I've been rolling some thoughts around in my mind. I'm wondering, if the owners force a lockout, why they apparently have no obligation to continue paying the players for the signed, legal contracts agreed upon by the two parties? I could understand the players not getting paid if they went on strike since they would be the ones breaking contract, but how can the owners do it and be off the hook?

I wonder since the players have taken the position that they WILL play under the effects of the expiring agreement until a new one has been agreed upon, which is of course the high road in these CBA talks. As Fehr has mentioned quite a few times, there is no legal obligation to turn to a lockout/strike scenario since, even without a new CBA, business can take place as usual.

I do understand that there is a huge element of greed, posturing, and arrogance surrounding this stand off. But really, too me, whichever side forces a stoppage should be the one left holding the bag. That would really make the owners pay attention to the ridiculous contracts they hand out.

Do the players have an out clause where if they sign in another league while being locked out that they can disregard their previously signed obligations? I really doubt it.