[News] Kings terminate Richards contract. UPD: Kings and Richards reach settlement

[GioforPM]

I forgot that the Kings had placed Richards on unconditional waivers the day before terminating. I have no idea how that affects things.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I forgot that the Kings had placed Richards on unconditional waivers the day before terminating. I have no idea how that affects things.

Apparently it has to be done prior to attempting to terminate the contract.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Saying that Bettman and Lombardi are "legally trained" and therefore that should provide some confidence is sort of like saying a you can be confident that your dermatologist can effectively perform your heart transplant because he went to medical school. Just because these guys are lawyers doesn't mean they have a clue about this particular discrete area of the law.

That being said, I certainly suspect they have numerous qualified people advising them as to what the risks and strongest arguments are here.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"No chance" is not something a lawyer recommends. "Remote chance" or "probably unsuccessful" might be taken depending on the cost-benefit analysis.

And clients who think they are in the right often instruct a lawsuit to be taken even where the advice is "probably not successful". After that, we lawyers just do the best we can to win. After making sure the original advice is documented

Of course, we are all operating on limited facts - we don't even know for sure what the termination letter says, what the grievance says, or what options the Kings had for trades, etc.

I lol'ed...

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

A lottery ticket implicitly assumes that the amount you're paying is dwarfed by the astronomical odds against winning. If you had a 1/1000 chance of winning a billion dollars, and it's only going to cost you, say, $50,000 to take that chance, you should take it, long odds or no. The high risk is balanced out by the low downside and high upside.

Different companies have different approaches. Remember, 95+% of disputes settle. Usually there are business relationships tied up in these things as well, and often you're still going to have to deal with your counterparty going forward, so often this sort of tactic is used for leverage. There's also almost no such thing as a "sure loser" - crazy positions sometimes succeed even when you yourself think "we're completely screwed here". This is especially true in arbitrations; even if one party ends up winning arbitrators are notorious for trying to throw the losing side a bone.

Doesn't mean they didn't do their due diligence. I mean, the Kings do have the league on their side and we may not be privy to additional facts. From where we sit it looks fairly absurd, though, I agree.

To respond to these 2 (and the fact that both Lombardi/Bettman are lawyers) my point is that, generally speaking, I would assume that both of them are taking the approach by viewpoint of a lawyer (versus, say, if this was Kevin Lowe or Garth Snow, I would think they are full of crap)... and that is, I don't think the LAK/NHL will show up to court and say "You know what judge/arbitrator, I was kind of hoping the NHLPA wouldn't appeal. It was worth a shot, we had nothing to loose. But since you are appealing... ya I got nothing."

As I've said earlier in this thread, I don't know who will win or anything; the facts aren't out, and frankly even if they were, I'm not a lawyer either. It wouldn't surprise me the least if this was settled outside of court and MR got a undisclosed sum of money as compensation and everyone walks away happy. My only point here is that, because of the history I know of Lombardi, and the fact that the LAK/NHL has a team of lawyers, I have to think they have a pretty solid basis they think they can take to court; whether its a winning basis, I have no idea - for that we'll have to see.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Saying that Bettman and Lombardi are "legally trained" and therefore that should provide some confidence is sort of like saying a you can be confident that your dermatologist can effectively perform your heart transplant because he went to medical school. Just because these guys are lawyers doesn't mean they have a clue about this particular discrete area of the law.

That being said, I certainly suspect they have numerous qualified people advising them as to what the risks and strongest arguments are here.

I think Bettman, at least, as in-house counsel to the NBA, would have provided legal advice on player contracts. And Lombardi's area of study was labour law.

I agree they would be relying on in-house and outside counsel. IMO the quality of counsel of the NHL raises my level of confidence in the decision. They hire top guys.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

I still think that because this isn't a normal case of being caught with possession during a traffic stop, but an incident at the border, it changes the situation. Due to the current investigation, he likely can't cross the border. Being unable to cross the border would rend him unable to provide services to the Kings, which would be a Material Breach of his contract.

Probert continued to play for the Wings in the 90's under similar circumstances. He was only able to play games in the US due to similar charges if I recall the details correctly.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

Apparently it has to be done prior to attempting to terminate the contract.

