Cdizzle wrote:Blers wrote:Cdizzle wrote:Apparently I have a better understanding of them than Moser does.
Explain then. Go on. We're waiting.
You see, when one party in a contract doesn't want to do something in said contract, there is generally a provision for how they are able to compensate the other party for not doing that thing.
It would seem from his public complaints that Moser is unaware of this standard. Perhaps he should be thanking NCState. They may have just provided enough money for LUC to continue his employment.
So, in your opinion, do you think the contract with NC State should have been drafted without a buyout provision? And, if that is the case, and NC State decided they didn't want to play the return game (in violation of said contract), what do you think would happen?
Here's a hint--LU would threaten some kind of legal action alleging that NC State is in violation of the contract. NC State would seek to settle the action. The settlement would be monetary considerations.
HOLY s***--sounds like a buyout! But with some added legal fees and annoyances. Hence the existence of buyout provisions.
There is no game contract that could literally FORCE a team to play a game that they agreed to play if that team decides they don't want to do so.