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.
|
But the entire point of the discussion is what did he do to allow for the contract to be voided? NHL contracts are guaranteed and LA is relying on a "material breach". This just doesn't happen everyday and is a far cry from a "regular" employment contract where it is fairly common to either rely on a breach (failed drug test, for example), or simply pay in lieu of notice.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|