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

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 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.

Except that still has nothing to do with "the end of guaranteed contracts".

Also, and given it seems that "material breach" is well defined in contract law, I don't think there are many surprises waiting here in that regard. The union will almost certainly fight, naturally. But even if the Kings prevailed, it would probably only open the door to define specific actions related to drugs and/or arrests as valid for terminating a contract in this way.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that still has nothing to do with "the end of guaranteed contracts".

Also, and given it seems that "material breach" is well defined in contract law, I don't think there are many surprises waiting here in that regard. The union will almost certainly fight, naturally. But even if the Kings prevailed, it would probably only open the door to define specific actions related to drugs and/or arrests as valid for terminating a contract in this way.

Precisely.

I imagine that going forward any 'Contract Terminations' are going to have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis thus mitigating any insane precedents.

When you look at all the facts (that we know of) in the Richards case I think it can be argued as warranted to terminate his contract.

If the Kings can argue that they had a viable trade lined up and Richards' actions negated that trade and deprived the Kings of cap-space and assets then they can probably win this.

Nothing to do with the drugs or potential arrest or anything like that, the Kings had the opportunity to move his contract and his actions directly nullified that opportunity.

If they didnt have a case the League wouldnt have rubber-stamped it damned near immediately and the PA would be screaming their lungs out to anyone who would listen.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that still has nothing to do with "the end of guaranteed contracts".

Also, and given it seems that "material breach" is well defined in contract law, I don't think there are many surprises waiting here in that regard. The union will almost certainly fight, naturally. But even if the Kings prevailed, it would probably only open the door to define specific actions related to drugs and/or arrests as valid for terminating a contract in this way.

All of which is already defined in the contracts. Nothing changes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

Precisely.

I imagine that going forward any 'Contract Terminations' are going to have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis thus mitigating any insane precedents.

When you look at all the facts (that we know of) in the Richards case I think it can be argued as warranted to terminate his contract.

If the Kings can argue that they had a viable trade lined up and Richards' actions negated that trade and deprived the Kings of cap-space and assets then they can probably win this.

Nothing to do with the drugs or potential arrest or anything like that, the Kings had the opportunity to move his contract and his actions directly nullified that opportunity.

If they didnt have a case the League wouldnt have rubber-stamped it damned near immediately and the PA would be screaming their lungs out to anyone who would listen.

An outright inablity to play at all, would be the best argument they have. Nixing a trade? I'm not sure even that would suffice. Ifa trade was conditional on a physical and he failed the physical, they cuoldn't terminate.

A fundamental breach is not just a "serious" breach - it essentially a breach which deprives the pther party of any benefit from the contract. Even if not tradeworthy, Richards is still able to play and provide the services under the contract.

BTW, I know I'm saying "fundamental" and not "material". Fundamental is the word the courts use (at least in Canada). Neither word appears in the SPC, which doesn't define any kind of breach (nor does it mention termination at all).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A fundamental breach is not just a "serious" breach - it essentially a breach which deprives the pther party of any benefit from the contract. Even if not tradeworthy, Richards is still able to play and provide the services under the contract.

BTW, I know I'm saying "fundamental" and not "material". Fundamental is the word the courts use (at least in Canada). Neither word appears in the SPC, which doesn't define any kind of breach (nor does it mention termination at all).

There isn't any such thing as fundamental breach in Canada anymore since 2010.

A material breach generally just refers to a breach of a material term of an agreement, but could also refer to a materiality threshold. It's contextual and doesn't have a fixed meaning besides, generally speaking, "important".

Originally Posted by Locke

Precisely. I imagine that going forward any 'Contract Terminations' are going to have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis thus mitigating any insane precedents.

That's the point. If something is entirely fact-dependent (does this case rise to the standard? How about the next? And the next?) you never have any sort of certainty. That's the exact problem I'm highlighting.

When you look at all the facts (that we know of) in the Richards case I think it can be argued as warranted to terminate his contract.If the Kings can argue that they had a viable trade lined up and Richards' actions negated that trade and deprived the Kings of cap-space and assets then they can probably win this.

If so, I'll bet that every single year, multiple events will occur that will be similarly in the realm of "it can be argued as warranted".

If they didnt have a case the League wouldnt have rubber-stamped it damned near immediately and the PA would be screaming their lungs out to anyone who would listen.

Why on Earth do you think this?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Why on Earth do you think this?

Experience.

I know people love the concept that lawyers throw anything anywhere in hopes that something will stick but that's not typically the reality at this level.

This ain't your Grandmammy's kitchen reno or 'Pa's restraining order.

And everyone involved with the exception of Mike Richards is a lawyer and millions of dollars are at stake.

[GioforPM]

There isn't any such thing as fundamental breach in Canada anymore since 2010.

You are referring to the Tercon case, which dealt with fundamental breach vis-a-vis an exclusion clause. But it's still the measuring stick for whether you can terminate (or more accurately accept a repudiation). It was used as recently as 2013 in this fashion: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...13abqb388.html

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Locke

Experience.

I know people love the concept that lawyers throw anything anywhere in hopes that something will stick but that's not typically the reality at this level.

This ain't your Grandmammy's kitchen reno or 'Pa's restraining order.

And everyone involved with the exception of Mike Richards is a lawyer and millions of dollars are at stake.

In addition to Dean Lombardi having a law degree, he has a specialization in labour law.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

In addition to Dean Lombardi having a law degree, he has a specialization in labour law.

That was his law school specialization, which was helpful, of course. Of course, he hasn't actually practiced in that area at all, unless being a player agent in the 80s counts. I imagine they have outside counsel who gave an opinion.

