Martyros
Allow me to retort
80% of the time I open a thread just to read your comments 90% of the time, and it satisfies me 120% of the time!
Mike Richards VI (UGH): The Armageddon Edition (MOD NOTE POST #1)
- Thread starter Reclamation Project
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
80% of the time I open a thread just to read your comments 90% of the time, and it satisfies me 120% of the time!
mouser
Business of Hockey
I didn't call you a name. I don't believe in that. I merely stated that you were a member of a class of poster here that really doesn't know what he/she is talking about. The class is quite large.
You are assuming quite a bit. Can you post a link, anywhere, where it says that he was using the drug? I doubt it.
This is the best example that you simply don't know what you are talking about. I quoted you a section of the CBA SPC and you choose to ignore it, if you read it at all.
So it is clear to me that discussing this issue with you is fruitless. If you choose to ignore logical, convincing arguments conveyed to you and then come to an illogical, unfounded conclusion that has no legal foundation, then we are done here.
Another Carter Snipe
Terminated User
So, the poster on prior page is claiming:
That the termination process is probably just a rubber stamp from the NHL with no further discretion provided,
That any details about Richards' possible problems and history were never discussed with trade partners,
What the basis of the termination is, despite most of the details not being made public,
and has provided no support.
But demands that Ron provide formal support for reporting arrests to your employer.
Ok.
That the termination process is probably just a rubber stamp from the NHL with no further discretion provided,
That any details about Richards' possible problems and history were never discussed with trade partners,
What the basis of the termination is, despite most of the details not being made public,
and has provided no support.
But demands that Ron provide formal support for reporting arrests to your employer.
Ok.
Last edited:
Personal experience, to begin with. As a federal law enforcement officer, if I was arrested, I had to notify my agency within 1 hour. One.
It was in our "Rules of Ethical Conduct." There are over one million police officers in this country, and they are all in the same boat. Get arrested, and you have to report it to your employing agency. If you don't, you are immediately canned.
I can't even begin to enumerate how many civilian employees are out there that contract with the federal government; the tentacles must reach out to over 10 million people in this country in some capacity. They are all governed by the same conduct rules: they must report arrests promptly to their employers. It's written into every contract and sub-contract and sub-sub-contract dealing with federal contracting provisions.
Now, that just governs the federal government, contracting, and state and local law enforcement. Think about it: if a pro sports team DIDN'T incorporate such a provision in their rules of conduct, how much liability would they face if they didn't act on a player's particular behavior? Attorneys are on the phone every day with multi-million dollar corporations, and it has to be the same with pro hockey clubs. Anyone who has been around the field of law for any length of time will tell you the same thing.
Thanks. It does get tiring. Sometimes I lack patience in explaining it but feel that it is still necessary for education. I have to realize that I have a lot of experience in the field and most people just don't, so in that sense it is a form of education.
But what gets me the most is people just don't think it through. The hockey experts that I have listened to the last few days agree that it isn't in the Kings' management make-up or personality to terminate a players' contract as some ploy to get out from under the CAP. Everyone who knows Dean Lombardi personally and the rest of the Kings' staff don't believe it for a second. And the fact that they were close to moving Richards at the time of learning of this incident is further proof of that.
I think people who hold such low opinions of others are either biased in their arguments or just not thinking it completely through.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Did you read my earlier post where I quoted the section of the CBA SPC?
I already explained to you how it works. Do you have the rules of conduct for the Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club readily available and can you point to me where such a conduct rules doesn't exist?
Because you are clearly implying that the Kings and the NHL acted improperly in terminating his contract. So, the burden actually lies with you to prove that assertion, not on me to defend it, or otherwise prove it one way or the other.
Waste of time. People are going to believe what they want to. I've explained it enough and two people refuse to get it.
All team rules and the electronic copies of the NHL rules distributed to the PA are not public documents, so obviously those cannot be obtained.
There are statements like this, however:
The Player agrees to:
"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."
So not reporting an arrest in general would not be honest, and would absolutely be conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, as they were pursuing trade options that were dropped as a result of finding out about what Richards hadn't told them as discussions were actually taking place. There isn't much to argue there, his actions absolutely impacted the best interests of the club.
