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

[GioforPM]

It was mentioned that the club relies on SPC Section 2(e). However, that clause just lists breaches (others include keeping fit and playing your best).

Is there a clause in the SPC or the CBA that specifically says 2(e) is a material breach? Because unless it's a fundamental breach, it's a case for damages only in contract law. And if there's nothing that specific, then treatment of other examples (by the Kings or other teams) is relevant as to whether 2(e) is to be construed that way.

[Vulcan]

Here's an article putting the players situation in the reality of staying in the NHL as a fringe player.

Once again, we'll revisit 2011, when Ian Laperriere said the following about fringe players sitting out:

If you do, you’re not going to have a contract the next year. There are 100 guys lining up to take your job. Dave Tippett once told me that I wasn’t the kind of guy who could afford not to play 80 games. It was true, and it was advice that’s served me well. But I put myself through a lot of things that I otherwise wouldn’t have to be out there.

Mike Richards had suddenly become a fringe NHLer. Mike had to play every single night because, frankly, it wouldn't have taken much to lose his spot in the lineup. In fact, he ultimately lost his job to Nick Shore, who posted a whopping 7 points in 34 games.

The biggest problem facing Dean Lombardi and the Kings with regards to Mike Richards is that the optics of this situation are incredibly, unbelievably poor. The Kings are, in effect, booting a man out of the front door in the process of outing him as an apparent drug user. I don't think that there is any question that this looks awful, and I suspect that once we learn the truth (should we ever learn any semblance of a complete truth about this), it will not make anyone happy.

http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/20...gs-and-the-nhl

[Phanuthier]

Welcome to the world of everyone else?

We all work in a industry where we can be let go and replaced if our performance drops. I find it very odd that so many people here are sympathetic to a millionaire athlete (notably one who has made how many million?) who loses his employment because his performance dropped.

The wording is purposefully vague, similar to how a normal standard employee contract is done, and gets terminated with 2 weeks notice... or less.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Welcome to the world of everyone else?

We all work in a industry where we can be let go and replaced if our performance drops. I find it very odd that so many people here are sympathetic to a millionaire athlete (notably one who has made how many million?) who loses his employment because his performance dropped.

The wording is purposefully vague, similar to how a normal standard employee contract is done, and gets terminated with 2 weeks notice... or less.

It's not the world of anyone else though. You can leave your employer with that same 2 weeks notice and then go work for another company in the same industry the next day. NHL players commit to their teams for a certain number of years and, in return, the NHL teams commit to their players for the same number of years.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Welcome to the world of everyone else?

We all work in a industry where we can be let go and replaced if our performance drops. I find it very odd that so many people here are sympathetic to a millionaire athlete (notably one who has made how many million?) who loses his employment because his performance dropped.

The wording is purposefully vague, similar to how a normal standard employee contract is done, and gets terminated with 2 weeks notice... or less.

My annoyance with this has more to do with the Kings really only doing this because Richards isn't very good at hockey anymore. If he was playing at his 2011 level, I doubt very much the Kings would care about his alleged drug use, as long as it didn't become public. Well, they might care a little, but ultimately all that matters is Richards worth as an asset and how much money he can make the Kings. Now that he can't make the Kings more money, they are conveniently deciding now is the time to bring the hammer down.

The following is obviously just my opinion, but I think it's quite obvious they chose not to use the compliance buyout last summer because they had this in their back pocket all along. They were probably hoping Richards could get back to being a productive top 6 forward but knew if he didn't, it wouldn't matter because they would have the means to sever all ties with him just the same. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had a PI following him around to collect dirt given how much money is at stake here. You know what's better than no cap hit? No cap hit AND no real money going to Richards at all. IMO they used his problems against him once it became obvious he no longer served their purposes. I think they knew about Richards' problems for some time but really only began to care once they started to became the LA Kings' problems (ie his play started to slip). They basically gamed the system to their benefit rather than doing the right thing and buy him out. This is just my personal conspiracy theory though, something about this situation really rubs me the wrong way.

To me, this is all about A) the money, B) how many wins the Kings can get and C) managing their cap to ensure A) and B) are in place. Watch them bring back Voynov gleefully with one hand while pushing Richards out with the other. If the organization had any integrity, they would shred Voynov's contract the same way they shredded Richards'. Surely there would be room to argue for a material breach in Voynov's case the same way there was with Richards. Even if there was, why would they? Voynov is good at hockey.

