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

[Chain]

I mean, why tell your employer you got arrested when it could effect not only your future employment, but money that is owed to you.

Not to mention he would no longer be invited to Taco Tuesday's at Lombardi's house.

 

[kingsfan28]

1) The way he's writing that, it's like this is new info to him and this "new info" makes it even more unlikely Richards contract is terminated. Yet, he was talking the other day like he already knew why Richards was arrested. So what's the new information?
2) It seems like this guy has an agenda, or is just trying to get hits.
3) I'm really starting to dislike that lawyer.

Yep, he's the lawyer of the month right now. I've seen him either interviewed or quoted in several reports.He's reporting nothing new , other than what we know, just wording it differently.

 

[kingsfan28]

Not to mention he would no longer be invited to Taco Tuesday's at Lombardi's house.

Damn, that's harsh. Even Roenick still gets an invite after his horrible stint as a King.

 

[Reclamation Project]

Fun fact: no tacos are ever served, Dean just explains the recipe.

 

[Fishhead]

Fun fact: no tacos are ever served, Dean just explains the recipe.

It's always an argument, so Dean whips out his easel and puts up this.

 

[mouser]

1a. Do we know if, when the NHL signed off on the termination of Richards' contract, it was of the "tacit authorization" or "meritorious approval" variety (in other words: did they say, "OK, all of your paperwork is in order; good luck" or "Yeah, you're right; after looking at this situation, this guy's contract is DONE, and we're behind you if/when the NHLPA contests it")


1b. Does 1a. even matter if/when this goes to arbitration (and, if so, how --either in-channel, or to the potential financial penalties to the Kings)?


2. (Assume for this question that the Kings haven't terminated Voynov's contract by the time Richards' prospective NHLPA grievance is held) Would the fact that there might reasonably appear to be a double-standard in play specific to the Kings organization possibly hurt the NHL/Kings' case?


TIA...

Unknown whether the NHL's position is "yes, this is an absolute material breach by Richards", or "yes, the Kings have filled in all the right boxes to terminate Richards contract for a material breach".

I'm personally inclined to think it's the later for the sole reason that we haven't seen a player's contract unilaterally terminated for material breach in the salary cap era. A lot of contracts have been terminated, but they've all been mutual. e.g. player assigned to AHL, player refuses to report--deliberately breaching their contract--and both the player and team are happy with the contract being terminated.

There is no modern precedent for terminating a contract this way for the NHL lawyers to feel confident on its success or failure. But I think the NHL would be happy with the idea of contracts being less guaranteed. So the league could be fine with the Kings attempting this termination regardless of whether or not their internal lawyers are confident of surviving a PA grievance.

 

[Jason Squirties]

If Dean & Co. believe it (which they absolutely do if they went ahead with terminating his contract), then I do too.

Pretty much how I feel too. Whether its a last ditch justifiable effort to regain some value back in the contract that could be null n void or if it's a slam dunk case, these guys know what's going on. We don't.

 

[Ron*]

Fun fact: no tacos are ever served, Dean just explains the recipe.

And it takes him 2½ hours to do so.

 

[kingsfan]

No no no no. This can't be it. That's not nearly enough to terminate a contract. OxyContin? That's laughable. My aunt got those for pain killers. There's absolutely no, zero, zilch way Lombardi's would terminate a contract for possession of OxyContin. What Voynov allegedly did is TEN times worse than this and DL never terminated his contract.

Please tell me there's more to this, please.

I assume your aunt had a prescription. If Mike doesn't, then that's starts getting into the area of illegal possession/use/distribution of a control substance, something that most definitely could lead to termination of a professional athletes contract.

 

[deeshamrock]

Why isn't it just about Richards getting his money. At this point he has a bone to pick with the NHL, not the Kings.

The Kings terminated Richards contract with the league's consent. The NHL deleted the contract from it's central registry and declared Richards to be a free agent (the Kings didn't do this).

The NHL further ruled that the Kings will be on the hook for the recapture penalty for the next five years and that they will be cap compliant if that penalty is included in their cap calculations.

Seems to me that any or all of Richards remaining issues are with the NHL, not the Kings.

THE NHLPA will point out that the Kings skipped a part of the CBA , that when a player is arrested and drugs are involved, the go to phase 1, which is the player enters a drug treatment program with full pay.
(this part of the CBA was explained on Macramalla's radio show today in a short segment )

THey Kings skipped the protocol and other steps involved and went right to termination.
They can't use part of the CBA to suit their needs and skip other parts.

WHen this first happened, my first thought was that The Kings were trying to avoid the payout and figured a settlement between the parties would do that.

both DL and Soloman are very smart guys. I think back in jan. when Richards was on waivers, the owners told them if all else failed, they did not want a full payout, to find a loophole.

And I think Solomen did just that, the 'fitness' para. I think that's why they dragged Richards back in March for the 'testing' so they could argue those results, measurable metrics, when they put in for the termination.

I think they knew they had no shot at winning the case or the contract termination, their goal was to get the buyout reduced, that an arbitrator would rule for a lesser settlement.

The border incident fell into their laps, but it doesn't change the end result.
The NHLPA will argue they should have gone thru the agreed upon steps for this situation, and Richards should have gone to PHase 1, not full contract termination.

THis might not even to go arbitration, if the NHLPA points that out and the Kings argue for a settlement.

I think the end result wont' change, the Kings won't win the termination, but they will most likely get a much lesser payout, and save $$ over the next several years on the CAP , which was their goal, all along.

 

[Peter James Bond II]

I assume your aunt had a prescription. If Mike doesn't, then that's starts getting into the area of illegal possession/use/distribution of a control substance, something that most definitely could lead to termination of a professional athletes contract.

I am wondering if he was with someone and they were both under the influence. That would be possession, use and distribution (to the other person) .

 

[Omni Owl]

THE NHLPA will point out that the Kings skipped a part of the CBA , that when a player is arrested and drugs are involved, the go to phase 1, which is the player enters a drug treatment program with full pay.
(this part of the CBA was explained on Macramalla's radio show today in a short segment )

THey Kings skipped the protocol and other steps involved and went right to termination.
They can't use part of the CBA to suit their needs and skip other parts.

WHen this first happened, my first thought was that The Kings were trying to avoid the payout and figured a settlement between the parties would do that.

both DL and Soloman are very smart guys. I think back in jan. when Richards was on waivers, the owners told them if all else failed, they did not want a full payout, to find a loophole.

And I think Solomen did just that, the 'fitness' para. I think that's why they dragged Richards back in March for the 'testing' so they could argue those results, measurable metrics, when they put in for the termination.

I think they knew they had no shot at winning the case or the contract termination, their goal was to get the buyout reduced, that an arbitrator would rule for a lesser settlement.

The border incident fell into their laps, but it doesn't change the end result.
The NHLPA will argue they should have gone thru the agreed upon steps for this situation, and Richards should have gone to PHase 1, not full contract termination.

THis might not even to go arbitration, if the NHLPA points that out and the Kings argue for a settlement.

I think the end result wont' change, the Kings won't win the termination, but they will most likely get a much lesser payout, and save $$ over the next several years on the CAP , which was their goal, all along.

Nicely put. I was just thinking about this today. The Kings aren't going to win the case, but the goal was to reduce the ridiculous 10 year buyout period, which would no doubt cripple the team in the future.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

THE NHLPA will point out that the Kings skipped a part of the CBA , that when a player is arrested and drugs are involved, the go to phase 1, which is the player enters a drug treatment program with full pay.
(this part of the CBA was explained on Macramalla's radio show today in a short segment )

THey Kings skipped the protocol and other steps involved and went right to termination.

We don't know the whole story. It could very easily be a lot more than bringing pills across a border

 

[417th]

I see allot of people saying things like the Kings wont win this case etc but what are we actually basing this on? It surely isn't a complete review of the entirety of the facts. So all we are capable of doing as of this time is say what we think or feel could be the case but using speculation to try and make a factual conclusion is never going to be right. So we debate our opinions but not the facts or not enough of them to actually make an intelligent and complete argument where any reasonable conclusion can be derived.

 

[Omni Owl]

I see allot of people saying things like the Kings wont win this case etc but what are we actually basing this on? It surely isn't a complete review of the entirety of the facts. So all we are capable of doing as of this time is say what we think or feel could be the case but using speculation to try and make a factual conclusion is never going to be right. So we debate our opinions but not the facts or not enough of them to actually make an intelligent and complete argument where any reasonable conclusion can be derived.

I'm basing it on prior history. Its extremely rare for a contract to be terminated outright in professional sports. Refer to deesh's post for some sense on the matter.

 

[JCabranes]

THE NHLPA will point out that the Kings skipped a part of the CBA , that when a player is arrested and drugs are involved, the go to phase 1, which is the player enters a drug treatment program with full pay.
(this part of the CBA was explained on Macramalla's radio show today in a short segment )

THey Kings skipped the protocol and other steps involved and went right to termination.
They can't use part of the CBA to suit their needs and skip other parts.

