Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-25-2012, 02:27 PM
Join Date: Jan 2007
Originally Posted by
I don't see how contracts themselves would be voided under decertification. Contracts are legally binding on both parties involved. The CBA did not create contract law. Contract law existed regardless of the CBA and thus the contracts need to be respected. The purpose of the CBA was to bring order to the the things that were either not regulated by contract law or modify certain aspects of contract law. Upon decertification the only thing left would be the contracts between the players and the teams and the contents of those contracts would still need to be respected. The CBA itself, which is the mechanism that controlled all the various interactions, would be voided. Therefore, there would be no salary cap; Gomez's contract could be bought out without any repercussions; any unsigned player (RFA or not) could sign with any team of his choosing; any drafted player not yet signed could sign with any team of his choice; etc.
Unless I'm mistaken the current contracts all have the CBA as their basis, without it the contracts are void.
Examples of this basis can be seen with respect to: (and most likely a lot more.)
- No trade clauses.
- No movement clauses.
Players are completely in denial if they think decertification insures them any kind of payment whatsoever. All it can help with is putting an end to the lockout.
Contracts are legally binding on both parties involved
Not under Labour law as I understand it. Since those were signed with the use of a union as intermediary, they would be void if such intermediary is broken up.
Last edited by vokiel: 11-25-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by vokiel