Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Some of that might be true, and I was kind of on LA's side in terms of canceling Richards' contract, but this whole scenario doesnt make any sense to me.
They terminate his contract, ergo losing his cap hit and not sustaining any cap penalties and not paying him anything. If the termination was just then this is okay.
But now they're discussing an offer to pay him some of his owed salary.
Is that not just effectively a buyout? How do they justify paying him anything when they also claim to be justified in terminating his contract and somehow still not incurring any cap consequences?
I dont get that.
|
It will probably cost them less dollars. I bet internally, the NHL is not on the side of the LAK in terms of the settlement; the NHL doesn't want to see the LAK pay accounted dollars to Richards. Their participation in this negotiation settlement is probably trying to make sure the LAK aren't trying to pay un-accounted dollars; meanwhile, the NHLPA's interest in this is probably trying to get as much money for Richards without it taking the cap hit. Kind of funny that the teams in this negotiation may end up being (LAK + NHLPA) vs NHL (Richards probably doesn't care either way, he just wants max number of dollars possible)