Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h
If Richards has broken the terms the team wrote into the contract (potentially an added clause when they were considering a compliance buyout) and Richards broke this clause, why is everyone so up in arms over the voided contract?
The argument is basically the "We don't like LA, so they should be unjustly punished and be stuck with the contract"
This is an employment contract. This is REAL $$$ ( and a lot of it) to Richards. You can bet he will fight this if he has any legs to stand on. If he did break the terms of his legal employment contract, then LA should be able to void his contract.
It really doesn't to me. They were in trade talks with teams. They informed those teams an issue has come up. Richards has not made any public statement despite the fact this will cost him millions AND a chance at FA tomorrow when he would have been bought out.
It sounds like a player with a questionable past, who was given 1 last chance with LA, screwing up.
|
I'm not a big fan of guaranteed contracts as it can breed laziness but the fact of the matter is that you can't have organizations with big teams of lawyers voiding contracts that they feel no longer serve them well because of grey area stipulations. The contract served them well when they won the cup but now that the player has declined they no longer want the player and his contract and they have been patiently waiting for the player to do something in his personal life that may give them grounds on a grey area loophole. How would you feel as a player knowing that once your 8 year deal doesn't look so good to your employer that they are watching your private life closely in hopes of you slipping up. Seems like this could create some unrest with the union.