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

[fsanford]

If MR is charged with a felony I am ok with what the Kings did. The news last night made no mention of any arrest or on-going investigation.

I hope no one else gets in trouble this summer, the Kings could be the only team with more criminal charges than shootout goals.

Well played Herby.

 

[Kings man 4 life]

Pure speculation and should be taken as much, but could it be possible that MR was the dude giving the team access to the drugs and DL found out about this? And as such not only doing illegal narcotics on his own but also creating a unhealthy work environment to the rest of the team? Could that be grounds for termination? Pure speculation on my part. If so we're going to have such a bad case of Philly fans saying "we told you so"...

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Pure speculation and should be taken as much, but could it be possible that MR was the dude giving the team access to the drugs and DL found out about this? Could that be grounds for termination? Pure speculation on my part.

It is more than that
We unequivocally know that something happened at the border and that the mounties are going to get to the bottom of whatever the hell is going on

 

[bob77]

The actual idea that some off ice thing that he has not been charged with anything should lead to a termination of a contract is absurb. Where do we draw the line? The Kings and NHL are really using the "termination" aspect very openly here to say the least. I for one would really like to see the contract go away and be terminated. It'd be great, no doubt. But this is setting a bad precedence to come up with practically any reason at all to just go ahead and start terminating your players because of something. At this point, there is no reason to believe that Mike Richards cannot show up and be available to attend practice and play games anywhere in the future. It might reach a point where he's not able to practice and play games, etc., but's it pure speculation at this point. Every team in the league could start surmising that a player might have a future problem to attend practices and play games, and then just terminate contracts. Like, oh, so and so has been drinking and partying too much this summer. He might be in rehab during the season. Let's terminate his contract. Where is the line drawn? I don't see this going through. It could be upheld at a future date if more happens that leads to him not being able to play. Also, the idea that is alluded to a little bit that all trades were off due to this is also ludicrous. It's all part of life. Let's take a more mundane situation, like someone playing tennis. You could just say, oh, he was playing tennis, and now he's hurt, and now we can't trade him, so let's just terminate his contract. Oh, a player blurted out racial slurs to the media, and now no one likes him in the whole wide world, and now we can't trade him, so let's just terminate his contract. Where does it end? When you sign a guy to a contract, you're also accepting some of the human traits and flaws that person might have to some extent. You just can't start going around and saying we're going to terminate a contract because someone isn't perfect anymore, at least in your eyes.

 

[Kings man 4 life]

It is more than that
We unequivocally know that something happened at the border and that the mounties are going to get to the bottom of whatever the hell is going on

Agreed, I'm just wondering if this was the other shoe falling. DL knew something was going on in the locker room, Stoll being one of the "users" and with the border incident DL now knows who has been the supplier/provider? Therefore causing harm not only to his ability to play but the rest of the team?

 

[agentfouser]

I don't know for sure, but given the privacy laws of Canada, he could have very well been arrested without public knowledge, since it appears that RCMP nor the Canadian Border Service are allowed to discuss it.

But I have to believe that the news would have leaked, from say, some clerk in the office that wants to break the news. So I don't know about an arrest. However, when you are talking the possibility of criminal charges being filed, you are talking about booking procedures. I know in several investigations in which I was the investigating officer, we let the defendants come in voluntarily for booking purposes.

That's what may have been done here for courtesy purposes.

DISCLAIMER: Keep in mind this is speculation, and discussed in a general manner and as a response to a poster's question, and is not libelous in any form to any person or any manner whatsoever.

A person can be detained and then given, as a courtesy, a future date to come in and get booked (fingerprints, mug photos, processing, etc.) rather than being arrested.

That is, of course, if Canadian authorities are similar to US authorities. Again, I am talking from personal experiences. Some bad ***** have to be arrested for safety purposes. Others can be given a courtesy based on the type of charges filed, their reliability to adhere to the criminal justice system, and other factors.

So, again, without making libelous claims or anything like that, it's worth pointing out some rules relating to Canadian passports.

10. (1) Without limiting the generality of subsections 4(3) and (4) and for the greater certainty, the Minister may revoke a passport on the same grounds on which he or she may refuse to issue a passport.
(2) In addition, the Minister may revoke the passport of a person who
(a) being outside Canada, stands charged in a foreign country or state with the commission of any offence that would constitute an indictable offence if committed in Canada;
(b) uses the passport to assist him in committing an indictable offence in Canada or any offence in a foreign country or state that would constitute an indictable offence if committed in Canada;
(c) permits another person to use the passport;
(d) has obtained the passport by means of false or misleading information; or
(e) has ceased to be a Canadian citizen.

