Mike Richards VIII Kings vs NHLPA

[Raccoon Jesus]

The grievance arbitration doesn't have to wait until Richard's legal case is resolved.

And even so, it can still only account for events leading up to the time of the termination, right?

But jesus, like we need TWO indefinite legal situations. What a ****ing pain in the ass.

With a pending legal case and charges on the table, would Richards, if reinstated, be suspended like Voynov was?

 

[deeshamrock]

Yes. As in the USA, both sides are entitled to "disclosure." ("Discovery" are documents and evidence that is part of "disclosure.")

The assumption that test results have not been provided to defense is probably a correct one. That's probably what they are waiting for, and December 8 was the earliest court date available and they figured whatever needed to be turned over to the defense would be accomplished at that time.

Disclosure 101 lesson completed.

Thanks Professor...Student satisfied and housing the new knowledge appropriately.

Hopefully on the 8th , he'll plea and the judge will slap a fine and then it'll be over.

 

[mouser]

And even so, it can still only account for events leading up to the time of the termination, right?

But jesus, like we need TWO indefinite legal situations. What a ****ing pain in the ass.

With a pending legal case and charges on the table, would Richards, if reinstated, be suspended like Voynov was?

Possible, though I would think it makes more sense for the league to treat it like any other SABH issue. That's what they're supposed to be doing with Richards right now as a result of his arrest for possession.

 

[KINGS17]

And even so, it can still only account for events leading up to the time of the termination, right?

But jesus, like we need TWO indefinite legal situations. What a ****ing pain in the ass.

With a pending legal case and charges on the table, would Richards, if reinstated, be suspended like Voynov was?

I suppose the grievance arbitration hearing can go forward, but if the U.S. won't issue a work visa to Richards, how is he not in material breach of the contract?

Shouldn't Richards be trying to get his visa right now? If he was denied a work visa, wouldn't that be a key piece to figuring out his status for the arbitration hearing?

If the arbitration hearing wants to only focus on what had happened up until the time of contract termination, they are missing the point.

I don't see Richards cap hit, other than the re-capture penalty, being on the Kings this season. This guy is going to be in immigration limbo, and may not be allowed to cross into the U.S.

 

[Ron*]

Who the **** names their kid Hymie?

 

[Reclamation Project]

That is one hardcore ****ing Jewish name.

 

[moosehead81]

Hopefully on the 8th , he'll plea and the judge will slap a fine and then it'll be over.

May not mean much as far as a plea goes, but his lawyer is David Humphrey of Toronto, reportedly one of the best criminal lawyers in Canada.

From the CBC news report- "The matter involving Richards, 30, has been remanded until Dec. 8 in Emerson, Man., according to Winnipeg lawyer Hymie Weinstein, who appeared in court on Thursday as an agent for Toronto lawyer David Humphrey."

 

[kingsfan]

The grievance arbitration doesn't have to wait until Richard's legal case is resolved.

Perhaps, but it will unless the timing forces them to settle it before then and we all know that.

Who the **** names their kid Hymie?

Mr. and Mrs. Weinstein.

I suppose the grievance arbitration hearing can go forward, but if the U.S. won't issue a work visa to Richards, how is he not in material breach of the contract?

Shouldn't Richards be trying to get his visa right now? If he was denied a work visa, wouldn't that be a key piece to figuring out his status for the arbitration hearing?

Perhaps. However the NHLPA is likely to argue that it's not Richards fault for not being able to get a visa and he's doing everything in his power to get one, thus he can't be in material breach for something out of his control.

Obviously that may not be the case at all and odds are pretty good that Richards did do something to cost him his visa but the NHLPA will argue that isn't proven in a court of law yet so it's an unfair jump to say someone is guilty on assumption alone.

The fact the NHLPA didn't grieve Voynov but is grieving Richards also says something I feel about how they think the situation will play out based on the information they have, which is undoubtedly more conclusive than what we have heard yet.

 

[kingsfan]

When your lawyer has a lawyer that's some serious legal firepower.

 

[Herby]

So, the NHLPA things Voynov has no chance and Richards is going to be reinstated?

