Quote:
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon
If there is no CBA, why will it matter if this is a strike or a lockout? No CBA means that the NFL players who are loyal to their decertified union will not play. If the league then chooses to try to put on games, they would have to use other players and those would be "replacement players". The source of the work-stoppage does not preclude that possibility.
The odds that this situation would devolve to a place where no agreement is in place so late in the year that "replacements" would become a real possibility are very long. But it is not impossible.
|
If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.
I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.