-Vintage Canuck- Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Tom Gulitti @TGfireandice The grievance -- assuming one is filed -- will be beween the NHLPA/the player and the Kings/NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALGARY! Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Richards will be a good pick up for about 3-4/per on certain teams. Edmonton, for example could use a veteran centre man with cup experience to help show McDavid and RNH/Draistl how it's done. Toronto will also be looking for a veteran centre if they can move phat Phil. There are teams with enough cap space to overpay a bit and hope that Richards is willing to condition himself into a better playing form again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touchable Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 This Richards thingy is all bs imo. The Kings circumventing the cap and the nhl will probably allow it. Yep, this is just obvious circumvention at this point. The only hope we have is that Richards and the NHLPA can beat this in the grievance process, whether it's arbitration or court or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLuciano Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Richards will be a good pick up for about 3-4/per on certain teams. Edmonton, for example could use a veteran centre man with cup experience to help show McDavid and RNH/Draistl how it's done. Toronto will also be looking for a veteran centre if they can move phat Phil. There are teams with enough cap space to overpay a bit and hope that Richards is willing to condition himself into a better playing form again. He'd be a good cancer to sabotage the Oilers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I totally agree with LA on this one.More has to be done so players live upto the contracts they sign.If a player starts getting hlaf the points,not playing to thier potential or anything bad in any way,you should be able to either cut thier pay to what they have done or terminate thier deal!I have been saying this for years that players should have to be accountable sorta like Wellwood when he was here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Tre Mac, on 29 Jun 2015 - 12:08 PM, said: Cocaine I don't think they could get out of the contract based on that, I have quite a bit of experience in labour relations and contract law. A couple of reasons: 1. There are numerous substance abuse policies and programs in the NHL. We haven't heard anything about Richards being enrolled in one of these programs. Drug addiction and alcoholism is generally considered an illness and not culpable behaviour in terms of a material breach of a contract. If something comes to light that he was undergoing league sponsored treatment repeatedly this could make a difference in his case. 2. There is no indication of a progression in discipline. Was he ever suspended for whatever he has been terminated for? I don't recall any suspensions for violating the league drug policies. 3. They have not chosen to terminate other players based on more culpable criminal behaviour related to drug use. To any arbitrator or judge that would smack of convenience rather than a material breach. They don't terminate a contract for Voynov or Stoll, but do for Richards? 4. If you don't enforce a clause in the contract (like drug use violation) repeatedly, you legally most often lose the ability to later claim that violating that clause is a "material breach". It sounds like they knew the issues and did not act on them in the past. He can still breach the contract and it doesn't mean they can terminate it. A "material breach" is a specific legal term which effectively means he broke one of the main conditions of the contract. My bet in the end is that he sues (successfully) for his owed dollars. This will take a long time however and the league will probably waive his cap hit for LA. This means they win regardless, if they bought him out they would get charged against the cap... this way they still have to pay the cash, but more than likely get out from under a cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touchable Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 1. There are numerous substance abuse policies and programs in the NHL. We haven't heard anything about Richards being enrolled in one of these programs. Drug addiction and alcoholism is generally considered an illness and not culpable behaviour in terms of a material breach of a contract. If something comes to light that he was undergoing league sponsored treatment repeatedly this could make a difference in his case. Just to play devil's advocate, what if he was dealing, not using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Just to play devil's advocate, what if he was dealing, not using? Even that would be a hard legal road to travel if he hasn't been criminally charged and convicted of that. As a matter of fact, the Kings cold open themselves up to significant liability if it was determined that they knew he was dealing drugs and did not report it to police. They demote him to the juniors around impressionable minors after finding out he has a drug problem and is spreading those drugs around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I totally agree with LA on this one.More has to be done so players live upto the contracts they sign.If a player starts getting hlaf the points,not playing to thier potential or anything bad in any way,you should be able to either cut thier pay to what they have done or terminate thier deal!I have been saying this for years that players should have to be accountable sorta like Wellwood when he was here! How about teams stop giving long term deals to players? They should know Richards better than anyone. Watching him play, practice, workout etc. There are risks to giving big deals to players, them falling off the rails is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 ... 3. They have not chosen to terminate other players based on more culpable criminal behaviour related to drug use. To any arbitrator or judge that would smack of convenience rather than a material breach. They don't terminate a contract for Voynov or Stoll, but do for Richards? ... Stoll's contract was expiring anyway, but Voyonov absolutely should be terminated if this is Lombardi acting morally. Except they haven't done that, since this is Lombardi trying to save the cap space and they'd happily take Voyonov back despite what he's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jannik freaking hansen Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 This whole Richards' situation stinks to high heaven. If they bought him out I calculate the cap hit at: 1.217M this year 1.717M year 2 2.717M year 3 4.217M year 4 & 5 1.466M years 6-10 Yahoo is reporting that the Kings would be on the hook for Richards' cap recapture at 1.32M for the next five years. So termination would hurt them by about 100K this year and significantly help them the other 9 years. Hopefully Richards and the PA take the Kings to task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 The Kings should be kicked out of the nhl for being cheating scum. Well the nhl helped them cheat to 2 cups so I doubt anything will be done. W.e this league is similar to WWE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AriGold Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 A carry on thread for people to keep talking about this. It shouldn't have been closed as this is a very serious topic the NHL is in the middle of. http://forum.canucks.com/topic/370618-report-kings-terminate-contract-of-mike-richards/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Strangelove Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 If that is legitimately true, I know my interest in the sport will seriously die down. I am all for teams / players getting SOME breaks but that is honestly 100% completely unfair to every other team in the NHL. Rules are rules and they should be enforced for each team not when the NHL feels its justified Join the club Arizona and LA get away with circumventing the cap while we're going to get screwed over big time when Luongo retires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLuciano Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I totally agree. This is unprecedented and shouldn't be lumped in a thread with other players on waivers. I'm still waiting to hear what the NHLPA are going to say. They must be fuming mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Maybe broke a clause regarding nose candy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Bang Boogie Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Not sure why the other thread was closed. That is just poor forum moderation. Anyway, apparently in incident happened with Richards. The Flames and Oilers were actually close to talking about at trade, then Lombardi shuts it down after hearing about this incident. Source: http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nhl/story/_/id/13169890/los-angeles-kings-terminate-contract-mike-richards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AriGold Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 No Great post, way to be a valued member of CDC. Feel free to make your way to hfboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Maybe broke a clause regarding nose candy? Even if that is the case, it seems to me that they shouldn't receive cap relief for it. Terminating a contract should be defined in the CBA, if it's not, they need to deal with that immediately. That's the stuff that causes serious labour strife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.