Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
I guess you've never had a contract with a no-compete clause in it then. When you get to certain levels or work in certain industries this clause can be put in a contract to prevent you from up and leaving with short notice. This is very restrictive and more like a pro athlete has to deal with, so there are instances of similar restrictions for regular folk.
|
The quid pro quo is a termination with a healthy severance in those kind of contracts. Plus overly restrictive non-competes are often overturned by the court.
I think the reason people are looking at this the way they are is the notion that the Kings are trying to use a clause that simply hasn't been used in this manner that I can recall, in order to get rid of a contract they couldn't in any other way. If the Kings had no cap issues, I doubt people would question it as much. Then again, they probably wouldn't be terminating the contract either.