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

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

If I got arrested tomorrow with trafficking amounts of drugs on me and I got fired (which I would), no one would be asking if my employer had done enough to help me with my addiction before firing me

Who said trafficking? What I've seen is that carrying controlled substances- any amount- over the border can result in smuggling charges.

And what if the substance you're caught with is a narcotic painkiller, to which you'd developed a dependency as a result of wear and tear of your employment? Sad truth is, if what I've read he was caught with is true and he was indeed addicted, there's a very real chance he actually "needed" to have them with him. Opiates are a whole different beast, and I've seen too many people struggle.

We don't know the details and I think speculation in these cases, without new and verified facts, has no positive effect.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Of course not. Just sick of people not making any of these guys responsible for their own idiotic behaviour.

If I got arrested tomorrow with trafficking amounts of drugs on me and I got fired (which I would), no one would be asking if my employer had done enough to help me with my addiction before firing me.

While I agree with your point about failure to hold Richards accountable for his own behaviour, your argument here is irrelevant. Your employment is (presumably) not controlled by a collectively bargained drug rehabilitation process that explicitly defines what your employer's responsibilities are when you are caught with drugs. Based on the article I posted a couple days ago, if the Kings were to try and argue that being arrested/detained created the material breach, they are going to get killed by an arbitrator.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Wasn't his detainment (since it's not officially an arrest) within days of the draft? Doesn't seem like a long enough timeline to point to Richards breaching anything unless there is wording that says he has to contact the team within x amount of days.

Macramalla doesn't think this argument would work either, and I can't really find any reason to disagree with his more qualified assessment. But it is pretty much the only argument I can think of that the Kings could make and have a hope to succeed.

Under this theory, the Kings needed to remove his cap hit. They had ongoing negotiations with two teams (Calgary, Edmonton). Richards gets caught importing a banned substance at the border. He fails to inform the team promptly. When the team does find out, it informs the Flames and Oilers. Both teams break off discussions.

In that scenario, this materially harms the Kings. Problem is, it would still be the arrest/detainment/uncertainty that creates the problem, not his alleged failure to disclose. Which puts us right back into the terms of the NHL's substance abuse program. UNLESS the Kings can demonstrate that the late disclosure could have impacted their buy out plans - i.e.: They weren't going to buy him out and instead would trade, but failure to disclose both killed the trade and pushed the team past a buy-out window. Given the Kings unconditionally waived him in time for a buyout, even that doesn't seem to fly.

So really, there has to be some kind of bomb that neither the RCMP nor the Kings have dropped yet. Absent that, and given only the information and speculation we have now, I struggle to see how the Kings win this.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm not a lawyer but by the sound of the article he doesn't mention there is any clause that says failure to disclose an arrest (if you can call it that) is grounds for immediate termination. It was after all in the offseason when players are not reporting to work and while he was detained was he actually arrested with mug shot taken? Was he supposed to call Lombardi and tell him; "Hey Dean just letting you know I almost got arrested lol.". It sounds like the Kings are simply trying to give this the old college try of getting out of a bad contract.

I know the SPC doesn't have such a clause, in fact, there's no "immediate termination" remedy stated for any breach. So it comes down to what the case law says is a fundamental breach, and how this particular event fits in that definition. It is obviously helpful if there was a previous example of "failure to report an arrest/detainment" within the same timeframe and how it was handled by the team. If the team suspended or did some other discipline, it's bad the Kings' case.

[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.

[GioforPM]

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.

I'm not sure an investigation, as opposed to a conviction, has that effect. Plus, it's so easy to get a border waiver with the employer's help that, if the Kings don't make the attempt, they will have a hard time proving a fundamental breach.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not sure an investigation, as opposed to a conviction, has that effect. Plus, it's so easy to get a border waiver with the employer's help that, if the Kings don't make the attempt, they will have a hard time proving a fundamental breach.

Is it possible that he was ordered to surrender his passport while under investigation? Though I suppose that would require a judge's order, which would again be public knowledge by now.

Still, even in that case, I would think the Kings could only suspend him.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I notice it's always the articling students and the 1st year lawyers who are the experts. The rest of us know that we know nothing.

"I just finished up my Contracts course, I must know this now!!”

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

"I just finished up my Contracts course, I must know this now!!”