Yeah, just read that in the SPC. It's a bit strange "you have breached the contract so badly that we can terminate.... just let us see if all the other clubs want you first".

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I forgot that the Kings had placed Richards on unconditional waivers the day before terminating. I have no idea how that affects things.

Ahh good point, I forgot that as well.

It makes the case more compelling for the PA, I imagine -as it shows the Kings intent BEFORE knowing about the border fiasco.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, just read that in the SPC. It's a bit strange "you have breached the contract so badly that we can terminate.... just let us see if all the other clubs want you first".

What can you do? Its a Union gig.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Ahh good point, I forgot that as well.

It makes the case more compelling for the PA, I imagine -as it shows the Kings intent BEFORE knowing about the border fiasco.

I dont know if it actually means that, unconditional waivers is just part of the process that you have to complete before filing for termination. So I think they knew, they were just following the process.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know if it actually means that, unconditional waivers is just part of the process that you have to complete before filing for termination. So I think they knew, they were just following the process.

I think this is right. It's funny reading the stories that day.

[Resolute 14]

Well, the buy-out process is really just a way to become cap compliant. Unconditional waivers just gives other teams a shot at the player at full price first.

The question that I don't know the answer to is whether such waivers are required for any termination. If not, then cam_wmh makes a really good point about how that would signal the Kings' intentions.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, the buy-out process is really just a way to become cap compliant. Unconditional waivers just gives other teams a shot at the player at full price first.

The question that I don't know the answer to is whether such waivers are required for any termination. If not, then cam_wmh makes a really good point about how that would signal the Kings' intentions.

The SPC says it's a requirement.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

To respond to these 2 (and the fact that both Lombardi/Bettman are lawyers) my point is that, generally speaking, I would assume that both of them are taking the approach by viewpoint of a lawyer ... I don't think the LAK/NHL will show up to court and say "You know what judge/arbitrator, I was kind of hoping the NHLPA wouldn't appeal. It was worth a shot, we had nothing to loose. But since you are appealing... ya I got nothing."

It's an arbitrator, and of course they aren't going to just give up if they get to a hearing. They'll argue why they think they should win, in a way so as to make it seem totally reasonable even if it absolutely is not - at that point, you're committed to seeing it through.

Frankly I don't know what you're trying to argue here.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The SPC says it's a requirement.

Good rebuttal for the Kings then, but I can't imagine that it would apply to a termination for a material breach. Otherwise, you basically have team A putting a player they know is incapable of performing out for any other team to take without knowledge of the breach. Caveat emptor and all, but I can't see that being accepted in good faith.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Ahh good point, I forgot that as well.

It makes the case more compelling for the PA, I imagine -as it shows the Kings intent BEFORE knowing about the border fiasco.

They put him on waivers after finding out about his problems at the border.

He was put on waivers on June 28th and terminated on the 29th. We know they knew about the border problems by June 26th at the latest because Lombardi talked to Chiarelli and Treliving about it on the Draft floor (reportedly immediately after getting the call about Richards being detained at the border the week earlier).

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by getbak

They put him on waivers after finding out about his problems at the border.

He was put on waivers on June 28th and terminated on the 29th. We know they knew about the border problems by June 26th at the latest because Lombardi talked to Chiarelli and Treliving about it on the Draft floor (reportedly immediately after getting the call about Richards being detained at the border the week earlier).

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. That does weaken the case for the PA, but there is a history of Lombardi putting him on waivers, and even having the candid chat with Richards last summer about buying him out, which he did not follow through upon.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Good rebuttal for the Kings then, but I can't imagine that it would apply to a termination for a material breach. Otherwise, you basically have team A putting a player they know is incapable of performing out for any other team to take without knowledge of the breach. Caveat emptor and all, but I can't see that being accepted in good faith.

It does apply: para. 14 of the SPC says so.

14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

In the event of termination under Paragraph 14(a) or (b) the Player shall only be entitled to compensation due to him to the earlier of the date such notice is personally delivered to him or the date such notice is e-mailed to him.

[Atodaso]

NHLPA file grievance on behalf of Richards.

@NHLPA's Tweet: https://twitter.com/NHLPA/status/630...416732672?s=09

[automaton 3]

Not surprising.