Jump to content

Featured Replies

comment_388399

A

18 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:
15 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

The contracts are void the minute that both parties say they are.  Until then, either side can claim that the contract is still in effect and binding.  That's why we have courts.

They're willing to honour our contracts because having a stable "feeder" league is in their best interest.  But don't doubt for a second that if they ever decided that they really don't need the CFL, our contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on.

Aren't you disagreeing with yourself?

  • Replies 411
  • Views 45.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Another spin to this crazy story... Good luck with that

  • JuranBoldenRules
    JuranBoldenRules

    Missed week 1 payroll...that’s all-time bad.  Didn’t even start the season with operating capital for one week.

  • TrueBlue4ever
    TrueBlue4ever

    It's really saying something when Arizona Coyotes fans are saying "Can you believe what they are doing to give away these tickets?"

comment_388401
32 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Mike, it's only different because the NFL says it is.  They're willing to honour our contracts because having a stable "feeder" league is in their best interest.  But don't doubt for a second that if they ever decided that they really don't need the CFL, our contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on.

Not true. The CFL and NFL have a signed legal agreement in place in regards to honoring each others contracts.

comment_388402
On 2019-04-12 at 4:18 PM, Mr Dee said:

And now for something completely ridiculous..

 

This is actually not AS ridiculous as it sounds... it would basically only apply in the unlikely scenario that the QB throws the ball and it gets batted back to him... the QB would then still have the option to throw... according to the article...

comment_388403

The CFL has zero obligation to honor AAF contracts legally. The AAF could not do diddly if the CFL decided to sign players under AAF contract. It is the players themselves that could potentially face litigation, not the league or it's member teams who offered the new contract. That litigation would be over in 30s if the AAF chose to pursue any player for signing elsewhere as the AAF initiated the breach of contract.

comment_388404
39 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

The AAF contracts were void the minute they closed shop.  Very basic principle of contract law is that if one side does not live up to their obligations the other party is not bound to their obligations.  The AAF is not providing the opportunity for the players to earn money playing football, therefore contract is worthless.

Unofficially void. Soon to be officially void. At any rate, the AAF's claim to these players rights is extremely unlikely to hold up in a court of law. The bankruptcy agents will soon just mass release these players. They have a duty to try and get something but they can't realistically prevent these players from going elsewhere without honoring their contracts.

comment_388413
39 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

A

Aren't you disagreeing with yourself?

No, not at all.  One can always chose to ignore a contract because they believe it to be null and void.  Whether or not it is actually null and void in law  and if there is a will to enforce the contract is another matter altogether.  In this case, I'd bet that thew CFL could sign AAF players because the likelihood of someone  wanting to enforce the contract is low.  At the same time, it sends out a signal that we will only honour contracts that we feel we choose to.  That's a dangerous signal to put out there when we have an organization like the NFL which honours our contracts only because they choose to.

Create an account or sign in to comment