Kings terminating Mike Richards contract for material breach [upd: grievance filed]

[mouser]

I don't see the PA pursuing a cap circumvention angle in a grievance. That would just clutter up their fundamental argument that the termination was not justified.

In court cases the lawyers throw everything possible into filings just in case something sticks. In arbitration cases simpler is usually better.

Likewise, even if Richards/PA wins a grievance it seems unlikely to me that the arbitrator would rule that the Kings acted in bad faith trying to terminate the contract. The contracts do allow for termination. Even though the limited facts publicized so far don't seem to merit termination the Kings would likely get the benefit of the doubt from the arbitrator that they were attempting to exercise contractual rights.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

? I have is this: why would LA assign Richards to its affiliate, then in Manchester, midway through last year.....

 

[Model62]

? I have is this: why would LA assign Richards to its affiliate, then in Manchester, midway through last year.....

Because he wasn't cutting on the NHL club?

 

[tsanuri]

Nope, they'd need to have two Club-Elected arbitrations to open up the second buyout window.

Or one Player-Elected.

The buyout windows are part of the CBA. So if it hypothetically did come to allowing a special buyout for Richards then the PA would have to be onboard with that. League couldn't do it unilaterally.

They might be counting on Richards signing another contract while this is going on. At which point the arbitrator might rule that he be bought out so that they then don't have to void a contract that was made.

 

[Eric Sachs]

They might be counting on Richards signing another contract while this is going on. At which point the arbitrator might rule that he be bought out so that they then don't have to void a contract that was made.

I think teams will be very cautious to sign Richards and get involved in this mess.

I mean, not even because of the whole arbitration thing and the fact that they may be signing a contract that could later be terminated..

but Richards is still the subject of an ongoing investigation.

 

[kdb209]

Nope, they'd need to have two Club-Elected arbitrations to open up the second buyout window.

Not quite. That would only be true if the club elected arbitration is under Section 12.3(a) - elected in lieu of tendering a QO (for players earning >$1.75M). If elected under 12.3(b) - after tendering a QO - there is no such restriction.

11.18 Ordinary Course Buy-Outs Outside the Regular Period. Clubs shall have the right to
exercise Ordinary Course Buy-Outs outside the regular period for Ordinary Course Buy-Outs in
accordance with Paragraph 13(c)(ii) of the SPC. Each Club shall be limited to no more than
three (3) such Buy-Outs outside the regular period over the term of this Agreement pursuant to
Paragraph 13 of the SPC. However, in the event that a Club has only one salary arbitration
hearing pursuant to Section 12.3(a) in a given League Year, such Club shall not be entitled to
exercise such an Ordinary Course Buy-Out outside the regular period.

 

[mouser]

Not quite. That would only be true if the club elected arbitration is under Section 12.3(a) - elected in lieu of tendering a QO (for players earning >$1.75M). If elected under 12.3(b) - after tendering a QO - there is no such restriction.

Good point.

Was reading 12.3 in entirety instead of just 12.3(a).

 

[Gilligans Island]

IIRC the recapture hit is bigger than the buyout hit for the next 2 years, so they couldn't go over the buyout amount without directly going over the cap in a "regular" manner.

It's only bigger next season, then buyout cap hit is bigger thereafter. Difference between Recapture cap hit vs. Buyout cap hit by season:

• 2015-16: ~$10K more
• 2016-17: ~$400K less
• 2017-18: ~$1.4M less
• 2018-19 & 2019-20: ~$2.9M less
• 2020-21 (and next 4 seasons thereafter): ~$1.5M

 

[dougieg93]

According to this source there was a formal arrest and the investigation has been going on for a couple weeks.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Ok, no silly speculation on my part then.....

Richards Questioned About Oxycodone

 

[Fugu]

Ok, no silly speculation on my part then.....

Richards Questioned About Oxycodone

We know. This was posted several hours ago.

 

[Gilligans Island]

If / when this goes to arbitration, can the NHLPA subpoena the Kings' emails?

 

[Jeffrey93]

We know. This was posted several hours ago.

Threads moving too fast for my slow self.

This is an easy one boys. Grievance will be won by Richards. 4 simple words.

"I have a problem"

Being in the PA and in a league that supposedly takes stuff like this seriously...they should be sending him to get help....not firing him.

Done deal....no way this holds up when all Richards has to do is say he has a problem...and then say it started when he suffered concussions while playing....and just for the icing on the cake say that Kings' employees at multiple levels were aware of it and intentionally ignoring it.

 

[Lemonlimey]

Damn Jeffrey. Will be interesting if it plays out like that.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Damn Jeffrey. Will be interesting if it plays out like that.

If this is what actually happened....the Kings will be lucky if Richards doesn't file a lawsuit against them.

UNLESS....there is a history of them trying to get him help, sending him to the Minors so he could focus on, not hockey, but recovery. Have already sent him to get treatment, etc, etc.

If they haven't done all that....and then voided his contract like this? Good luck LA Kings. You'll lose this battle and possibly another after that.....while also making the NHL look like they fire guys that are addicted to painkillers they started taking because of the abuse they suffered playing in your league. Also, the painkillers were probably initially prescribed in massive doses by a team doctor, while any other doctor would refuse.

 

[Hutz]

They might be counting on Richards signing another contract while this is going on. At which point the arbitrator might rule that he be bought out so that they then don't have to void a contract that was made.

But why not just buy him out in the first place, then?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

According to this source there was a formal arrest and the investigation has been going on for a couple weeks.

Frieson is a solid guy.

 

[Model62]

If this is what actually happened....the Kings will be lucky if Richards doesn't file a lawsuit against them.

UNLESS....there is a history of them trying to get him help, sending him to the Minors so he could focus on, not hockey, but recovery. Have already sent him to get treatment, etc, etc.

If they haven't done all that....and then voided his contract like this? Good luck LA Kings. You'll lose this battle and possibly another after that.....while also making the NHL look like they fire guys that are addicted to painkillers they started taking because of the abuse they suffered playing in your league. Also, the painkillers were probably initially prescribed in massive doses by a team doctor, while any other doctor would refuse.

The border crossing occurred June 17. The Kings claim they learned about this June 26. They will argue the player hid his drug abuse from the team, and in doing so, prevented the team from activating the league and PA approved addiction protocol, and further, after the abuse was revealed, hindered the club's ability to make a trade, which is among the club's contract rights.

They won't say they knew about it and tried to help. That would make their case weaker, not stronger. It would mean they knew, and did not follow league protocol. And then decided to terminate the contract rather than get the player the help the CBA specifies.

 

[Gilligans Island]

The border crossing occurred June 17. The Kings claim they learned about this June 26. They will argue the player hid his drug abuse from the team, and in doing so, prevented the team from activating the league and PA approved addiction protocol, and further, after the abuse was revealed, hindered the club's ability to make a trade, which is among the club's contract rights.

They won't say they knew about it and tried to help. That would make their case weaker, not stronger. It would mean they knew, and did not follow league protocol. And then decided to terminate the contract rather than get the player the help the CBA specifies.

Playing devil's advocate... why would an arbitrator care if Richards was traded by June 26th (or 30th)? Plenty of players are traded after June 30th. Why was this date so damaging to the Kings prospects to trade him?

 

[Jeffrey93]

The border crossing occurred June 17. The Kings claim they learned about this June 26. They will argue the player hid his drug abuse from the team, and in doing so, prevented the team from activating the league and PA approved addiction protocol, and further, after the abuse was revealed, hindered the club's ability to make a trade, which is among the club's contract rights.

They won't say they knew about it and tried to help. That would make their case weaker, not stronger. It would mean they knew, and did not follow league protocol. And then decided to terminate the contract rather than get the player the help the CBA specifies.

I never claimed the Kings would voluntarily say they knew about it. I said Richards could claim they did......try to prove him wrong. Messy!

So...say you're right. He hid it. Hid it well. They learned about it on June 26th. Later that day...or on June 27th the LA Kings should have setup a rehabilitation centre to take Richards in. Then they should have disclosed this information to the league and made them aware that they are following all substance abuse protocol.

Let's say the Kings JUST found out about this....they didn't know prior...they didn't prescribe him the painkillers initially...they are innocent and just found out. Their first action is to essentially fire him? You find out an employee has a substance abuse problem that he managed to hide from you and your reaction is.....fire him?

Good luck with that. NHLPA and NHL are very vocal about helping substance abuse cases. Kings plead ignorance then fire an employee under contract the first time they hear of it.

Richards is going to come out of this looking good. Maybe not to other NHL teams....but in the media and society.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

The fact that it happened over a border really complicates matters.

 

[Fishhead]

A lot may hinge on how the Kings eventually found out. If Richards never told the Kings he was arrested and they found out by other means, that's trouble for him. The nature of his situation potentially jeopardizes his ability to cross the border between the USA and Canada.

If Richards hid the fact that he was arrested, that's textbook fraud. I really can't think of any reason why Richards wouldn't notify the Kings immediately given he was arrested for a potentially serious offense. It's not unreasonable at all for Richards to believe he was being discussed in trade talks and his offense would certainly damage those talks.

 

[Jeffrey93]

A lot may hinge on how the Kings eventually found out. If Richards never told the Kings he was arrested and they found out by other means, that's trouble for him. The nature of his situation potentially jeopardizes his ability to cross the border between the USA and Canada.

Doesn't matter if Richards told them or if they found out via the authorities. An employee has a drug problem.

If Richards hid the fact that he was arrested, that's textbook fraud. I really can't think of any reason why Richards wouldn't notify the Kings immediately given he was arrested for a potentially serious offense. It's not unreasonable at all for Richards to believe he was being discussed in trade talks and his offense would certainly damage those talks.

If he hid the fact he was arrested? Fraud? He has a problem! He is sick! You don't handle employees in this case (especially when they have union representation and an employer that has a substance abuse policy) like that.

If he hid it or not....all he has to say is that he has a problem and this goes away and he could even go on the offensive.

With regards to the CBSA......he might end up having to choose which country he resides in and not be allowed any further border crossings. Would really suck for an NHL player....but I'm not sure if the Kings can penalize him for it.

He might also be granted some leniency by CBSA where he can cross the border to play but has to inform them when he returns to the USA. And he'd have to do so after his employment purposes are complete.

This is getting interesting. More hate for the NHL and their bullspit substance abuse policy as well as their bullspit concussion protocol.

Hopefully Richards won't be the next Belak.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

The one place the League might relax the rules would be to allow the Kings, if they lost in arbitration, to retroactively buy out Richards contract despite being after the 6/30 deadline.

Of course, the Kings could just elect arbitration for one of their RFAs in order to open up an "Ordinary Course Buy-Outs Outside the Regular Period" as insurance.

I don't think it would be that easy. When Richards wins his appeal, the PA will demand he be paid in full for the 15-16 season since the Kings passed on their chance to buy him out. I think I speculated earlier in this thread that I could see the league allowing him to be paid off in full for next year and then allowing the buyout for the remaining term, similar to how the post lockout compliance buyouts were handled when teams threatened to sit guys for the season in order to buy them out at the end of the season.

 

[Fishhead]

Richards could use the "I have a problem" card to get out of legal troubles, but his contract is very clear. Unless he signed it under the influence or under duress, then of course it's not valid. The contract is there to protect both parties, not just one.

That course may not be all that effective anyways. Richards would have to show a pattern of hiding things. If he told the Kings he had a problem, and was up front about everything, why would he hide the arrest? If he was hiding absolutely everything, how could the Kings possibly know he had a problem when they terminated his contract?

This will be heard in front of an Arbitrator, not a jury. They aren't going to bank on if the arbitrator is sympathetic or not, they will stick to law.

With regards to the CBSA......he might end up having to choose which country he resides in and not be allowed any further border crossings. Would really suck for an NHL player....but I'm not sure if the Kings can penalize him for it.

If Richards is not allowed border crossings because of his own doing, that is breach as he cannot fulfill his duties under the contract. The Kings can absolutely take action on that.

If Richards was bringing a good quantity of a schedule 1 drug across the border and gets charged for it, all this will be moot anyways as he will likely see jail time.