Toggle sidebar

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Telos said:
I think the biggest disappointment over the whole situation is that there was the potential to trade him. There were teams that were remotely interested. Regardless of what happened, Richards screwed things up royally for himself.



Do tell.
Click to expand...

The thing is, which adds validity to the notion this is more serious, is Lombardi stopping negotiations once he heard something.

He felt as a lawyer, any negotiating with this information would be negotiating in bad faith.

Further, whatever it is, it ruined Richards' viability as a tradeable asset. Because if a trade DID go through, and this information came out later, then Lombardi would be in trouble.

So... I'm not going to venture a guess at what it could be. I don't know. But I do believe it had to be serious enough for Lombardi to go through this, instead of taking the easier and unethical path of making Richards someone else's problem.
 
I can't help but think there are some federal level investigations going on here.

I know some sports folks have heard "border issue", but the fact that it's a "serious" situation without an arrest is a red flag to me. The agencies and departments that control the borders don't report arrests or investigations until well after the fact.

If it is a homeland security issue, no one, including the Kings, is going to know what is exactly going on. The league or the team might get contacted about an investigation and a general description, but I seriously doubt any details would be given.

Yea, it's just a scenario, but it would explain a whole lot.
 
Also keep in mind that if there's a potential crime, there may not be an arrest because there's still an investigation. In other words, something fishy was going on at the border but nothing that would immediately warrant an arrest, but could still mean legal troubles.

Anyway, who contacted the Kings to let them know something happened? Richards? His agent?
 
this freaking suxxxxxxs....for everyone involved and I do mean us too, in a couple of weeks here we will have to invest thousands of dollars for seats for a team who was just going thru the "golden years " of the franchise and now none of us no how this will effect the team , and before you say these guys are pro's or these guys this or that none of us know what is next, but in your gut does this feel like a good thing ,hell no. There is a old saying 'be careful what you wish for ' well we got it , his contract is off the books and we can sign that 2nd pairing Dman, well big freaking deal this sux and it feels bad and I am really surprised at the stupid remarks and post that seem to celebrate when in reality there are a few ways this can go 1) richie has done something terrible and ruined his life or 2) DL is a sleaze bag lawyer who found a loophole he can exploit (I am not buying this )3) half of my favorite team is on drugs and headed for the sewer, crap not a good day lets hope the team gets thru this
 
Last edited:
Just saw this draft day picture. Wonder what he's thinking.

11667517_10153796782334239_9121268487165496723_n.jpg
 
King'sPawn said:
The thing is, which adds validity to the notion this is more serious, is Lombardi stopping negotiations once he heard something.

He felt as a lawyer, any negotiating with this information would be negotiating in bad faith.

Further, whatever it is, it ruined Richards' viability as a tradeable asset. Because if a trade DID go through, and this information came out later, then Lombardi would be in trouble.

So... I'm not going to venture a guess at what it could be. I don't know. But I do believe it had to be serious enough for Lombardi to go through this, instead of taking the easier and unethical path of making Richards someone else's problem.
Click to expand...

I was writing the very same post as above and stopped and went back to see if someone had already written this. (good post, KP) Lombardi is all about culture, honor and always talks about the players as his kids, basically. No way, does he do something out of his character. He did the right things (we will never know how many things and if he even contacted Mike) and one of them has already come out, by Chiarelli stating that DL went right to him and said "this (and he may have verbalized what it was or in a general sense) is going to come out...talks stop"

The Kings have AEG lawyers and also Solomon and I am sure all were consulted, before doing this filing. It was not like, "hey, lets try this and see if we can terminate the contract". They wouldn't do that, unless it was a serious breach.
 
kingsholygrail said:
Has there been a player more controversial on this board for more reasons than Mike Richards?

Everything from on-ice performance, to contract, to this now.
Click to expand...

I wasn't on here at the time, but I'd imagine Roenick had to have been loathed.

Also, Rob Blake is by far the most divisive player on here.
 
Could be as simple as Anschutz not wanting to pay for a buyout. That would explain last summer's decision and today's attempt to walk away from the deal.

Guess we'll find out soon enough.
 
King'sPawn said:
The thing is, which adds validity to the notion this is more serious, is Lombardi stopping negotiations once he heard something.

