[Oling_Roachinen]

https://www.latimes.com/sports/kings...630-story.html

“The NHLPA is likely worried about the precedent of a team voiding a player’s contract when that contract is drafted in way to be considered ‘guaranteed,’” said McCann, director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

“The NHLPA is probably concerned that if the Kings can void Richards’ contract for yet-to-be revealed reasons, could other teams escape their unwanted contracts by doing the same?”

McCann said Richards could eventually sue the Kings for breach of contract but only after exhausting his remedies under the collective bargaining agreement.

“Both Article 17 of the CBA and the standard player contract indicate that a player can pursue arbitration for a contract dispute,” McCann said. “This means that Richards would first have to arbitrate his grievance before a court would consider his arguments. Courts are also deferential to arbitration awards, which may make it difficult for Richards to seek judicial redress.”

An individual familiar with the Kings’ approach but also not authorized to comment suggested the morals clause in the standard player’s contract is the basis for the termination. The clause reads: the player also agrees “to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.”

It's the same vague morality clause. And the same argument I'm putting forward. Obviously the NHLPA disagreed with Richards and it was eventually settled, but there was no real procedure from stopping the Kings from putting him on waivers and terminating his contract. There were options for Richards after the fact.

He was not charged when he had his contract terminated. So you can't cite any legal issues or inability to travel. Especially when Voynov actually did have the legal issues and your "precedence" argument.

Yet in order for the Kings to terminate Richards' contract, it must do so in compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NHL and the NHL Players' Association (NHLPA). In this situation, the Kings have alleged that Richards has materially breached the Standard Player's Contract (SPC). Under paragraph 14 of the SPC, a franchise can terminate a player's contract if the player: "(a) fail[s], refuse[s] or neglect[s] to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach; (b) fail[s], refuse[s], or neglect[s] to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC." Further, paragraph 2(e) of the SPC (known as a morality clause) states that the player must "conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally" (http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA...A_2013_CBA.pdf, at pg. 318-19). It is therefore presumed that the team is claiming that Richards materially breached his contract by acting in a dishonest and/or immoral manner that is detrimental to the Kings, the NHL, and/or pro hockey as a whole. In accordance with Article 17 of the CBA, these kinds of issues between teams and players are ruled upon by an impartial arbitrator, who will decide on whether the contract was rightfully terminated (Id.).

At this moment, we don't officially know exactly what Richards did to warrant the termination of his contract. All we know is that it involved a border crossing issue and possibly prescription painkillers. So, we truly do not know if the termination will be upheld. However, as noted by sports law expert Eric Macramalla, barring extreme circumstances, an arbitrator will rarely uphold the termination of a player's contract since, "[a]rbitrators and judges take the individual right to earn a living very seriously and do not react favorably to an attempt to deprive someone of that fundamental right simply for the sake of convenience"

So I believe here's where your argument is, and where I agree. It's not likely that the termination is upheld. It's an extremely high threshold, and I don't know the last one to have that happened as both Dotchin and Richards settled with their teams and the league. But again, this would come up after the contract was terminated. You need to put forward some proof that a team can't terminate a contract on the grounds of morality clause in light of Richards. Not whether they would eventually lose the arbitration.