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

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its obviously a hail mary attempt by the Kings to get out from the contract to avoid the buyout penalties. My main question would be if the Kings spend that money they've saved and then this gets overturned what happens then? The PA won't be happy about a guy losing his contract he signs on July 1 if they just void the contracts that put them over the cap.

Assuming the NHLPA was successful in a grievance against terminating the contract and had it restored, the Kings would have to act immediately to come back into cap compliance - which in the off-season, means they can surpass it by up to 10%.

[Jason14h]

If Richards has broken the terms the team wrote into the contract (potentially an added clause when they were considering a compliance buyout) and Richards broke this clause, why is everyone so up in arms over the voided contract?

The argument is basically the "We don't like LA, so they should be unjustly punished and be stuck with the contract"

This is an employment contract. This is REAL $$$ ( and a lot of it) to Richards. You can bet he will fight this if he has any legs to stand on. If he did break the terms of his legal employment contract, then LA should be able to void his contract.

Obviously we are all reaching here but it still feels like the Kings are making a last ditch effort to get out of this contract.

It really doesn't to me. They were in trade talks with teams. They informed those teams an issue has come up. Richards has not made any public statement despite the fact this will cost him millions AND a chance at FA tomorrow when he would have been bought out.

It sounds like a player with a questionable past, who was given 1 last chance with LA, screwing up.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Again, there is ZERO reason for Richards to make a public statement. If teams want to know what happened with him they're going to talk to him and his agent before signing him, no matter what he says publicly.

Originally Posted by Locke

Not when its going to be public. That makes them look like idiots.

Any statement of claim is public.

I see no downside risk for the Kings here. If it works, they're golden. If it doesn't, they end up right where they were before. The NHL signed off beforehand, so the league head office can't now turn around and penalize the team draft picks for doing what they told them was acceptable at the time.

"People might think we were trying to play fast and loose" is not a good enough reason to pass up a shot at saving your owner $15M and saving your team from a cap nightmare.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

Not when its going to be public. That makes them look like idiots.

It's going to be public regardless. There's little chance of the current media blackout holding.

If the RCMP lays charges, its coming out.
if the union chooses not to grieve, it's coming out as media will take that as an admission of truth.
If the union fights, it's coming out essentially as a matter of public interest.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Locke

Theres a lot of time, money and consequences, both personal and professional, on the line here. For everyone.

Yeah but in the big picture the consequences of having to buy out Richards contract far surpass those consequences as you are talking about a big market professional sports franchise crippled and organizational jobs at stake. I'm sure the Kings are fully aware of the repercussions but the alternative of buying Richards out and being crippled for years is probably a risk they are willing to take at this stage. I don't believe this will be a slam dunk at all especially if there are no criminal charges.

[nfotiu]

Since we're all engaging in wild speculation, i wonder if it is something like trying to bring a 17 yo American girlfriend across the border and he got caught up with all sorts of grey areas with different age of consent laws, and the legality of transporting a minor across the border,etc.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

I will add my guess to the pile. He arrived at the border driving drunk. Perhaps a little bit of Ed Belfour happened 'do you know who i am, i make billions!'. That would get you an immediate crossing ban...and explain the investigation re a DUI is coming too. And maybe an undeclared firearm too.

First of all, Ed Belfour did not claim to make 'billions' I believe the correct order of events was that he exclaimed that the officers didnt 'know who he was' when they threw him up against the squad car and then it was at that point where I believe he attempted to bribe the officers with a billion dollars.

He may or may not have been intoxicated, with Eddie it was tough to tell at times.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Locke

Not when its going to be public. That makes them look like idiots.

Is anyone even going to know/care about how the lawyers are?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

I cant see this being a 'Hail Mary' by the Kings. Theres just no way that makes sense.

Lawyers dont tend to throw 'Hail Mary' passes because everything Lawyers do has consequences.

"Hey lets just try throwing this crap at the wall and hopefully the lawyers representing him are so stupid they'll just take our word for it and we'll win!!"

It doesnt typically work like that. They must think they've got a serious case because they know what the alternative is. It isnt just; 'well that didnt work, I guess we buy him out' and then everything else is forgotten.

Theres a lot of time, money and consequences, both personal and professional, on the line here. For everyone.

Yesterday my initial reaction was that the Kings were trying to get out of this and found some loophole, which is a good indication of why I'm not a lawyer I suppose! The Kings have something here for the reasons you give as well as the fact that Richards team has said nothing.

I read peoples re-cap of the draft where Lombardi was over talking to Treliving and Chiarelli right after he found out, the fact that the NHL agrees with the Kings on this and now of course word that the RCMP is investigating and it doesn't seem like a shot in the dark any more. I have no idea whether its enough to void a contract (and that will take a huge amount of wrangling and fighting to determine), but its not just "he was out of shape" or something trivial like that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's going to be public regardless. There's little chance of the current media blackout holding.

If the RCMP lays charges, its coming out.
if the union chooses not to grieve, it's coming out as media will take that as an admission of truth.
If the union fights, it's coming out essentially as a matter of public interest.

Of course. I dont mean 'as a matter of public record' I mean public as in plastered on every sports news broadcast in North America. Its going to be very public at some stage.

Which is even more incentive for the lawyers to cover their asses and make sure they're standing on firm ground. A far-cry from throwing a hail mary and crossing their fingers hoping and praying.

