Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
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.
|
I agree. It seems pretty clear this is about cap circumvention and not truly about a breach of the morality clause. The Voynov situation just confirms this, as I don't think there would be much argument that he breached the same clause, using the Richards situation as a standard.
I guess the NHLPA and the league will need to fight it out in court, but it seems to me on the next CBA, a possible solution would be to open up a compliance buy-out window when these situations occur, such that there is a cap penalty, but potentially at a lower rate. What the player actually receives, if anything, could be a different number.