WHen this first happened, my first thought was that The Kings were trying to avoid the payout and figured a settlement between the parties would do that.

both DL and Soloman are very smart guys. I think back in jan. when Richards was on waivers, the owners told them if all else failed, they did not want a full payout, to find a loophole.

And I think Solomen did just that, the 'fitness' para. I think that's why they dragged Richards back in March for the 'testing' so they could argue those results, measurable metrics, when they put in for the termination.

I think they knew they had no shot at winning the case or the contract termination, their goal was to get the buyout reduced, that an arbitrator would rule for a lesser settlement.

The border incident fell into their laps, but it doesn't change the end result.
The NHLPA will argue they should have gone thru the agreed upon steps for this situation, and Richards should have gone to PHase 1, not full contract termination.

THis might not even to go arbitration, if the NHLPA points that out and the Kings argue for a settlement.

I think the end result wont' change, the Kings won't win the termination, but they will most likely get a much lesser payout, and save $$ over the next several years on the CAP , which was their goal, all along.

I think that it is wholly dependent on the nature of the border incident, and to an extent the consequences. Simple possession gets resolved in a way, like Soll, that doesn't impact his ability to remain in the U.S. Possession with Intent is a deferent kettle of fish. The dividing line is generally how many pills did he have on him. If he can't cross the border he can't perform the services for which he has been contracted and that will be the justification for the termination.

I do think that there is an economic angle to this. As a rule the arrest itself shouldn't make him inadmissible. That comes with a drug conviction. So Dean may have jumped the gun because there was no time to see how this would play out. If you don't terminate the contract you buy him out then you can't at a later date terminate the contract. Dean was caught in a catch 22, terminate prematurely or take the cap hit over the next decade.

It's going to be interestingt to see how this plays out.

 

[kingsfan]

THE NHLPA will point out that the Kings skipped a part of the CBA , that when a player is arrested and drugs are involved, the go to phase 1, which is the player enters a drug treatment program with full pay.
(this part of the CBA was explained on Macramalla's radio show today in a short segment )

THey Kings skipped the protocol and other steps involved and went right to termination.
They can't use part of the CBA to suit their needs and skip other parts.

WHen this first happened, my first thought was that The Kings were trying to avoid the payout and figured a settlement between the parties would do that.

both DL and Soloman are very smart guys. I think back in jan. when Richards was on waivers, the owners told them if all else failed, they did not want a full payout, to find a loophole.

And I think Solomen did just that, the 'fitness' para. I think that's why they dragged Richards back in March for the 'testing' so they could argue those results, measurable metrics, when they put in for the termination.

I think they knew they had no shot at winning the case or the contract termination, their goal was to get the buyout reduced, that an arbitrator would rule for a lesser settlement.

The border incident fell into their laps, but it doesn't change the end result.
The NHLPA will argue they should have gone thru the agreed upon steps for this situation, and Richards should have gone to PHase 1, not full contract termination.

THis might not even to go arbitration, if the NHLPA points that out and the Kings argue for a settlement.

I think the end result wont' change, the Kings won't win the termination, but they will most likely get a much lesser payout, and save $$ over the next several years on the CAP , which was their goal, all along.

Do teams or the league have to tell the public if someone was ever in the substance abuse treatment program under step one? If not, is it possible Richards was already in it? Can you be it and not be suspended?

 

[Nizar]

Maybe he has alreday been in the program, which means that dry island was the real thing.

 

[moosehead81]

THE NHLPA will point out that the Kings skipped a part of the CBA , that when a player is arrested and drugs are involved, the go to phase 1, which is the player enters a drug treatment program with full pay.
(this part of the CBA was explained on Macramalla's radio show today in a short segment )

THey Kings skipped the protocol and other steps involved and went right to termination.
They can't use part of the CBA to suit their needs and skip other parts.

WHen this first happened, my first thought was that The Kings were trying to avoid the payout and figured a settlement between the parties would do that.

both DL and Soloman are very smart guys. I think back in jan. when Richards was on waivers, the owners told them if all else failed, they did not want a full payout, to find a loophole.

And I think Solomen did just that, the 'fitness' para. I think that's why they dragged Richards back in March for the 'testing' so they could argue those results, measurable metrics, when they put in for the termination.

I think they knew they had no shot at winning the case or the contract termination, their goal was to get the buyout reduced, that an arbitrator would rule for a lesser settlement.

The border incident fell into their laps, but it doesn't change the end result.
The NHLPA will argue they should have gone thru the agreed upon steps for this situation, and Richards should have gone to PHase 1, not full contract termination.

