Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
No, we can't agree on that because the NHL itself has had a number of incidents where a racial slur did not result in anything close to a team attempting to terminate the contract.
|
We've also had drug issues, criminal charges and players out of shape that have not resulted in termination of a contract. And yet players have had their contracts terminated for those as well. It's up to the team to decide if the action warrants the contract to be terminated. And it's up to the player to decide if he would want to fight it. Pretty much just like any contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
You simply do not understand what breach of contract means, material or otherwise. Using the logic you are trying to torture, literally every player who has been subjected to supplemental discipline for any reason has breached their contracts under that same clause. The punishment, of course, is not contract termination but fines and suspensions. Same as Manning suffered here.
|
You're getting confused between the process and the results. The Oilers can terminate the contract. That does not mean the outcome wouldn't result in them losing a lawsuit, the league forcing them to go to arbitration, the league ruling against them on cap-space, etc. So like I said, I don't see why the Oilers would go that route unless Manning was extremely problematic.
Richards opened it up, to the chagrin of a lot of league officials. Of course the eventual settlement was not a fullout termination. But he was just alleged to have been charged at the time the contract was terminated. You can't point to criminal charges, because the same team had Voynov. You can't point to drugs, because the same team had Stoll. There isn't consistency like you are saying.