Source

There's some ambiguity in the wording; it says that one cannot use a passport to assist in committing an indictable offense. I'm not sure if that means that one would have their passport revoked once they're found guilty of actually committing the offense (for which they would presumably have to be indicted and found guilty), or if the more important word there is "indictable," suggesting that it could be revoked if one is suspected, under investigation, or simply COULD BE indicted in a general sense.

And again, not saying that anyone did anything specific, but if there was an incident at the border and there's some suspicion of wrongdoing, then the Canadian government could revoke one's passport, making it impossible to be an NHL player, and therefore necessitating the termination of an NHL contract for material breach. And, it's possible to imagine or interpret this without charges even being filed or a conviction--but if the charges are not filed or the individual is not found guilty, then obviously the passport would be reinstated and in that case, the material breach would be made good. Who knows what would happen then.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Agreed, I'm just wondering if this was the other shoe falling. DL knew something was going on in the locker room, Stoll being one of the "users" and with the border incident DL now knows who has been the supplier/provider? Therefore causing harm not only to his ability to play but the rest of the team?

Going by the reactions of the tweets of the insiders who supposedly know, I get the feeling that it is not drug related

 

[tuker1980]

Pure speculation of my part... but being canadian, this is some weird case. Usually, simple drug related stuff at the border does NOT take a 2 weeks investigation...

Take this as example, it took CBSA about 6 working days to issue a press release.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=987899&tp=1

My gut tells me this is WAY bigger than simple narcotic possession (or pain killers).

 

[gnarls barkley]

Pure speculation of my part... but being canadian, this is some weird case. Usually, simple drug related stuff at the border does NOT take a 2 weeks investigation...

Take this as example, it took CBSA about 6 working days to issue a press release.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=987899&tp=1

My gut tells me this is WAY bigger than simple narcotic possession (or pain killers).

yep, this is exactly what I think too.

don't think it's nearly as clear cut as people are assuming - does no one remember all the media guys saying how complicated this could be when the news first broke?

 

[agentfouser]

Going by the reactions of the tweets of the insiders who supposedly know, I get the feeling that it is not drug related

Literally "wowzer."

 

[Kings man 4 life]

Pure speculation of my part... but being canadian, this is some weird case. Usually, simple drug related stuff at the border does NOT take a 2 weeks investigation...

Take this as example, it took CBSA about 6 working days to issue a press release.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=987899&tp=1

My gut tells me this is WAY bigger than simple narcotic possession (or pain killers).

If true then perhaps the NHLPA will consider it in their best interest to not even contest it and throw MR under the bus. But that begs the question if it was that bad how was an arrest not made?

 

[Omni Owl]

My gut tells me whatever he did, it won't be enough to terminate his contract.

 

[tuker1980]

If true then perhaps the NHLPA will consider it in their best interest to not even contest it and throw MR under the bus. But that begs the question if it was that bad how was an arrest not made?

The PA will challenge FOR SURE... no way it will let a precedent of this magnitude to be set... NEVER!!!

And also, if he's charged with anything, that will be made public anyway, so any grievance would probably not turn any unturn stones!

The first thing that came up was he runs a drugs operations or something that disgust me to the point I will not say.

 

[Scottkmlps]

If true then perhaps the NHLPA will consider it in their best interest to not even contest it and throw MR under the bus. But that begs the question if it was that bad how was an arrest not made?

Take a look at Aaron Hernandez, no I'm not saying it's murder, he wasn't arrested right off the bat. Hell, he wasn't even a suspect at the beginning. It's an ongoing investigation, so obviously there is enough evidence to proceed with an investigation, just not enough, yet, for any charges to be handed down and/or an arrest to be made.

 

[bob77]

Question.... NHLPA is going to look into this situation, as they should. Kings had to clear the termination with the NHL, so the NHL has already approved it. It also sounds like Richards is going to be a UFA tomorrow either way. Even if the NHLPA probe/legal shenanigans comes back with the Kings owing Richards some damages (some of the buyout pay) would that even effect the cap hit from the Kings perspective?

It sounds like to me the NHL ended the contract (will be disputed), ends in a termination cap hit.