THis might not even to go arbitration, if the NHLPA points that out and the Kings argue for a settlement.

I think the end result wont' change, the Kings won't win the termination, but they will most likely get a much lesser payout, and save $$ over the next several years on the CAP , which was their goal, all along.

I agree this may have been the end plan; the Kings may not care about the buy-out immediate cost to get rid of the contract (some 14-15 million over 10 years) but permanently lowering the cap hit arising from the buy-out is likely a win in their eyes. My question is; how would the league (the other 29 teams) react to a conclusion such as this. Once established, contract termination resulting in lowering cap hit becomes a norm, and my sense would be that both the league owners (and the NHLPA) would not sit still for a conclusion such as you suggest. Its a route to cap circumvention. Your thoughts?

PS Maybe at the end Mike Richards gets his buy-out and the Kings get a lower cap hit, but the league and the NHLPA would then maybe negotiate a CBA amendment or something to eliminate or at least reduce the likelihood of another team trying the same route.?

 

[KingsCourt]

truly is funny reading the main boards...i find so funny, why is eveyone so interested in this, non kings fans pulling out text books, researching, tweeting lawyers and i bet they don't this for their family things..lol ...
i'm fan, and i have lost interest, whatever happens, happens...all i know Dean is ultra conservative, smart guy if he did this, there's method to the madness.

 

[driller1]

My question is; how would the league (the other 29 teams) react to a conclusion such as this. Once established, contract termination resulting in lowering cap hit becomes a norm, and my sense would be that both the league owners (and the NHLPA) would not sit still for a conclusion such as you suggest. Its a route to cap circumvention. Your thoughts?
?

Other teams would love it. They all want to do away with guaranteed contracts. This is one step towards that goal.

No one cares about the Kings cap situation.

 

[moosehead81]

Other teams would love it. They all want to do away with guaranteed contracts. This is one step towards that goal.

No one cares about the Kings cap situation.

I agree with you on the guaranteed contract issue; respectfully disagree on the salary cap issue. Guarantees on salary limits are what keeps many teams in the league. And you've failed to recognize that any attempt to eliminate guaranteed contracts outside negotiated terms within the current CBA would bring an all-out war with the NHLPA.

 

[driller1]

I agree with you on the guaranteed contract issue; respectfully disagree on the salary cap issue. Guarantees on salary limits are what keeps many teams in the league. And you've failed to recognize that any attempt to eliminate guaranteed contracts outside negotiated terms within the current CBA would bring an all-out war with the NHLPA.

Agree salary limits (cap) is good for the overall good of the league. Agree this MR situation will be toxic for NHLPA-NHL relations.

I still maintain that other teams look at their own cap situation and couldn't care less if the Kings are on the hook for $1.32MM (termination) or $1.2+MM (buyout) on salary cap.

The big picture precedent of this case for other teams far outweighs whatever Kings specific problems result from the decision.

 

[bob77]

Unknown whether the NHL's position is "yes, this is an absolute material breach by Richards", or "yes, the Kings have filled in all the right boxes to terminate Richards contract for a material breach".

I'm personally inclined to think it's the later for the sole reason that we haven't seen a player's contract unilaterally terminated for material breach in the salary cap era. A lot of contracts have been terminated, but they've all been mutual. e.g. player assigned to AHL, player refuses to report--deliberately breaching their contract--and both the player and team are happy with the contract being terminated.

There is no modern precedent for terminating a contract this way for the NHL lawyers to feel confident on its success or failure. But I think the NHL would be happy with the idea of contracts being less guaranteed. So the league could be fine with the Kings attempting this termination regardless of whether or not their internal lawyers are confident of surviving a PA grievance.

I tend to think your way as well about the Kings have filled out the correct boxes, etc. and thus, because paper work is in order, the next steps happen, like the cap recapture penalty, the UFA status now of Mike, etc. it's just the league doing its job at this point. If arbitration leads to the contract being reinstated, then the league will do its job again, and Mike's salary will be reinstated for him, and the salary cap AAV will be back at $5.75! The league won't just be able to say, the Kings only have to pay Mike, but the cap hit is only the recapture!! The PA will demand the entire $5.75 back on the books! If this is not done, there would be no reason for teams in the future to go down this same path and benefit cap wise. The PA won't stand for it.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

. If arbitration leads to the contract being reinstated, then the league will do its job again, and Mike's salary will be reinstated for him, and

Elliot Friedman thinks that if the NHL loses the arbitration, it'll just count as a buyout