If there was any justice in the universe, Voynov's hockey skills would be replaced with those of a turnip. It probably wouldn't matter though, I'm sure the Kings would find some way to slither out of that too, even if the league re-instated him before LA learned about their new rutabaga.

[Flamenspiel]

nm

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Welcome to the world of everyone else?

We all work in a industry where we can be let go and replaced if our performance drops. I find it very odd that so many people here are sympathetic to a millionaire athlete (notably one who has made how many million?) who loses his employment because his performance dropped.

The wording is purposefully vague, similar to how a normal standard employee contract is done, and gets terminated with 2 weeks notice... or less.

Yeah but it's not the NFL and teams aren't supposed to be allowed to discard players under contract when teams feel they are no longer useful. This is a case of a player that is possibly using pills due to the rigours he put his body through to play for the Kings as that article says that one year he played on two bad shoulders for the team and had surgery on both in the offseason. They repay him for that by turning their backs on him and in the process making him out to be some bad guy.

Regardless of how this goes I would be pretty disgusted if the Flames did this to one of their own players but I know full well that would never happen as the Flames organization is all class.

[Yoho]

I'm shocked there has been nothing out of the union to date. (To my knowledge)

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah but it's not the NFL and teams aren't supposed to be allowed to discard players under contract when teams feel they are no longer useful. This is a case of a player that is possibly using pills due to the rigours he put his body through to play for the Kings as that article says that one year he played on two bad shoulders for the team and had surgery on both in the offseason. They repay him for that by turning their backs on him and in the process making him out to be some bad guy.

Regardless of how this goes I would be pretty disgusted if the Flames did this to one of their own players but I know full well that would never happen as the Flames organization is all class.

IIRC the NFL had at one time a strong union and guaranteed contracts but management broke it during a strike and now they do whatever they want with the players. Not exactly an optimal situation except for the billionaire owners. I don't like the NHLPA that much but I'm glad they are there.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by gargamel

It's not the world of anyone else though. You can leave your employer with that same 2 weeks notice and then go work for another company in the same industry the next day. NHL players commit to their teams for a certain number of years and, in return, the NHL teams commit to their players for the same number of years.

I guess you've never had a contract with a no-compete clause in it then. When you get to certain levels or work in certain industries this clause can be put in a contract to prevent you from up and leaving with short notice. This is very restrictive and more like a pro athlete has to deal with, so there are instances of similar restrictions for regular folk.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by New Era

I guess you've never had a contract with a no-compete clause in it then. When you get to certain levels or work in certain industries this clause can be put in a contract to prevent you from up and leaving with short notice. This is very restrictive and more like a pro athlete has to deal with, so there are instances of similar restrictions for regular folk.

The quid pro quo is a termination with a healthy severance in those kind of contracts. Plus overly restrictive non-competes are often overturned by the court.

I think the reason people are looking at this the way they are is the notion that the Kings are trying to use a clause that simply hasn't been used in this manner that I can recall, in order to get rid of a contract they couldn't in any other way. If the Kings had no cap issues, I doubt people would question it as much. Then again, they probably wouldn't be terminating the contract either.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The quid pro quo is a termination with a healthy severance in those kind of contracts. Plus overly restrictive non-competes are often overturned by the court.

I think the reason people are looking at this the way they are is the notion that the Kings are trying to use a clause that simply hasn't been used in this manner that I can recall, in order to get rid of a contract they couldn't in any other way. If the Kings had no cap issues, I doubt people would question it as much. Then again, they probably wouldn't be terminating the contract either.

I agree. It seems pretty clear this is about cap circumvention and not truly about a breach of the morality clause. The Voynov situation just confirms this, as I don't think there would be much argument that he breached the same clause, using the Richards situation as a standard.

I guess the NHLPA and the league will need to fight it out in court, but it seems to me on the next CBA, a possible solution would be to open up a compliance buy-out window when these situations occur, such that there is a cap penalty, but potentially at a lower rate. What the player actually receives, if anything, could be a different number.

[Galakanokis]

Voynov is suspended, there is. precisely zero the Kings can do in this situation . I also have zero issue with what the Kings have done with Richards. Sure it sucks for him but it was within his control not to be terminated.

I have to work roughly 40 years to make one year of Richards contract, my sympathy is not high.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

I have to work roughly 40 years to make one year of Richards contract, my sympathy is not high.

Well yes but is your job going to leave you with long term debilitation? When you retire will you have post concussion syndrome and long term shoulder/back issues due to your job? Yes they make a lot of money but they pay a long term price with their bodies and IMO hockey and football players warrant all the money they get because they are putting their bodies on the line to entertain fans.

