2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread (Part II)
View Single Post
09-08-2012, 03:39 PM
BoH Mod Only
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Originally Posted by
The current CBA has a no-strike clause. If the CBA was extended one more year, it would still include that no-strike clause. I think the bigger issue is that some owners would rather shut down business than be forced to operate in the red for another year.
The CBA can expire and the league can run without an agreement. It doesn't have to be extended to open up the year. The league is required to honor the contracts they signed with the players, CBA or no, unless they lock them out, which is what the league pledges will happen if the agreement does expire. They aren't required to lockout upon expiration, but they do in order to prevent a strike. If the league were running without a CBA, the threat of a player strike would be very large. That's what happened in 92 with the NHL and 94 with the players. In both cases, the strikes happened pretty much in the midst of the regular season.
But no, there wouldn't be a threat of a strike if the CBA had been extended, which clearly the owners weren't willing to do.
Last edited by Tawnos: 09-08-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tawnos