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

[KINGS17]

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.

Eventually, it's going to end in the next CBA when guaranteed contracts are eliminated.

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

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.

Employers are doing it more frequently for even items such as facebook posts etc. This is nothing new, just new to sports.

 

[KingClipper]

Eventually, it's going to end in the next CBA when guaranteed contracts are eliminated.

That will never happen, the players' union won't allow it.

 

[bob77]

Just curious, you seem pretty adamant that even if its criminal that the Kings shouldn't be allowed to terminate Richards, despite the conduct clause in the CBA. Just how bad a crime would it have to be for you to think terminating a player is acceptable? Murder?

I'm just surprised people are so against terminating a players contract even if serious criminal charges may be involved. I'm a pretty union supportive kind of guy but that's not unconditional. If this is as serious as people ares saying and the PA fights it I hope theres a huge backlash against the PA. There are points where employment should be ended for people who do things like seriously running afoul of the law, especially in high profile occupations like a pro athlete. I mean, a speeding ticket or getting in a fight in a bar, ok. But if a player is a rapist, a drug dealer, or running a dog fighting operation, screw em. (Not saying any of these specifically applies to Richards). People can say "well the timing sure is convenient. This sets a precedent for teams to terminate contracts they dont like when a player screws up." If a player doesn"t want that to risk contract termination, there's a simple solution - don't commit a serious crime.

I'm really torn on this situation with Richards. For his sake, I hope it isnt as serious as it seems to be. For the teams image as well. On the other hand, if this is a serious charge, its obviously better for the team if we can end his contract and its totally justified. Voynov (allegedly), Stoll, Richards... what happened to class and being character guys? I don't expect players to be angels, but come on. There's a character problem in the Kings locker room right now. It seems there are some bad apples on this team and its hurt the org and the teams ability to compete. They need to be disciplined or moved.

My point is more about the timing of the termination. Termination is very severe. If teams could just terminate over something that later on couldn't be proved, etc., but it benefited them in say the next 9 months or so, well some teams might chance that as an option. Termination should only be available when Mike is not able to attend practices and play games as his contract states. Perhaps part of the reason the Kings/NHL won't articulate why his contract was terminated is because their actual reasoning might be murky at best at this point. I don't know. Maybe to the players union they had to be specific about the termination reason as to why it constituted a breach. As time goes on here, and the investigation continues further, sure it might be easy for them to "edit" and "update" their reasoning as things become clearer. Hindsight is great. So, I'm not saying what actually happened shouldn't constitute termination. I'm saying should it actually be constituting termination now. I agree with most of your points though. In the future, maybe the CBA should specify more clearly exact reasons for termination. I doubt the players union ever would agree to rigid sort of reasons. But....

 

[Dawdler]

Are you? Come on you Spurs! I didn't know you were a fellow Yiddo. Do you ever watch games at the Greyhound?

I'm a Yiddo as well and I just found about the Greyhound at the end of this season and I live about 2 miles away from the place,

Nah, I'm a Spurs fan.

COYS!!

 

[drugold]

Someone find CNS, whatever someone thinks he knows about Mike Richards, he actually might

 

[CNS]

Someone find CNS, whatever someone thinks he knows about Mike Richards, he actually might

You've gotta say my name three times and click your heels for me to appear.

 

[Reclamation Project]

That poster supports Arsenal. That's reason enough to regard him as scum.

Nah, I'm a Spurs fan.

Are you? Come on you Spurs! I didn't know you were a fellow Yiddo. Do you ever watch games at the Greyhound?

Translation?

 

[KINGS17]

That will never happen, the players' union won't allow it.

Like it isn't allowed in the NFL? Each CBA the NHL owners take another step closer to the NFL model. The owners have already demonstrated that they have far more resolve than the players.

