No worries, just saw it and thought it was newsworthy..... We know the D* execs will be pulling for a speedy resolution, but the owners might have more funds to ride things out than people expect....
Doesn't contract law state that if one party cannot comply with the contract regardless of the reason that it null and voids the contract. I'm almost 100% positive regardless of what CNBC says that if the NFL cannot provide access to the game feeds (no games being played) as per the contract wouldn't that contract be null and void. Even if DirecTV signed a clause that they must still pay even with a lockout I'm sure a billion dollar company can sue for breach of contract because they signed it under duress. Simply put the NFL put a clause that is so unreasonable that they had to agree to the terms to get the contract.
I could be wrong but if DirecTV has to pay this they signed the worst contract I've ever seen in my life. The NFL can prevent and avoid a lockout so they should be held liable for DirecTVs contract. Simply put for the NFL to be liable this means they shouldn't get paid during the lockout year, the contract becomes null and void and a new contract must be drafted and signed once the lockout is over.
Edit...This would be like signing a contract with Verizon Wireless and Verizon deciding to upgrade their network using new technology that doesn't work with any existing phones. Verizon Wireless at that point couldn't just tell customers under a contract that their phone no longer works but you must still pay your bill, cancel and pay an ETF and/or buy a new phone at full price. This would completely null and void the contract wouldn't it. They would need to provide you with both a new phone to continue services at no cost with no change in service or contract terms. If they don't want to do that they must waive your contract at once. Yes I understand this isn't the best example in that the lockout would be a short term while the phone would be forever but still if they cannot provide you phone service (NFL cannot provide the games) the contract cannot be enforced and you as a customer shouldn't have to pay for services you cannot receive at no fault of your own. The NFL can prevent a lockout just like Verizon Wireless in this case can prevent their phones from losing services.
Then again, they REALLY need a Rookie Sal Cap.
Got that right. They should get a contract, but get the league minimum until they've played a season or two where the money would kick in. Or, if they are stellar players right out the gate the pay moves up. The drafts of the past are just riddled with players that made massive bank and didn't do jack. They need to bring the whole money thing back down to earth, this of course extends to what we pay each year to watch it.
I wouldn't hold my breath on this one, lockouts/strikes in the NFL can and have happened.
- It wouldnt be a lockout....it would be a strike....the owners can impose a "final last offer" deal & if the players dont accept they would essentially be striking.
Only once though, and no one came out a winner.
This time would be different as they would be locked out. There will not be a strike because the players are fine with the current deal.