You don't take labour and employment law until second year.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You don't take labour and employment law until second year.

Some of us never do. Doesn't stop us from being experts though.

[Locke]

Perhaps theres video of Richards biting off Kitten's heads?

That would be grounds for termination. No, wait, thats Zidlicki's thing and I think hes retired. At least from hockey. The kitten-eating thing is total speculation as far as I know.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not sure an investigation, as opposed to a conviction, has that effect. Plus, it's so easy to get a border waiver with the employer's help that, if the Kings don't make the attempt, they will have a hard time proving a fundamental breach.

If he is indeed under investigation for smuggling controlled substances, I don't think it's too unreasonable to think he may be inadmissible until the RCMP reach a conclusion?

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Some of us never do. Doesn't stop us from being experts though.

And Employment and Labour are very different. Lots of us do employment...but throw in a union, and we all get the hell out of dodge.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ToraToraTora

And Employment and Labour are very different. Lots of us do labour...but throw in a union, and we all get the hell out of dodge.

And the quasi-union that is the NHLPA, combined with the quasi-franchise which is the NHL throws the whole thing askew.

That said, my firm belief is that most of the time the common sense result is what ultimately happens in court. The law is just a way to get there. So in this case, where it's clear (to me at least) that the Kings are making a transparent attempt to get out of a contract for purposes other than the actual relationship between them and Richards, the court or arbitrator will see it for what it is.

I have no sympathy for Richards trying to do something as dumb as transporting drugs (I do have sympathy for NHLers in general who get hooked on painkillers due to the "play through injury" mentality). But I just don't like the Kings escaping their own foolish contract this way.

[Locke]

Why do people keep calling it the 'King's foolish contract?'

Do they know that hes still on Philly's contract?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That said, my firm belief is that most of the time the common sense result is what ultimately happens in court. The law is just a way to get there. So in this case, where it's clear (to me at least) that the Kings are making a transparent attempt to get out of a contract for purposes other than the actual relationship between them and Richards, the court or arbitrator will see it for what it is.

Exactly, and this is especially the case with ADR decision makers. Always looking for a common sense resolution.

Seriously, this is not a big issue for the league. If Richards stays on the Kings cap, it doesn't do much damage to the NHL. It's not even that bad for the Kings - it's a cap anchor, but teams deal with those all the time.

For the NHLPA, this is the ball game. It's the end of guaranteed contracts if teams can do this kind of thing. This is a nuclear bomb for their members' rights. This is the hill they should be prepared to die on.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why do people keep calling it the 'King's foolish contract?'

Do they know that hes still on Philly's contract?

they could have bought him out with no penalty

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Exactly, and this is especially the case with ADR decision makers. Always looking for a common sense resolution.

Seriously, this is not a big issue for the league. If Richards stays on the Kings cap, it doesn't do much damage to the NHL. It's not even that bad for the Kings - it's a cap anchor, but teams deal with those all the time.

For the NHLPA, this is the ball game. It's the end of guaranteed contracts if teams can do this kind of thing. This is a nuclear bomb for their members' rights. This is the hill they should be prepared to die on.

That's a little sensationalist. We still don't what exactly is the underlying issues here for the whole situation.

Contracts are still guaranteed.. Unless you do something that is considered a material breach.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

If the team can simply decide what is and is not a material breach, though, you'll never know if you're in a position where they'll suddenly kick you to the curb and your only remedy is to go through the union. If the Kings get away with this, other clubs will try their own "material breach" arguments in a variety of situations. It's a potential nightmare for the union.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dino7c

they could have bought him out with no penalty

I understand that, what I'm getting tired of is people vilifying the LA Kings for being deceitful and underhanded and trying to get out of Richards' contract.

They could have bought him out with no penalty. But they didnt. Lombardi was upstanding and honorable. And in exchange he got screwed.

Not only did Richards not keep up his end of the bargain in that respect but his subsequent actions submarined what were otherwise seemingly successful trade negotiations.

I know we all want the Kings to rot in hell in order for the Flames to get whatever advantage they can. I just dont think we need to do that, the Flames are going to get what they earn, they dont need or want any league handouts.

And I say this with a heavy heart because my list of favourite hockey players goes:

- Robyn Regehr
- Jarome Iginla
- Mike Richards