 

[Jason Squirties]

This is what I'm taking out of all of this as well, and is ultimately more important. DL always wanted to get the right guys, which had tons of character, a good upbringing (sadly why Patty O'Sullivan didn't make it), and were good in the locker room. I honestly feel like now that Mitchell is gone, there's a void in that locker room that can't be filled.

My gut tells me that Richards' contract won't be terminated because its a super rare thing to happen in professional sports.

It might be time to take a break from the forums. Seems to be getting to you a little bit.

That or you're taking on a chicken little approach.

 

[tsanuri]

There are very likely reporters that do know and have been given some if not all the details. But they were told on background. They don't want to burn their source for other things. So until it appears in something that is official they aren't saying anything.
No to mention there are rumors that the guys at Newport, have sent out warnings to the news agencies about reporting anything until such time as there are facts out there.
I'm shocked it has stayed under wraps this long and expect something to break in the near future just because there are too many people chasing this.

 

[Jason Squirties]

If anything, he's getting rid of the bad apples, or the bad apples are ridding themselves.

That'll ultimately give room to a cleaner slate.

 

[kingskring]

I'm waiting.....

 

[MsMeow]

James Duthie was on TSN Radio a little while ago and said 2 Kings' players asked him what was going on because they were in the dark.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

I'm waiting.....

 

[Captain Mittens*]

James Duthie was on TSN Radio a little while ago and said 2 Kings' players asked him what was going on because they were in the dark.

Wow


This has been contained as well as the identity of deep throat

 

[Jumptheshark]

NHLPA have a reported 28 days to appeal--they will wait till the 28th day to do it

 

[saintsnsoldiers]

I think if we had 2 legit trade partners for Richards and he did something to mess up his status as a player then the termination will stand. If we were on our way of getting him off the books and he messed that up we should be golden with the termination.

 

[gnarls barkley]

James Duthie was on TSN Radio a little while ago and said 2 Kings' players asked him what was going on because they were in the dark.

yeah, I find it really hard to believe that a border incident that is relatively common would have been kept under wraps this long without a leak

I don't think the media (and possibly even the Kings) knows a helluva lot more than they're telling us either

 

[Bandit]

What is semi telling is Richards and his team have said nothing.
Not "the truth will come out"
"My client will be video vindicated "
"There's two sides to every story"
"It's just a misunderstanding "

This is what is interesting to me as well. Seems like the type of thing the NHLPA would be all over like flies on **** if they thought there was even the slightest bit of a possibility that Richards is being treated unfairly.

 

[tsanuri]

NHLPA have a reported 28 days to appeal--they will wait till the 28th day to do it

They have 60 days actually. But I don't suspect it will take near that long to be filed.

17.2 Initiation.
(a) A Grievance may be initiated by the NHL or the NHLPA only.
(b) A Grievance must be initiated within sixty (60) days from the date of the
occurrence or non-occurrence of the event upon which the Grievance is based, or within sixty
(60) days from the date on which the facts of the matter became known or reasonably should
have been known to the party initiating the Grievance, whichever is later. A Player need not be
under an SPC to a Club at the time a Grievance relating to him arises or at the time such
Grievance is initiated or processed.

 

[theMajor]

I think if we had 2 legit trade partners for Richards and he did something to mess up his status as a player then the termination will stand. If we were on our way of getting him off the books and he messed that up we should be golden with the termination.

this is what I was thinking as well. interesting that youre the first person to bring it up (from what Ive read)

 

[YP44]

James Duthie was on TSN Radio a little while ago and said 2 Kings' players asked him what was going on because they were in the dark.

ruh-oh

 

[YP44]

This is what is interesting to me as well. Seems like the type of thing the NHLPA would be all over like flies on **** if they thought there was even the slightest bit of a possibility that Richards is being treated unfairly.

my guess is the PA is getting all information together too, and have told Richards to shut up

 

[sinister6000]

Putting Richards on the 4th line ruined his chances of being traded. There's a lot of people responsible for what happened to him, and the team. I don't think the kings are going to get away with terminating his contract.