[News] UPD: Sharks terminate Evander Kane's contract

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

NHL releases statement about their investigation in the Kane's border crossing:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1486826588897529857

Ok, now investigate the duffle bag of cash Katz had dropped off at the home of one of the partners of that legal team.

[Flamesfan05]

Desperate move by the Oilers

Wonder who they have to trade for a goalie?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

You know, you grow up with a team and it's ingrained to cheer for them your whole life, especially if you still live in the city.
Even with how much they've sucked these many years, I still hoped for them to do well despite my interest lessening over the years.

This is the nail in the coffin. I refuse to cheer for them and I'm actually a bit shocked how many posters on HF Oil are supportive of the signing. That makes me hate it even more.

But despite all that, I can't cheer for Calgary either. Now I'll just dislike all Alberta teams.

Go Kraken?

If I was in your shoes I’d probably go with Winnipeg. The only other Canadian team that I don’t hate, aside from Ottawa which is a giant meh.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yeah the "in cash" thing is a funny part of the tweet. As opposed to what?
Amazon GCs?
Bitcoin?

Casino Chips?

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by cannon7

It might be in this thread. But how did the NHLPA allow the Sharks to terminate his contract without a buyout?

And without a caphit after the investigation turned up diddly?

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

And without a caphit after the investigation turned up diddly?

Why hasn't there been questions from the media about this?

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by cannon7

It might be in this thread. But how did the NHLPA allow the Sharks to terminate his contract without a buyout?

Lots of question marks here. If there wasn't sufficient evidence, how was the contract able to be terminated??

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Lots of question marks here. If there wasn't sufficient evidence, how was the contract able to be terminated??

I think Friedman mentioned something on podcast about being late to report (to the AHL?) Seems like a good time to revisit the whole timeline of events

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl...043448365.html

January 11, 2021: Kane files for chapter 7 bankruptcy in California, with $26.8 million in debt, according to The Athletic’s Daniel Kaplan.

July 31, 2021-August 1, 2021: Anna Kane — Evander Kane’s estranged wife — makes a series of posts on her Instagram story alleging Kane bet on his own games. In response, the NHL immediately stated that it would conduct an investigation into the betting allegations.

August 24, 2021: A federal bankruptcy judge named Stephen Johnson allows for a go-ahead for discovery in a lawsuit filed against Kane by Hope Parker, who alleges that he pulled out of an agreement to pay her $2 million if she aborted her pregnancy.

September 22, 2021: Anna Kane files a domestic violence restraining order application as part of her divorce case, which includes sexual assault and several domestic battery allegations against Evander Kane.

Evander Kane had previously received a temporary restraining order against Anna in August 2021, alleging that she had hit him in the face several times during an argument.

In a separate statement, the NHL said it found no evidence that Kane had bet on his own games.

I don't remember exactly what the deal was with training camp...was he not invited since the investigation was still pending?

October 18, 2021: Kane is suspended 21 games for submitting a fake COVID-19 vaccine card

In a subsequent release, the NHL stated that the domestic violence allegations levied by Anna Kane against Evander Kane could not be substantiated during their investigation.

...

November 28, 2021: Kane is waived by the Sharks upon completion of his suspension and is demoted to the AHL’s San Jose Barracuda.

November 30, 2021: Kane meets with the media for the first time after serving his suspension where he tersely reveals that he’s fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

January 8, 2022: Kane is placed on unconditional waivers with intent to terminate his contract by the Sharks for violation of the AHL’s COVID-19 protocol.

San Jose said it will not comment further on the matter.

Obviously this article is missing a few key details about the AHL incident.

[powderjunkie]

Here's another article with a tiny bit of info, but no questions answered

https://sanjosehockeynow.com/evander...ination-covid/

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly texted San Jose Hockey Now yesterday: “Since the investigation was related to conduct unrelated to conduct Sharks relied on to terminate, should have no effect on the grievance.”

How does that make sense? The league isn’t punishing Evander Kane for this alleged additional violation of COVID protocol — but wasn’t that part of the Sharks organization’s grounds for terminating his contract in the first place?

The devil is in the details.

Granted, we don’t know all the details, all the reasons why the Sharks are terminating Kane’s contract — and why the NHL was comfortable supporting it then.

[Heavy Jack]

Lol it’s the leagues attempt at trying to ‘help’ the Oilers!

Works every time.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Lol it’s the leagues attempt at trying to ‘help’ the Oilers!

Works every time.

No, no, no sir!

I have been informed by many dubious media sources that the NHL is adamantly against the Oilers and does everything possible to destroy their opportunities!

There is a conspiracy afoot! I have been assured of it!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Here's another article with a tiny bit of info, but no questions answered

https://sanjosehockeynow.com/evander...ination-covid/

It appears to me that there are two different standards involved:

1. Sufficient evidence to show, on balance, that the San Jose Sharks had adequate grounds to terminate Kane's contract. The Sharks definitely have a prima facie case, and it appears that the NHL doesn't have enough evidence against that case to intervene by refusing to let the Sharks out of the contract.

2. Sufficient proof of a particular violation of the league's rules to administer further punishment to Evander Kane, beyond the suspension he has already served. Apparently this is what the NHL is saying it hasn't got.

The way I read the league's position, the Sharks were in their rights to terminate Kane's contract, but the league has already punished him for what he did under their jurisdiction. His latest border-crossing shenanigans, it would seem, were not for the NHL to punish because he wasn't in the league at the time, but were grounds for terminating his contract because he was still on the Sharks' payroll.

No doubt the AHL could suspend him for violating their rules, but since he is now under a new contract with an NMC, he can't be sent back to the AHL and any suspension would be, as some of our posters like to say, a moo point.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It appears to me that there are two different standards involved:

1. Sufficient evidence to show, on balance, that the San Jose Sharks had adequate grounds to terminate Kane's contract. The Sharks definitely have a prima facie case, and it appears that the NHL doesn't have enough evidence against that case to intervene by refusing to let the Sharks out of the contract.

2. Sufficient proof of a particular violation of the league's rules to administer further punishment to Evander Kane, beyond the suspension he has already served. Apparently this is what the NHL is saying it hasn't got.

The way I read the league's position, the Sharks were in their rights to terminate Kane's contract, but the league has already punished him for what he did under their jurisdiction. His latest border-crossing shenanigans, it would seem, were not for the NHL to punish because he wasn't in the league at the time, but were grounds for terminating his contract because he was still on the Sharks' payroll.

No doubt the AHL could suspend him for violating their rules, but since he is now under a new contract with an NMC, he can't be sent back to the AHL and any suspension would be, as some of our posters like to say, a moo point.

It definitely seems like a pretty narrow tightrope the league is walking here.

I presume AHL and NHL suspensions are mutually enforced, but obviously this is a pretty unique case. The Sharks may have taken action before the AHL could? From a purely logical standpoint the Shark's case seems weaker without another league punishment behind it.

From a PA vs. NHL perspective, I would wonder how well the Sharks lived up to their contractual obligations at training camp time. I suspect they went against Kane's rights [implied rights as a player under contract] to some degree, though I imagine those rights are a bit ambiguous/broadly defined.

Though the SPC clauses that Kane violated are also kinda broad, and the Shark's actions seem disproportionate to anything else we've seen aside from Mike Richards (which ended in a settlement). I'm not sure how much precedents or lack there of come into play within the CBA, but I definitely think we're headed towards a settlement here.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I definitely think we're headed towards a settlement here.

I think you're right.