He felt as a lawyer, any negotiating with this information would be negotiating in bad faith.

Further, whatever it is, it ruined Richards' viability as a tradeable asset. Because if a trade DID go through, and this information came out later, then Lombardi would be in trouble.

So... I'm not going to venture a guess at what it could be. I don't know. But I do believe it had to be serious enough for Lombardi to go through this, instead of taking the easier and unethical path of making Richards someone else's problem.
Click to expand...

Gotta believe that an act that destroys your value as a tradeable asset would also qualify as a material breach of contract.
 
Model62 said:
Could be as simple as Anschutz not wanting to pay for a buyout. That would explain last summer's decision and today's attempt to walk away from the deal.

Guess we'll find out soon enough.
Click to expand...

Honestly, this has been my theory for some time. DL is taking the "fall" for Phil not wanting to pay the buyout (understandable).

I also think Pete is taking the fall for Wilson, but I digress.
 
kingsholygrail said:
Also keep in mind that if there's a potential crime, there may not be an arrest because there's still an investigation. In other words, something fishy was going on at the border but nothing that would immediately warrant an arrest, but could still mean legal troubles.

Anyway, who contacted the Kings to let them know something happened? Richards? His agent?
Click to expand...

hehe, i love puns.
 
KingLB said:
Honestly, this has been my theory for some time. DL is taking the "fall" for Phil not wanting to pay the buyout (understandable).

I also think Pete is taking the fall for Wilson, but I digress.
Click to expand...

Nah, way too simple of a theory. Once something went down and he became basically untradable they looked into how it effected his contract.They were already prepared for a buyout, but once he violated something in his contract they saw a possible solution and went forward. Will it work, who knows, but the Kings had every right to do so.Deans not taking the fall for anyone although I'm sure Uncle Phil can't be too happy.
 
kingsfan28 said:
Nah, way too simple of a theory. Once something went down and he became basically untradable they looked into how it effected his contract.They were already prepared for a buyout, but once he violated something in his contract they saw a possible solution and went forward. Will it work, who knows, but the Kings had every right to do so.Deans not taking the fall for anyone.
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor?
 
Telos said:
Just to re-iterate my point from the last thread, Eric Macramella (TSN legal analyst) claimed to know the reason behind the termination and believed that it wasn't enough to justify termination. Because it doesn't sound like the reason is THAT bad, this is going to have the aroma of underhandedness by the Kings organization until the true reason comes to light. It you team that with the fact that contract termination like this is unprecedented in the NHL, usually always has no hope to clear for virtually any reason, the result of this would open the flood gates on similar arguments, and it all just so happens to occur against the #1 thorn in our side and likely around the NHL, it just reeks of a desperate move. This is a nightmare scenario all around.



I agree on both sides. You have to think Lombardi feels he has a case, but on the other hand it is going to stink of a questionably ethical desperation move until the real reasons come to light. Just have to wait and see, but given the hill Lombardi has to climb to get it done it is going to be very unlikely we get out of this with a simple contract termination almost regardless of the reason, though we still need to know what that is, and who knows, maybe it is a slam dunk case, but unlikely, especially with some in the know with the experience saying it isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Is this guy a former defense attorney? If yes, they never think it sounds THAT bad. I don't know how much Bettman knows, but one could infer that he believes Dean is justified in terminating the contract.
 
AKAY47 said:
Herby, I completely agree on your Voynov thing. I actually said it before you (I think) but you can look at it from both sides of the spectrum. Lombardi knows about the backlash this will receive, especially considering Voynov will be looked at and people will say "Well, VV's contract isn't as bad as Mike Richards, so of course they're going to try to keep him".

Another way to look at it is, if what Voynov did isn't warranted enough for termination of contract, then you can only imagine what Mike Richards did. I'm not speculating, but you can guess it's worse than what Voynov did. Do both their contracts play a factor in who's getting terminated? Maybe.

Like say Richards was still playing high-quality hockey and his contract was better, do the Kings terminate the contract? That's a legit question. But, like I keep saying, we're all speculating here until we actually find out what he actually did.
Click to expand...

You can really screw up and be really good at your job and sometimes your employer will try to help, but if you really screw up and aren't doing a good job, yeah we know what happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom