Matt_T83 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 While not specifically relating to sports contracts (yet), the United States has 'selective enforcement' laws that make it technically illegal to deal with two people in very different manners for similar crimes. I feel that these selective enforcement rules will come into play with sports eventually. We all know the dirtbag LA Kings recently terminated Mike Richards' contract, and while I don't really like Richards., I feel this is a dirty, underhanded move. This was supposedly due to Richards bringing oxy across the US-Canada border. Within the Kings organization, this is clearly selective enforcement, as Jared Stoll (cocaine) and Slava Voynov (domestic abuse) both clearly violated the LA Kings' morality clauses as well. In fact, we have zero evidence that Richards did anything wrong, but clear evidence that Stoll and Voynov did. By terminating certain players under the morality clause, but not others, the LA Kings are clearly selectively enforcing their rules, which is illegal. And by condoning this termination, the NHL has become a party to this as well. Essentially, if the NHL doesn't terminate the contracts of any single player ever shown to violate any morality clause, they are breaking the law. I'm VERY curious to see how this plays out in court. I hope Richards get his full buyout, and the NHL gets slapped in the face. I didn't expect Bettman to be so stupid and go along with this termination. He really is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 While I don't think you are incorrect about your basic premise, your two examples are clearly different. Stoll is/was a UFA so they didn't have to do anything. He was not LA's property. Voynov's case was before the courts. They could not act other than suspend him until a verdict was reached. What, if anything, they do now is still up in the air especially so because he will be serving his time now. The CBA, like it or not, has clauses about drugs. They do not about domestic violence. That may change in the coming years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 That's why there is an appeals process in place between members of the NHLPA and members of the NHL. This will play through through the judicial system one way or another. Maybe there were extraordinary clauses put into Richards' contract by the Flyers who signed him to the deal that gives the Kings the right to "selectively" enforce termination clause given Richards' sketchy past. Have you read the terms and conditions of Richards' contract? I doubt you have, but evidently you think you know enough about the T&C to confidently state the Kings and the NHL are in the wrong. Using Stoll as an example is a poor example. He was under contract when he got busted in Vegas, but the team was under no obligation to renew his contract which it didn't. What would be the point in suspending a guy who you've essentially cut ties with when the regular season ended for the Kings? At least Voynov was a relevant example to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon45ca Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Like it or lump it, Richards' attempt to cross international borders with a controlled substance is a far more serious offence than either Stoll's or Voynov's, at least in the eyes of the law & the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Well Stoll is a UFA, so the Kings didn't need to do anything. Meanwhile Voynov hasn't had a final ruling on his court case, so till that happens, LA can do squat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Well Stoll is a UFA, so the Kings didn't need to do anything. Meanwhile Voynov hasn't had a final ruling on his court case, so till that happens, LA can do squat. I understood Voynov pleaded no-contest, and is currently serving the court rulings (short as agreed in plea bargain) imposed prison sentence. And he will be out of jail in time for training camp. Although I think he is also rehabbing from a ruptured Achilles, and may not be ready for camp. I have read the Kings & league are investigating their legal rights in regards to his deal. Probably fair to suggest they have more interest in bringing him back than Richards and are just gauging damage control? But want to know if they can, and or have to take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Well Stoll is a UFA, so the Kings didn't need to do anything. Meanwhile Voynov hasn't had a final ruling on his court case, so till that happens, LA can do squat. Yes, Voynov has. In fact, he's already serving his 90 days. Unless you mean the NHL hasn't had a final ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFBR392 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Well, it's in the organization's best interest to exploit any potential loophole they see fit to better the club. And unless you're the Vancouver Canucks, you don't have anything to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Let's face it - the Kings decision here has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with cap circumvention. They should be on the hook for the buyout cap penalty. They clearly and obviously intended to buy the player out - this is a contrived round about, in addition to the backdiving Luongo-rule cap penalty. This doesn't just effect Richards and the LA Kings - it effects every other NHL team subject to the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 While I don't think you are incorrect about your basic premise, your two examples are clearly different. Stoll is/was a UFA so they didn't have to do anything. He was not LA's property. Voynov's case was before the courts. They could not act other than suspend him until a verdict was reached. What, if anything, they do now is still up in the air especially so because he will be serving his time now. The CBA, like it or not, has clauses about drugs. They do not about domestic violence. That may change in the coming years. Bingo. That summarized everything I was thinking of saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Yes, Voynov has. In fact, he's already serving his 90 days. Unless you mean the NHL hasn't had a final ruling. Ooooh. I didn't realize Voynov was already in jail. I thought he was still awaiting a ruling. Nevermind then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 If the NHL CBA had rules against domestic violence Patrick Roy wouldn't be in the league right now. Don't act like the Kings are getting special treatment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 If the NHL CBA had rules against domestic violence Patrick Roy wouldn't be in the league right now. Don't act like the Kings are getting special treatment... They are getting special treatment. Don't try to act like they aren't. Why is it that when they were about to buy out Richards, they change their mind at the last second and terminate his contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 They are getting special treatment. Don't try to act like they aren't. Why is it that when they were about to buy out Richards, they change their mind at the last second and terminate his contract? Because if any good businessman could find a loop hole to terminate a contract they would. You seriously don't think Aquilini would do it too if we had a player the team wanted to rid themselves of? There are clauses in player contracts and Mike Richards violated one ergo his contract is terminated. It also looks better for the league as a whole that players who violate the law and terms of a contract they signed get severely punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tortorella Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Drugs have effect on on ice performance Family relations dont Nhl dgaf about no ice behaviour that does not effect ice play, thus let courts Anything about drugs or free travel between borders instantly matters to any nhl team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Let's face it - the Kings decision here has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with cap circumvention. They should be on the hook for the buyout cap penalty. They clearly and obviously intended to buy the player out - this is a contrived round about, in addition to the backdiving Luongo-rule cap penalty. This doesn't just effect Richards and the LA Kings - it effects every other NHL team subject to the salary cap. My thoughts as well. I wonder at the silence from the rest of the league. I would expect all 29 other GMs to be crying foul at this. Hopefully things are going on behind the scenes that we're unaware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 LA just found out a creative way to vapourize a contract, that's all. Likely there have been meetings between him and the Kings to make sure both sides are happy with this arrangement. Whether or not the Kings are busted and have to buy him out fully or Richards never plays in the NHL again, I am not going to feel sorry for either side. Spoiled player. Spoiled franchise. Spoiled fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 While I don't think you are incorrect about your basic premise, your two examples are clearly different. Stoll is/was a UFA so they didn't have to do anything. He was not LA's property. Voynov's case was before the courts. They could not act other than suspend him until a verdict was reached. What, if anything, they do now is still up in the air especially so because he will be serving his time now. The CBA, like it or not, has clauses about drugs. They do not about domestic violence. That may change in the coming years. This is the first time I can remember a contract being terminated (if that is even legal within the bargaining agreement). The precedence here surely will be challenged by the NHLPA, and reviewed by the league to ensure it's not cap circumvention. I've seen retirement, and mutual termination, but not termination by the team on it's own. This should be treated the same as any other NHL rule. Follow the rules, and treat each case the same within the rules. It's just like bad referees where rules apply differently to each player. The NHL can't play favourites or the rules are meaningless. I'm not going to dwell too much about the fairness implications in the short term though. The LA locker room is very clearly messed up at the moment. On that note, I think our own house looks fairly clean at the moment. Some nice up and coming talent and the right guys to show them the ropes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
44or55 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Dean and his crew are smart. A good GM always does whats best for the franchise within the rules. Seems the termination might be within the rules. In the end It's not a popularity contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gino#29 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 another thing that bugs me is this retained salary crap.when you look at chicago and other top league favoured teams with cap issues,they all have someone on their roster that another useless league puppet team like phoenix is paying half the salary AND IT COMES OF THEIR CAP HIT WITH NO PENALTY.the nhl has become a complete joke.enter the las vegas bettman's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.