I think that there is very clearly some legitimate grounds to this.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

If Richards has broken the terms the team wrote into the contract (potentially an added clause when they were considering a compliance buyout) and Richards broke this clause, why is everyone so up in arms over the voided contract?

The argument is basically the "We don't like LA, so they should be unjustly punished and be stuck with the contract"

This is an employment contract. This is REAL $$$ ( and a lot of it) to Richards. You can bet he will fight this if he has any legs to stand on. If he did break the terms of his legal employment contract, then LA should be able to void his contract.



It really doesn't to me. They were in trade talks with teams. They informed those teams an issue has come up. Richards has not made any public statement despite the fact this will cost him millions AND a chance at FA tomorrow when he would have been bought out.

It sounds like a player with a questionable past, who was given 1 last chance with LA, screwing up.

I'm not a big fan of guaranteed contracts as it can breed laziness but the fact of the matter is that you can't have organizations with big teams of lawyers voiding contracts that they feel no longer serve them well because of grey area stipulations. The contract served them well when they won the cup but now that the player has declined they no longer want the player and his contract and they have been patiently waiting for the player to do something in his personal life that may give them grounds on a grey area loophole. How would you feel as a player knowing that once your 8 year deal doesn't look so good to your employer that they are watching your private life closely in hopes of you slipping up. Seems like this could create some unrest with the union.

[united]

If we're into speculation and RCMP/border services is involved...even something like chewing tobacco. In junior rookies' bags get filled with logs during the swings to the US teams or some teams filled the hollow part of seats below the cushions on the bus with logs. Now you wouldn't think a guy who has made tens of millions in his career would care about saving $20 a tin, but if he was with some average Joe buddies they would. He has a nice fishing boat so you could fit a bunch in the livewell.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Locke

I cant see this being a 'Hail Mary' by the Kings. Theres just no way that makes sense.

Lawyers dont tend to throw 'Hail Mary' passes because everything Lawyers do has consequences.

"Hey lets just try throwing this crap at the wall and hopefully the lawyers representing him are so stupid they'll just take our word for it and we'll win!!"

It doesnt typically work like that. They must think they've got a serious case because they know what the alternative is. It isnt just; 'well that didnt work, I guess we buy him out' and then everything else is forgotten.

Theres a lot of time, money and consequences, both personal and professional, on the line here. For everyone.

Don't lawyers commonly file for mistrials if they lose a case, under grounds relating to (sorry, I'm not versed in subject) the way the prosecution communicated with the defence and presented their case, or even so much as the jury simply made the wrong decision?

This Richards stuff seems to be more similar to this. These things rarely work, but there's no harm in trying. Nothing to lose, a ton to gain.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by united

If we're into speculation and RCMP/border services is involved...even something like chewing tobacco. In junior rookies' bags get filled with logs during the swings to the US teams or some teams filled the hollow part of seats below the cushions on the bus with logs. Now you wouldn't think a guy who has made tens of millions in his career would care about saving $20 a tin, but if he was with some average Joe buddies they would. He has a nice fishing boat so you could fit a bunch in the livewell.

I don't think he would be the subject of an RCMP investigation into chewing tobacco haha. My guess is that this involves drugs but more than just a token personal use amount, hence the "shock" that media is reporting.

Mike Richards is involved in an ongoing investigation by the RCMP stemming from an off-ice incident, ESPN reported on Tuesday, a day after the veteran forward's contract was mysteriously terminated by the Los Angeles Kings.


No charges have been brought against Richards, who hails from Kenora, Ont., ESPN reported an RCMP spokesman as saying.


Canadian Border Services is also involved in the investigation, according to the report.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...port-1.3133350

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

Of course. I dont mean 'as a matter of public record' I mean public as in plastered on every sports news broadcast in North America. Its going to be very public at some stage.

Which is even more incentive for the lawyers to cover their asses and make sure they're standing on firm ground. A far-cry from throwing a hail mary and crossing their fingers hoping and praying.

I think that there is very clearly some legitimate grounds to this.

I think you're overestimating the legal profession, however it may also make a difference that Richards and the NHLPA can't sue in court. They have to go through the arbitration/grievance process set out by the CBA. So that may change how the Kings' legal representation views the incident.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Locke

Lawyers dont tend to throw 'Hail Mary' passes because everything Lawyers do has consequences.

Disagree with this. Lawyers provide advice and recommendations. Clients provide the instructions.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Locke

Not when its going to be public. That makes them look like idiots.

Litigators (in particular criminal lawyers) deal with this all the time.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by united

If we're into speculation and RCMP/border services is involved...even something like chewing tobacco. In junior rookies' bags get filled with logs during the swings to the US teams or some teams filled the hollow part of seats below the cushions on the bus with logs. Now you wouldn't think a guy who has made tens of millions in his career would care about saving $20 a tin, but if he was with some average Joe buddies they would. He has a nice fishing boat so you could fit a bunch in the livewell.

If you get busted with too much tobacco or Alcohol you simply pay the duty and continue on.

[jar_e]

If/when he is charged, his name will be public record through the courts. You'd have to think any news agency is doing their darnedest to find Richard's name in any warrant/information info.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If you get busted with too much tobacco or Alcohol you simply pay the duty and continue on.

Hmmm that is not true... You get a pretty hefty fine, and the officer has the ability to make future visits to the border a huge PITA.