For the record I've never been a big Richards fan as IMO he's laid out some players in the past with vicious head shots but what the Kings are doing is scummy and borderline rule circumvention.

[Coach]

I wouldn't have an issue with what the Kings are doing with Richards if they also do the same thing with Voynov. He's suspended now, but when he serves his debt, what's the situation then?

If they don't also terminate Voynov, I don't see how this can't be considered cap circumvention.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well yes but is your job going to leave you with long term debilitation? When you retire will you have post concussion syndrome and long term shoulder/back issues due to your job?

my back is broken from setting tile and lifting bricks, where are my millions?

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well yes but is your job going to leave you with long term debilitation? When you retire will you have post concussion syndrome and long term shoulder/back issues due to your job? Yes they make a lot of money but they pay a long term price with their bodies and IMO hockey and football players warrant all the money they get because they are putting their bodies on the line to entertain fans.

For the record I've never been a big Richards fan as IMO he's laid out some players in the past with vicious head shots but what the Kings are doing is scummy and borderline rule circumvention.

I could be a cop, paramedic, firefighter or even a rig worker who are all in far more danger of being hurt, traumatized or even killed than a hockey player. I get it, they put there bodies on the line and they are handsomely compensated for it doesn't mean I need to feel sympathy for them when they screw up. Being employed by the Kings was entirely under Richards power, don't mess up still collect a pay check. I get that his supposed addiction was caused by hockey but there are programs in place to help if you want it.

I have zero doubt that the Kings are being scummy here but they did give him a chance and he failed them. They then saw an opportunity that he gave them and took advantage of it.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well yes but is your job going to leave you with long term debilitation? When you retire will you have post concussion syndrome and long term shoulder/back issues due to your job? Yes they make a lot of money but they pay a long term price with their bodies and IMO hockey and football players warrant all the money they get because they are putting their bodies on the line to entertain fans.

For the record I've never been a big Richards fan as IMO he's laid out some players in the past with vicious head shots but what the Kings are doing is scummy and borderline rule circumvention.

My cousin was left permanently disabled falling off a ladder onto his head roofing. He made a modest wage before and can't make a wage ever again. I feel for Richards, but as others point out he has it relatively good for anyone in a physical trade. At least he has millions earned to support his reduced life. My cousin cannot afford to live on his own, or much of anything.

Not to say it is right but my sympathy for these athletes is minimal.

I got the chance a little while ago to hang out with an ex-NFL player who retired early, I think 30 after playing several years of a large contract. His career was ending for him, and he explained instead of fighting it he realized he should get out before his body was destroyed. He took all those millions and now does property and restaurants. He's pretty good at it too.

Anyways, my point is these guys have choice. The reason Richards kept going is his own to really know. Feeding his family was probably not it. He could at any time have retired with a good life but chose to keep going. That is fine but having me pity him is pretty low on my list. This isn't 1950's hockey.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I agree. It seems pretty clear this is about cap circumvention and not truly about a breach of the morality clause. The Voynov situation just confirms this, as I don't think there would be much argument that he breached the same clause, using the Richards situation as a standard.

I guess the NHLPA and the league will need to fight it out in court, but it seems to me on the next CBA, a possible solution would be to open up a compliance buy-out window when these situations occur, such that there is a cap penalty, but potentially at a lower rate. What the player actually receives, if anything, could be a different number.

Without a doubt, performance is a why this happened. No doubt.

But if you are already a struggling under performer, don't give the team a legal way of terminating your contract. If it was just performance, I would agree - but its not. Its also (a) use of drugs, and (b) Richards came to training camp out of shape every year, (c) Richards failed to keep himself in playing way throughout the NHL season, and (d) Richards was known to party a lot. Its an accumulation of a lot of things which is why Richards ended up where he is now. If LA was merely trying to get out of a bad contract, Lombardi wouldn't have given him another chance last year. Lombardi historically has been known to be one of the more loyal GMs to his players, and during the compliance buyout duration last year was actually willing to risk giving Richards a chance to keep playing, even if it were in a depth player role. Richards didn't deliver...

So, what we have here is a pro athlete who wasn't pulling his weight, wasn't coming to training camp in shape, failed to stay in playing weight, known to be out late partying a lot, collected a huge paycheck, failed to perform... then gets busted with drugs.... and everyone thinks their employer shouldn't take a legal means within the employment contract he had, to terminate his contract?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

my back is broken from setting tile and lifting bricks, where are my millions?

You'll get them when 18000 people a night come watch you ply your trade.