There was also obvious breach under the morality and best interest of the league/professional hockey, and other other sections that require players to stay in shape, and to report for practices that the club may designate (when he refused to stay in LA for training). Being caught with drugs is another breach. It could be argued that all of these are minor breaches, but combined they are substantial.
Not notifying the Kings of his situation did multiple things that make it more serious.
1. His situation impacted the teams ability to trade him, which is a loss of a major benefit to a team.
2. It was an extreme act of dishonesty. It is very clear in the CBA and in the SPC that contracts can only be terminated in a very specific window.
The notice of termination shall be effective if given in the form attached as CBA
Exhibit 20, with a copy to the NHLPA and Central Registry as follows:
(i) beginning the later of June 15 or forty-eight (48) hours after the
conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals and ending at 5:00 p.m. New York time on June 30;
His offense took place on June 17, on the first available day for buyouts (Chicago won the cup on the 15th). Despite knowing his contract was likely going to be bought out and that the team was trying to trade him, Mike did not report the serious offense to the team - even though he knew the buyout window would end soon as written in his contract. The Kings did not find out until June 27 of the arrest, which halted trade talks. They waived him on the 28th, had to wait 24 hours, then terminated on the 29th, the day before the last day to do so. Had they not found out one day later, they would not have been able to take action. Not only is that damaging to the interests of the team and their roster, it is a deliberate deception to insure personal gain. That, right there, is Fraud.
That constitutes plenty of reason to terminate for material breach, not including any other information the team might have. It also shows just how silly the "timing is convenient and suspect" remarks I keep seeing on this board are, because the window to terminate contracts ended a day later. The Kings had to do it when they did, because Mike failed to appraise them of his situation where they could have made different arrangements.
Question as to why you care so much if the contract is or is not allowed to be terminated? Is it because it helps the Kings with the cap? Because you believe in guaranteed contracts?
I believe in being fair, the Kings should have to pay him or buy him out like every other team. My team didn't get this advantage so neither should the Kings.
KingPuckChoo
Go kinGs Go !
- Jun 24, 2007
- 10,130
- 4,059
curious...what is the NHL's official stance on this so far? is there one to begin with? hard to decipher all of this...
Not at all. The initial response was incredulity by most of the media. Something obviously more serious than a simple stop for a bottle of pills happened.
If it was trivial, we would have heard something by now, especially given he's represented by Newport. No, something more serious and ongoing is happening, which is why we won't probably hear a peep out of the NHLPA and Richards (outside of maybe a 'we plan to respond at the appropriate time') It's in Mike's best interests to stay quiet, just like it was in Slava's best interests not to answer the NHL's questions while his case was pending.
Who on your team did something even close to serious enough to have their contract potentially terminated?
417th
Pacifist Division
417th
Pacifist Division
It is stupifying how completely off base and lacking of any insight your responses are to even the most simply put informative posts. Your questions have been answered more than once here and in several different ways and yet you against all logic haven't come close to showing any signs of showing any ability to understand what has been being explained to you on even the most rudimentary of levels. It is actually sort of astonishing to read at this point.
If you haven't any interest in an exchange of ideas then why bother?
Speaking of fair how about a player living up to his end of the contract? I've read the majority of posts on this and the main board and can't believe how Richards is seen as a victim. Kings should have been able to terminate the contract for him showing up out of shape and refusing to train with the team.
Maybe I just see things differently as an employer, but any employee who is just there to collect a paycheck will be treated differently than those who actually put in the proper effort.
I don't know which team you support but I'm willing to bet anything they would have done the exact same thing Lombardi and the Kings did.
Maybe I just see things differently as an employer, but any employee who is just there to collect a paycheck will be treated differently than those who actually put in the proper effort.
I don't know which team you support but I'm willing to bet anything they would have done the exact same thing Lombardi and the Kings did.
417th
Pacifist Division
It's hilarious how people come in here to complain about how unfair the Kings are and when people give reasons to why it can be fair, they blindly say we are wrong and continue to complain. Why come to the Kings board, where the majority of us here are Kings fans, to tell us we are wrong? We get it, the NHL is biased and our staff is a bunch of cheaters and our captain is a dirty player. Thanks.
Perfectly said.
Perfectly said.
Came to post this question, why is there still the recapture hit of 1.3 mil if the contract has been voided?
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #90: 2024-2025 season part III- Latest: Beendair Donedat
-
