Toggle sidebar

Mike Richards VI (UGH): The Armageddon Edition (MOD NOTE POST #1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
i'm still curious as to why everyone is still so hush-hush about it

not so much as a word from anyone that isn't Winnipeg media and TMZ

there has to be something else going on here that isn't being divulged at this time
 
santiclaws said:
Define "ignored." Will the NHLPA bring it up? No doubt. Will the arbitrator discuss it? Probably. Does the arbitrator have to rule on the basis of the prior arbitrator's decision or in a manner that is consistent with it? Absolutely not. Technically speaking, the arbitrator doesn't have to follow the law at all. Obviously, a competent arbitrator will do his best to make sure that his ruling is consistent with the law. But the arbitrator in this case can interpret the law in a drastically different way than a prior arbitrator. Again, an arbitrator's decision is not law. It is not legal precedent by definition. It is an opinion of a private individual, and no more.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a lottery ticket. Sure, anyone can choose to ignore their education and training and be apathetic, corrupted, or swayed to make counterintuitive decicions, but that doesn't make it likely. You can blow by a cop going 100 mph and sure he could shrug his shoulders and decide to let you go, but that isn't the likely result. It's not common that cases go against precedent. They'd have to logically prove why Richards deserves his money taken away from him for his actions over everyone else that has been allowed to keep theirs. Sure, the arbitrator can ignore anything and everything to just decide what's best for the Kings, but I would put money on it actually being a serious, logically sound, individual who is going to follow the accordance of reason.
 
Last edited:
Richie10 said:
It has to be fraud. I'm all but convinced at this point.

Lombardi contacted Richards' agent on draft day to inform him a trade may be imminent. Agent is forced to inform Lombardi of border incident.

It HAS to be. That's the only thing which stands a chance with a neutral arbitrator.

Can anyone find any language in the SPC which discusses informing your club when/if you're in potential legal trouble?

Edit: or anything about fraud/misrepresenting yourself in general?
Click to expand...

Interesting.

The player's legal troubles might also get in the way of the club's ability to buyout the contract (as with Dan Cloutier's injury), removing that option as well as the trade option. There's nothing in the CBA or the SPC specific to "fraud" in this context, however both of the accepted termination reasons are kinda broad, especially the second; the club can choose to end the contract if the player should "fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC." (That's SPC 14 (b) -- Exhibit 1 in the 2013 CBA.)

The Kings might argue that Richards' actions prevented the team from trading him (or buying him out), and that constitutes loss of "services" the player was contractually obligated to provide.
 
Last edited:
Hatter said:
So yeah. Mike better have had 6000 pills and 62k in cash for this to result in termination.

I can't fathom trying to stop a player from receiving millions of dollars over a bottle of pills.
Click to expand...

This is basically my initial reaction as well. There's got to be more to this story.
 
I think the drugs themselves and the border incident itself have little to nothing to do with the contract termination. I think the termination has everything to do with the fact that neither Richards nor his Agent told the Kings that this incident happened for two weeks. There are 14-15 million reasons why team Richards would want to keep that quiet until after July 1st, and this all gets to the section of the CBA that the Kings (and the NHL) noted in their brief that they disclosed to the media:

"In a brief filed to the NHL and the NHLPA, the team referenced Section 2(e) of the SPC, which states a player agrees "to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally."

Not disclosing a border incident so as to not jeopardize your big payday on July 1st, which also has the effect of the Kings making significant player and personnel transactions they would have otherwise not made, is probably the reason the Kings and the NHL felt this was a contract-cancelling incident. Not the drugs, or the investigation itself - as others have said, if team Richards had notified Dean & Co. immediately, there probably isn't a breach of contract here.
 
TonySCV said:
I think the drugs themselves and the border incident itself have little to nothing to do with the contract termination. I think the termination has everything to do with the fact that neither Richards nor his Agent told the Kings that this incident happened for two weeks. There are 14-15 million reasons why team Richards would want to keep that quiet until after July 1st, and this all gets to the section of the CBA that the Kings (and the NHL) noted in their brief that they disclosed to the media:

"In a brief filed to the NHL and the NHLPA, the team referenced Section 2(e) of the SPC, which states a player agrees "to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally."

Not disclosing a border incident so as to not jeopardize your big payday on July 1st, which also has the effect of the Kings making significant player and personnel transactions they would have otherwise not made, is probably the reason the Kings and the NHL felt this was a contract-cancelling incident. Not the drugs, or the investigation itself - as others have said, if team Richards had notified Dean & Co. immediately, there probably isn't a breach of contract here.
Click to expand...

This seriously makes me wonder that if DL had known about the border incident if he would have still traded for Lucic?
 
TonySCV said:
I think the termination has everything to do with the fact that neither Richards nor his Agent told the Kings that this incident happened for two weeks. There are 14-15 million reasons why team Richards would want to keep that quiet until after July 1st, and this all gets to the section of the CBA that the Kings (and the NHL) noted in their brief that they disclosed to the media:
Click to expand...

But he knew that he was probably going to get bought out regardless.

It's true that Dean was talking to teams about a trade, but realistically, he was most likely going to get bought out one way or another.

Did Mike really look like he was interested in playing hockey for 5 more years? At this point he may have welcomed a buyout so he could sail off into the sunset and get paid for it.
 
I think the Kings are basing their argument for termination on the idea that Richards is required to inform them when he is arrested. Him failiing to do so put him in material breach of the contract.

Richards was obviously hoping to not be traded and receive a buy out then after that everything could come out. The timing didn't work out that way for him.

All this is speculation of my part as many have already done, but I am assuming once Dean called Newport and told them that a trade involving Richards was imminent, they had to spill the beans.

I don't see how that makes Dean or the Kings bad guys in any of this. Dean was going to take his lumps in the trade. Then he finds out that he can't even trade Richards. Hearing this someone in the Kings organization (maybe not Dean, but higher) says f it, terminate his contract. Kings inform the NHL of their intentions and the NHL buys off on it for now. Remember Bettman does work for the owners.
 
KINGS17 said:
I think the Kings are basing their argument for termination on the idea that Richards is required to inform them when he is arrested. Him failiing to do so put him in material breach of the contract.

Richards was obviously hoping to not be traded and receive a buy out then after that everything could come out. The timing didn't work out that way for him.

All this is speculation of my part as many have already done, but I am assuming once Dean called Newport and told them that a trade involving Richards was imminent, they had to spill the beans.

I don't see how that makes Dean or the Kings bad guys in any of this. Dean was going to take his lumps in the trade. Then he finds out that he can't even trade Richards. Hearing this someone in the Kings organization (maybe not Dean, but higher) says f it, terminate his contract. Kings inform the NHL of their intentions and the NHL buys off on it for now. Remember Bettman does work for the owners.
Click to expand...

this and the fact that it happened on the border are the big issues in my mind, not so much what he allegedly did or got caught for
 
johnjm22 said:
But he knew that he was probably going to get bought out regardless.

It's true that Dean was talking to teams about a trade, but realistically, he was most likely going to get bought out one way or another.

Did Mike really look like he was interested in playing hockey for 5 more years? At this point he may have welcomed a buyout so he could sail off into the sunset and get paid for it.
Click to expand...

Mike Richards doesn't get to make this call. He owes full disclosore of his legal situation to the Kings almost immediately so they can make decisions accordingly.

He failed in that obligation, and I feel rather certain that the Kings aren't terminating his contract over a bottle of Oxy. The lawyer that has been spewing crap on TSN hasn't really discussed this angle.
 
What if, at the draft, the Kings found out about Richards' June 17 situation from someone not associated with Richards at all? What if Richards was hoping that whatever happened that got him in some sort of trouble would stay hidden until after the draft and impending buyout?
 
“@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Mike Richards not listed on NHL’s official free-agent listâ€

Strange
 
The addiction to RX drugs could also have left a long paper trail pointing to a serious addiction issue, this isn't a pill people just pop off an on, they become hooked and rely on it. I'd also like to know who wrote the RX and what was the diagnosis. This explains his erratic play on the ice, very sad and I hope he puts down the fishing pole and goes and gets help cause he needs it and has needed it for awhile from the rumors we've read over the years.
 
If Richards told the team earlier, would what actually happened have changed what the Kings are thinking. No. Kings knew everything in time. They were not harmed. Not sure if he specifically had to tell them about an interview conducted at the border that he felt might have been ridiculous. We don't know if the detainment was really an arrest, do we? No charges yet? Did he get any parking tickets last week? At which point if the whole incident was rather lame in the first place, do we sit around and go that it doesn't matter if it was lame, he should have called DL? I don't know. I don't think there's enough in the CBA defining how much he's supposed to be informing the team. It'd be nice if he communicated, and all your guys are very responsible this way, but to say there's something like moral problems because he doesn't call is a stretch. It's the Kings taking words in the CBA, and wanting desperately for this to stick.
 
Model62 said:
Interesting.

The player's legal troubles might also get in the way of the club's ability to buyout the contract (as with Dan Cloutier's injury), removing that option as well as the trade option. There's nothing in the CBA or the SPC specific to "fraud" in this context, however both of the accepted termination reasons are kinda broad, especially the second; the club can choose to end the contract if the player should "fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC." (That's SPC 14 (b) -- Exhibit 1 in the 2013 CBA.)

The Kings might argue that Richards' actions prevented the team from trading him (or buying him out), and that constitutes loss of "services" the player was contractually obligated to provide.
Click to expand...
Legally the Kings could still trade him or buy him out. That never changed.
 
efhank said:
If Richards told the team earlier, would what actually happened have changed what the Kings are thinking. No. Kings knew everything in time. They were not harmed. Not sure if he specifically had to tell them about an interview conducted at the border that he felt might have been ridiculous. We don't know if the detainment was really an arrest, do we? No charges yet? Did he get any parking tickets last week? At which point if the whole incident was rather lame in the first place, do we sit around and go that it doesn't matter if it was lame, he should have called DL? I don't know. I don't think there's enough in the CBA defining how much he's supposed to be informing the team. It'd be nice if he communicated, and all your guys are very responsible this way, but to say there's something like moral problems because he doesn't call is a stretch. It's the Kings taking words in the CBA, and wanting desperately for this to stick.
Click to expand...

You are making loads of suppositions and using them as facts. You could be right but you could also equally be very wrong too. We will know what happened in time. The rest is just guessing for the most part.
 
417th said:
You are making loads of suppositions and using them as facts. You could be right but you could also equally be very wrong too. We will know what happened in time. The rest is just guessing for the most part.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
efhank said:
Legally the Kings could still trade him or buy him out. That never changed.
Click to expand...

We don't know that.
If the CBS is holding his passport he could not report for physical, a condition of most trades
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom