Contract Termination: Evander Kane

[BillR10]

10 day quarantine puts him at the 31st as he tested positive the 21st. So I don't see how he has a case there showing up on the 6th, that would put him at a 15 day quarantine.

He traveled on the 29th which was day 8 from his positive test on the 21st when the rules were 10 day quarantine and supposed to return to the Cuda on the 31st in which he didn't show until 1/6

 

[surixon]

He traveled on the 29th which was day 8 from his positive test on the 21st when the rules were 10 day quarantine and supposed to return to the Cuda on the 31st in which he didn't show until 1/6

Yeah so him showing up late can't be excused sue to protocol.

 

[CapSpace]

Guy really has a turd for brain. What a shame.

 

[Seras]

I don't see the PA letting this go without a fight

 

[Kcoyote3]

Will be a tough sell for the Sharks, PA can demand they do the same for every player without vaccine.

Not liking someone and accusations are not enough to terminate a contract

Except the NHL said they had enough to terminate it, so it’s not just not liking someone.

 

[Seras]

Except the NHL said they had enough to terminate it, so it’s not just not liking someone.

Yeah, and I'm sure they have enough reason to terminate other contracts too, PA could demand fair treatment

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Some team will take a chance on him and sign him for cheap and it'll become a massive steal

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

I don't see the PA letting this go without a fight

so testing positive AND being symptomatic AND travelling back and forth is just 'accusations' now?

now I DO agree the NHLPA will have a say in this at some point.. they have to

 

[Kcoyote3]

Yeah, and I'm sure they have enough reason to terminate other contracts too, PA could demand fair treatment

Fair treatment for the guy who has already egregiously broken the rules before

 

[Dolemite]

The NHLPA has f***ed up priorities

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

Yeah, and I'm sure they have enough reason to terminate other contracts too, PA could demand fair treatment

maybe.. but 'maybe' having a reason to terminate a contract doesn't mean they HAVE to terminate said contract

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Plenty of players have had their contracts terminated for failing to report. Big Buff in Winnipeg had his terminated for that a couple of years ago.

They agreed to have it terminated. Mutual termination.

 

[surixon]

They agreed to have it terminated. Mutual termination.

There was a grievance but Buff didn't want to do the work to honor it so they had no case.

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

Some team will take a chance on him and sign him for cheap and it'll become a massive steal

maybe short term... but like all his other deals, it'll spoil.. his participation doesn't seem to age well

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Except the NHL said they had enough to terminate it, so it’s not just not liking someone.

Why on earth is that noteworthy? As said prior in this thread, the organization that represents the owners is defending the actions of an owner.

 

[Seras]

maybe.. but 'maybe' having a reason to terminate a contract doesn't mean they HAVE to terminate said contract

Fair, but then why this guy? Accusations and not liking someone is not enough to breach a contract

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

Fair, but then why this guy? Accusations and not liking someone is not enough to breach a contract

what accusations? he tested positive.. he was symptomatic.. he flew back and forth as such.. these are being reported as FACTS.. not accusations... on top of getting caught submitting a false vaccination card.. while he was supposedly vaccinated..

sorry, not trying to come across as snarky, so apologies if it does

 

[Flukeshot]

I have to assume he and the NHLPA will fight it.

That's way too much money lost not to appeal.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Why on earth is that noteworthy? As said prior in this thread, the organization that represents the owners is defending the actions of an owner.

Why wouldn’t it be? His prior offenses weren’t enough for the Sharks to believe they had grounds (they probably contacted the NHL and asked) and now they believe they do. That’s why it is noteworthy, even if they will always protect the owners. It’s a difference from his prior offenses.

 

[Dolemite]

Fair, but then why this guy? Accusations and not liking someone is not enough to breach a contract

Why?



He deserves the shit canning.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

There was a grievance but Buff didn't want to do the work to honor it so they had no case.

Ok but there was never an attempt by Winnipeg to terminate the contract unilaterally. When he didn't report, they suspended him without pay. Which is what I originally posted...

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

Why wouldn’t it be? His prior offenses weren’t enough for the Sharks to believe they had groups (they probably contacted the NHL and asked) and now they believe they do. That’s why it is noteworthy, even if they will always protect the owners. It’s a difference from his prior offenses.

also by making this statement public, I would believe it also makes them liable

that's a big deal

 

[surixon]

Ok but there was never an attempt by Winnipeg to terminate the contract unilaterally. When he didn't report, they suspended him without pay. Which is what I originally posted...

They gave him time to see if he wanted to change his mind. They wanted to keep him so they treated the situation differently. When he didn't change his mind they moved to terminate.

Kane has a Laundry list of issues so of course they are looking to terminate if given cause. Kane was juat stupid enough to give them more ammunition.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Why wouldn’t it be? His prior offenses weren’t enough for the Sharks to believe they had grounds (they probably contacted the NHL and asked) and now they believe they do. That’s why it is noteworthy, even if they will always protect the owners. It’s a difference from his prior offenses.

No, it's not. What the NHL thinks does not make a lick of difference. What matters is the arbitrator, the contract rules, and part cases involving termination of a player contract. That doesn't favor the Sharks at all

 

[Atoyot]

Why wouldn’t it be? His prior offenses weren’t enough for the Sharks to believe they had grounds (they probably contacted the NHL and asked) and now they believe they do. That’s why it is noteworthy, even if they will always protect the owners. It’s a difference from his prior offenses.

They were likely holding out hope that another team would take him and at least some of the cap off their hands instead of having to go this route, which will be an incredibly long and messy situation. Termination was never going to be the first option.