do they have? I’m just asking.

  15. rodge1 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:44 AM

    If the players want to make “owner money” then why don’t they get together and buy a team? Then they’ll know what it’s like to pay millions of dollars to ungrateful crybabies. They might realize how much it hurts the wallet to give millions to a draft-bust or fork out money to upgrade stadiums, buy equipment, uniforms, maintenance, etc…

  16. mick730 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:46 AM

    “Why so much sympathy for the owners (billionaires which the majority have had everything handed to them)? I doubt that majority of you guys own anything.”

    I guess the response could be, why so much sympathy on your part for the players?

    As for me personally, I’m a Packer fan, so I don’t have a billionaire owner at whom to direct my class envy and hatred. But the key is that I am a Packer fan. Not a fan per se of any particular player, but a fan of the Green Bay Packers.

    Now, since the Green Bay financial statemtns are and always have been, public record, I can see for myself that since the latest CBA was put in place, the bottom line of the Packers has dropped from 35 million dollars for fiscal 2006 to 5.2 million dollars for fiscal 2009. This happened despite record revenues. Why one might ask if one had the slightest bit of curiousity? The answer is that player salaries, despite the Packers having the youngest roster in football for that entire period of time, have skyrocketed, up over 15% on average each year. And guess what? All the other expenses of the team have also gone right through the roof. Take a look at the cost of the team’s liability insurance premiums. Unbelievable.

    So when expenses are skyrocketing, there is only so much the Packers can do and still remain competitive. If they raise ticket prices, which as a season ticket holder I know the Packers have done their best to keep to a minimum, $2.00 on average for the upcoming season, the team only gets about .42 cents of each new dollar in revenue; the players get the rest.

    Now since you and the other unionites around here area always railing against billionaire owners, the end result of your union fanatacism is that only teams with billionaire owners who can afford to treat a pro football team like a hobby, will be able to compete and stay in business. As a Packer fan, that’s a no go for me.

    But one more question to you: Why is it that the unions and their supporters, who are demanding the owners open their books for review by the union, have absolutely nothing to say about the Green Bay books, that are open to you?

    Could it be that you simply don’t like the fact that the Green Bay books don’t support the union’s position?

  17. rpiotr01 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:48 AM

    This is a functioning judicial system? Rig everything with a wink and nod to get a favorable judge?

    With players doing everything in their power to get this in front of Judge Doty, isn’t that reason enough to make sure the case is handled by anyone BUT Doty?

  18. bison4me says: Mar 14, 2011 10:49 AM

    Dryer as in Hunter?

  19. kcfanatic says: Mar 14, 2011 11:13 AM

    If they miss one game, just one game I will seriously consider boycotting the season. This junk can go on as much as they would like in the offseason, but when it starts messing with the actual season fans will really get pissed.

  20. kcfanatic says: Mar 14, 2011 11:19 AM

    Could someone do a study for us all? I would like to know what the major unions make % wise compared to the NFLPA. Take UAW, Teasmsters and another big boy. I don’t need to know how much they make, only if there unions total pay equals 50% of the companies gross revenues. It would give us some kind of baseline on fairness of salaries. If the other unions typically get 50% or more of gross revenue, then I am all for NFLPA getting similar. This would give us an idea of how greedy one side or the other is being. My gut tells me that most unions get nowhere close to 50% gross revenues, but I could be wrong.

  21. chacochicken says: Mar 14, 2011 11:28 AM

    Sympathy for owners or players? Players assume a huge risk and have a very short career while owners haven’t lost a dime in money or net worth in many years. The teams should all probably be run like Green Bay

  22. elrushbo2 says: Mar 14, 2011 11:29 AM

    This comes as no surprise. They have to get to the judge that will rule the way Obama and the democrats want. After all D. Smith was promised the outcome would be in his favor.

  23. buffalohogan says: Mar 14, 2011 11:42 AM

    kcfanatic comparing anything to the UAW is probably not a good idea…they killed the US automotive industry.