The thing is, it's almost a risk free gamble for them. If they win, great, if they lose, they are no worse off, aside from some legal fees.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Locke

Experience.

I know people love the concept that lawyers throw anything anywhere in hopes that something will stick but that's not typically the reality at this level.

This ain't your Grandmammy's kitchen reno or 'Pa's restraining order.

And everyone involved with the exception of Mike Richards is a lawyer and millions of dollars are at stake.

If the threat of publicly shaming your opponent is seen as a strong bargaining chip, then you must not go public with your evidence / argument until just the right time...which could be measured in months or sadly even years.

Once you let 'it' out, you cannot leverage the threat of 'it' coming out...nor can someone pay to keep your silence after you have already spilled.

Deliberate silence does not necessarily mean you have nothing to say. And what comes out in the media is very often NOT what really happened.

It is agonizing to have so few actual facts. It is a standard disclaimer clause in a legal opinion to note that if the facts told to you are wrong then your opinion may be completely different. There is plenty of collective experience behind that bit of boilerplate.

Unfortunately, until more facts come out about what happened, if ever, nobody's opinion on which party is good or evil can really amount to much.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

In addition to Dean Lombardi having a law degree, he has a specialization in labour law.

There is an old saying - a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

I would be very surprised if he did this without some outside advice.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

There is an old saying - a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

I would be very surprised if he did this without some outside advice.

I'm sure they do, but they point of it is that Lombardi has education and experience so hes still much farther ahead of the curve than most in this regard.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

There is an old saying - a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

I would be very surprised if he did this without some outside advice.

What Locke said. I'm not saying Lombardi is a genius and is doing it alone, but I don't think he is also "throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks" since he comes from a background of a lawyer ... its hard for any of us to properly say the whole context of this and who will win, but you can bet that there is enough there by the LAK/NHL that they feel confident enough to move forward with this and they think there is a calculated chance of succeeding.... otherwise they would take the simpler, more obvious solution of just dumping his contract for draft picks.

[T@T]

Talked to a player today and while he didn't know any specifics on the case he felt LA didn't have a chance in hell to rip up Richards contract(I didn't expect him to say anything different) but he did say: "If your not hearing anything from Richards or his agent it means Don Fehr is all over it"

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

What Locke said. I'm not saying Lombardi is a genius and is doing it alone, but I don't think he is also "throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks" since he comes from a background of a lawyer ... its hard for any of us to properly say the whole context of this and who will win, but you can bet that there is enough there by the LAK/NHL that they feel confident enough to move forward with this and they think there is a calculated chance of succeeding.... otherwise they would take the simpler, more obvious solution of just dumping his contract for draft picks.

Except like I said above, there's not much to lose by giving it a shot. If Richards/the NHLPA wins, the contract gets reinstated and they owe him some money. He wasn't playing in the bigs anyway.

I'm interested in the NHL's take. On the one hand, they would like to decrease players' power which would include more termination rights. On the other hand, they don't want cap circumvention. If the Kings win, how many more terminations can they expect?

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except like I said above, there's not much to lose by giving it a shot. If Richards/the NHLPA wins, the contract gets reinstated and they owe him some money. He wasn't playing in the bigs anyway.

I'm interested in the NHL's take. On the one hand, they would like to decrease players' power which would include more termination rights. On the other hand, they don't want cap circumvention. If the Kings win, how many more terminations can they expect?

The league doesn't want the kind of cap circumvention that results in teams finding ways to spend more money, but they'd probably be ok with circumvention that keeps money in the pockets of the owners.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except like I said above, there's not much to lose by giving it a shot. If Richards/the NHLPA wins, the contract gets reinstated and they owe him some money. He wasn't playing in the bigs anyway.

I'm interested in the NHL's take. On the one hand, they would like to decrease players' power which would include more termination rights. On the other hand, they don't want cap circumvention. If the Kings win, how many more terminations can they expect?

I'm going to guess that the NHL probably doesn't want to end up exposing a bunch of players' misconduct publicly just so teams can dump their contracts. I'm sure there's much worse things floating around than Oxycotin. Part of the NHL's revenue comes from the marketability of its players.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by gargamel

The league doesn't want the kind of cap circumvention that results in teams finding ways to spend more money, but they'd probably be ok with circumvention that keeps money in the pockets of the owners.

The league is made up of the teams. So will the other teams want the Kings to have to live with their self-created cap problem or do they want to (maybe) be able to use the out themselves later? I suspect the latter, but I'm not sure.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm interested in the NHL's take. On the one hand, they would like to decrease players' power which would include more termination rights. On the other hand, they don't want cap circumvention. If the Kings win, how many more terminations can they expect?

IF the NHL does win, they likely use it as a bargaining chip in the next CBA negotiations. Give the PA this back in exchange for something else they wnt.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except like I said above, there's not much to lose by giving it a shot. If Richards/the NHLPA wins, the contract gets reinstated and they owe him some money. He wasn't playing in the bigs anyway.

I'm interested in the NHL's take. On the one hand, they would like to decrease players' power which would include more termination rights. On the other hand, they don't want cap circumvention. If the Kings win, how many more terminations can they expect?

It isn't just that the Kings would "owe him some money", but that most of that money would hose LA's cap. So that puts the NHL in a very tough spot - the buy out window is done and gone, and his waiver clearance will likewise expire long before this settles. So what does the NHL do if the Kings lose the grievance? Do they allow the Kings to circumvent the rules with a special buy-out window? Or do they hold the Kings to the deal?

And if the NHL were to allow the buy-out window, what does the union do? Does it fight just as hard against that window? Or does it allow the buy-out so that Richards gets a good chunk of his money, and then other players also get paid due to the space cap created?

There are a lot of moving pieces on this board.