Richards signing as a UFA will prevent his old contract from being reinstated, so all the Player's association can do is get him damages. Which won't necessarily have any effect on the Kings cap.

Also we should find out at the start of free agency what happened.... Richards will need to start telling teams what the issue is if he's looking for a new contract. At that point someone will probably let it slip.

I'm no lawyer, but at which point is the contract legally and fully terminated? Can one party unilaterally just declare a contract terminated, and then, that makes it so? To me, wouldn't the actual consummation of the "breach" be final when due course has ran its process? Also, I would imagine the players union is not only interested in protecting Mike Richards and his buyout money or collecting on his contract by actually being available to play, but also in not allowing the NHL to somehow grant cap relief to a team here in this situation. It may sound strange, but to the players union, if one team gets cap relief, then others might want it as well, and the way to get cap relief is to terminate players, so this is all intertwined. If the players union were to win at a much later date a few months from now, any contracts the Kings sign now believing they have cap space could all be negated and reversed, or the Kings might have to release players to get under the cap. I just see a court order coming out that this will be resolved later when the ability of Mike Richards to play in the NHL or not is clearer, and then the Kings will be able to terminate the contract. If a judge were to put this on hold or injunction, I would imagine it would be a US court? His contract is in the US?

 

[Reclamation Project]

Going by the reactions of the tweets of the insiders who supposedly know, I get the feeling that it is not drug related

What a tease.

 

[bob77]

My gut tells me whatever he did, it won't be enough to terminate his contract.

My gut thinks the same thing. I'm sure it might not be a good thing, but to terminate?

 

[bob77]

yep, this is exactly what I think too.

don't think it's nearly as clear cut as people are assuming - does no one remember all the media guys saying how complicated this could be when the news first broke?

I think the complicated part relates not to exactly what happened at the border, but how then all this can legally play out related to terminating his contract. Then other legal things, like, OK, if a court says the NHL can't terminate, then do the Kings get an extension to buy him out? In the end, the Kings might have to assign him to Ontario, and get all but $900K or so cap relief on his $5.75 hit. Then watch how complicated it becomes for the Kings to get under the cap if they have other players signed, like Sekera or something. This whole matter could become far more convoluted than the Voynov matter.

 

[YP44]

No one has responded to me on the main board, but imagine if Dl had traded richards at the draft and than after the deal said team terminated him.
What would people be saying then? Likely something about how dumb DL is for not terminating and the GM of the acquiring teams was a genius.

 

[Scottkmlps]

I think the complicated part relates not to exactly what happened at the border, but how then all this can legally play out related to terminating his contract. Then other legal things, like, OK, if a court says the NHL can't terminate, then do the Kings get an extension to buy him out? In the end, the Kings might have to assign him to Ontario, and get all but $900K or so cap relief on his $5.75 hit. Then watch how complicated it becomes for the Kings to get under the cap if they have other players signed, like Sekera or something. This whole matter could become far more convoluted than the Voynov matter.

I'm wondering if the Kings lose, and he gets assigned to the AHL and he doesn't report and they suspend him without pay, would his cap hit count? Or is that's grounds for termination?

 

[Reaper45]

So what's the latest? I've been at work since 4.

 

[Reaper45]

I'm wondering if the Kings lose, and he gets assigned to the AHL and he doesn't report and they suspend him without pay, would his cap hit count? Or is that's grounds for termination?

Failure to report is grounds for termination.

 

[gnarls barkley]

I think the complicated part relates not to exactly what happened at the border, but how then all this can legally play out related to terminating his contract. Then other legal things, like, OK, if a court says the NHL can't terminate, then do the Kings get an extension to buy him out? In the end, the Kings might have to assign him to Ontario, and get all but $900K or so cap relief on his $5.75 hit. Then watch how complicated it becomes for the Kings to get under the cap if they have other players signed, like Sekera or something. This whole matter could become far more convoluted than the Voynov matter.

my speculation is more along the lines of if whatever he did prevents him from playing in the US - what happens then? there's a whole ****load of unknown variables here I think, this is going to be clearly uncharted territory for the NHL and NHLPA

 

[kilowatt]

Why is all this **** happening with the Kings? Two "unprecedented" legal issues in one calendar year. Jesus.

 

[raswilliam]

Didnt the league have to ok this before the contract was terminated? That tells me it is something big. Just my 2 cents.