  24. johnjosephyossarian says: Mar 14, 2011 11:42 AM

    Hey look at me, I’m ignorant of the judicial system and how judges are selected but I’m going to post comments that reflect my particular bias, yeah!!

  25. hendawg21 says: Mar 14, 2011 11:42 AM

    You know players already get paid way too much and in some cases a majority of them aren’t worthy and don’t give back in return on the field of play, not only that factor in the knucklehead/reckless players and their off field antics…they have no respect for themselves, the game or the fans oh you know who they are brush off as if you’re nobody but yet want you to cheer and praise them on gameday, show up for community events and look for the first exit out.

  26. mataug says: Mar 14, 2011 11:50 AM

    hey Mike, I don’t think you have answered this question before or if you have I didn’t see the answer – why was the case filed in Minnesota ?

  27. cappa662 says: Mar 14, 2011 11:52 AM

    I said majority. How about Woody Johnson, John Mara, the Rooneys, the Hunts, the McCaskies, Pat Bowlen, Jim Irsay, Stan Kroenke (who is married to Bud Walton’s daughter), and etc.

    Yes there are owners who worked very hard for everything that they have gotten i.e. Daniel Synder, Jerry Jones, and etc.

    However, I stand by my statement, the majority of NFL owners have had everything handed to them.

  28. vomitingliberals says: Mar 14, 2011 11:55 AM

    Mick730 is absolutely on the the money! You union supporting people that are so obsessed with class envy, who think it’s good business to rob NFL owners blind simply because they are billionaires are going to find your favorite teams so strapped for cash as salaries continue to rise that you will inevitably collapse the league sometime down the road. You will also find that eventually only the UBER Billionaires will be able to own an NFL team and they will be forced to treat your team as but a mere hobby while focusing on other more profitable business interests outside of football.

    The ONLY hope for this league is to have less of the revenue going to the players and make the business more profitable and healthy for those who own it. Sorry to say it, but the players will only drain the money dry and then retire with the booty? How does this benefit the long term sustainability of the game? Where is the future in rich retiring players and broke NFL franchises?

  29. vomitingliberals says: Mar 14, 2011 12:02 PM

    Look at the Packers financials since the last CBA, they will be in the red within the next five years… BROKE!!!

    Again, where is there a future in this league for broke NFL Franchises?

    The NFLPA will be the death of this league, but all of you class envy lemmings will still foolishly believe the owners destroyed their own product. Very sad.

  30. oldbrowndawg says: Mar 14, 2011 12:33 PM

    Just remember, y’all, that a judge is nothing more than a lawyer in a black robe. And we know how much the lawyers have “helped” our country, right?

  31. pack15forever says: Mar 14, 2011 12:39 PM

    The NFL and the players are delusional. They live in a world where they are sheltered from all the crap that is happening in the world today…high unemployment, natural disasters, homes being foreclosed, etc. Talk about spoiled brats. These folks have the best life in the world and now they are griping on how to divide up their riches. Meanwhile, they wouldn’t have a dime if it wasn’t for the fan that buys the tickets, jerseys, signs up for Sunday Ticket, etc. But what do they do they give the middle finger to the fans. A friend of mine told me a long time ago “You want sympathy? You’ll find it between sh*t and syphallis in the dictionary”.

  32. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 14, 2011 12:49 PM

    mick730 says: Mar 14, 2011 10:46 AM

    “Could it be that you simply don’t like the fact that the Green Bay books don’t support the union’s position?”

    If anything they don’t support the owners position.
    The owners are crying that they’re “losing money”, when the truth is, they haven’t LOST a penny.
    Their profits are just smaller, and they don’t like that.

    Making money is not good enough.
    They want their profits to be larger.

  33. radrhatr says: Mar 14, 2011 12:49 PM

    “Again, where is there a future in this league for broke NFL Franchises?”

    Ask Buffalo

  34. hobartbaker says: Mar 14, 2011 1:32 PM

    “Brady, your Honor, Thomas Brady, and let me add you look particularly lovely today…..”.

  35. panther17 says: Mar 14, 2011 2:04 PM

    FoozieGrooler,

    You seem to be missing the point that with player salaries increasing and cost of running the franchise increasing, Green Bay’s profits potentially could disappear completely under the current CBA.
    What are they going to do? Raise ticket prices, merchandise prices, and concession stand prices on the fans continuously to counter their increase costs from players and running a business? You can only increase the costs on the fans so much before the fans turn and your income drops even more while the expenses stay the same. Some point that CBA was going to put them under.

  36. vomitingliberals says: Mar 14, 2011 2:09 PM

    “Again, where is there a future in this league for broke NFL Franchises?”

    Ask Buffalo
    —————

    And the Bills wiil join the Packers and eventually everyone else when the vampiric union sucks them dry. The fans will be paying $500 for the nose bleed seats & $100 for parking during the preseason if we allow the union to mug the owners with biased judges and unreasonable demands. Franchises will be forced to offset the damage from bending over for the NFLPA by passing on those costs to you the NFL consumer. Economics 101.

    The NFL must defeat the union here and now or the long term sustainability of this league is nil.

  37. jerseydevil856 says: Mar 14, 2011 2:14 PM

    chacochicken says: Mar 14, 2011 11:28 AM

    Sympathy for owners or players? Players assume a huge risk and have a very short career while owners haven’t lost a dime in money or net worth in many years. The teams should all probably be run like Green Bay

    ************************************

    You know, I’m getting really sick and tired of hearing this argument. Where exactly did it become the be-all-end-all law that players HAVE to make enough during their NFL careers to support themselves for the rest of their lives??

    I mean seriously…most people straight out of college (who are lucky enough to actually find a job) actually work for the rest of their lives. Even those who are lucky enough to land a 6-figure job in a specialized field work the majority of their life, and even if they take an early retirement it’s probably in their 50′s rather than their 60′s.

    This is another example of the “sense of entitlement” bullcrap that makes me sick of the modern athlete. Guess what guys? The fact that you’re athletically-gifted enough to leave college and make anywhere from $500K a year to millions – something most people won’t make in their ENTIRE LIFETIME – should have you friggin’ jumping for joy. Because you’re ahead of about 95% of the rest of us. And after your playing days are over, you’ll have built a nice little nest egg that you can use to invest and still be ahead of most of us. And for those of you who want more, then get a friggin’ job and do something with the rest of your lives. See how it feels to actually work for a living.

  38. bensstinkyfingers says: Mar 14, 2011 3:03 PM

    Pass it on to Judge Judy! I’d love to hear “Mr. DeMaurice, remove your pimp hat sir, you’re in a courtroom ,didn’t your momma teach you any manners?As for you Mr. Brady, I love your work in GQ son. Mr. Smith this is all a huge farce so you can get attention, you are flat out lying, judgment for the Defendants in the amount of 200 billion!

  39. thefiesty1 says: Mar 14, 2011 3:37 PM

    At least she has some experience with these yahoos. This whole thing is like a bad joke.

  40. wiley16350 says: Mar 14, 2011 4:01 PM

    I totally agree with jerseydevil856, The idea that NFL players must earn enough money to live their entire life at the lavish way they do while playing in the NFL is rediculous. The players make that kind of money because of what they can do and they deserve to make that kind of money while they can do it. But once they can no longer perform well enough to deserve that kind of money then they must live off what they earned or get another job that will pay them for the abilities they do have. Most of them have college educations (if they don’t have degrees then they only have themselves to blame) so they should be able to get a job in some type of professional field that pays them well. It’s not like once they retire from the NFL, they have no way to continue to have income. If they are disabled to work because of injuries sustained playing football, then I would agree that the NFL should provide for disability.

  41. stevez51 says: Mar 14, 2011 4:42 PM

    I was talking with my son over the weekend and he brought up a couple of points. Players careers are short due to injuries because they do it to themselves. Any defensive player is looking for that big hit to knock someone out of the game or be a highlight on SportsCenter. He also said it could be because we, the fans want to see the big hits. With so many players now using their helments as a weapon on a tackle you could say they are their own reason for the short careers.

Leave a Reply

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