Worst case scenario for the Kings.

Hopefully this drags on a little so when the Kings suspend Richards for 6 months his return would be after the playoffs when the cap is not in play.

I don't know how Richards sleeps at night.

 

[Herby]

Actually, he started off that season really well. Two Months in he was tied for the team lead in points on Dec. 11, 2013 after a 2-point night in Toronto (27 points in 32 games). Then he didn't score another point for 8 games...scored 14 more POINTS in the remaining 50 games. Amazingly he had 10 points in 26 playoff games, but by that time he was getting 4th line minutes.

The points were there early, which helps when you play with someone like Carter and get significant PP time. But he was liability in the defensive zone that entire season, and just got worse and worse as the season went along. The Kings had to make the change because Richards was dragging Carter down with him.

 

[kingsfan]

I don't know how Richards sleeps at night.

 

[theMajor]

I don't know how Richards sleeps at night.

well my knowledge is limited, but I am under the impression that Oxy is a downer/pain killer/expensive sleep aid

 

[Herby]

well my knowledge is limited, but I am under the impression that Oxy is a downer/pain killer/expensive sleep aid

Well that explains it.

Richards felt so bad about stealing $14m the last two seasons from the Kings that he was having trouble sleeping so he started using Oxy.

I apologize.

 

[mouser]

Perhaps, but it will unless the timing forces them to settle it before then and we all know that.

How do we all know that? If the Kings justification for the termination is lack of notice for example, then it doesn't matter in the grievance whether Richards was later charged and possibly convicted.

The fact the NHLPA didn't grieve Voynov but is grieving Richards also says something I feel about how they think the situation will play out based on the information they have, which is undoubtedly more conclusive than what we have heard yet.

The Voynov situation was pretty clear cut that the CBA explicitly grants the NHL the option to suspend a player involved in a criminal investigation. Reportedly the PA agreed on the NHL's decision to suspend Voynov with pay. If there eventually is a PA grievance for Voynov I imagine it will happen after the NHL announces their discipline.

 

[Model62]

How do we all know that? If the Kings justification for the termination is lack of notice for example, then it doesn't matter in the grievance whether Richards was later charged and possibly convicted.



The Voynov situation was pretty clear cut that the CBA explicitly grants the NHL the option to suspend a player involved in a criminal investigation. Reportedly the PA agreed on the NHL's decision to suspend Voynov with pay. If there eventually is a PA grievance for Voynov I imagine it will happen after the NHL announces their discipline.

And contract termination >>>>>>> suspension with pay.

 

[tsanuri]

When your lawyer has a lawyer that's some serious legal firepower.

Not really.
It's attributed to Lincoln, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." He was also a lawyer.

 

[kingsfan]

How do we all know that? If the Kings justification for the termination is lack of notice for example, then it doesn't matter in the grievance whether Richards was later charged and possibly convicted.



The Voynov situation was pretty clear cut that the CBA explicitly grants the NHL the option to suspend a player involved in a criminal investigation. Reportedly the PA agreed on the NHL's decision to suspend Voynov with pay. If there eventually is a PA grievance for Voynov I imagine it will happen after the NHL announces their discipline.

We know that because its simple logic. Unless you think you have a slam dunk case, which I doubt either honestly think they do, you wait to see as much information as possible. The outcome of any court decision is information that could potentially be used, especially if the termination is based on what happened at the border, as it appears likely.

If its possible to wait for the outcome, they will. I'm not sure if the arbitration process allows them to wait however.

As for Voynov, it's the same thing. While Richards wasn't formally charged at the border, he was under investigation, the same as Voynov. Voynov wasn't formally charged until over two months later in December. Richards wasn't charged either until late July. But both were under investigation. The PA chose not to grieve not because they are waiting for NHL discipline,the NHL has already suspended him for a friggin year. They are waiting to see the outcome of Voynov's journey through the legal system.

 

[kingsfan]

Not really.
It's attributed to Lincoln, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." He was also a lawyer.

Representing yourself is totally different than having a lawyer represent your actual lawyer...

 

[Martyros]

Lewis... Career year.... and still sucks. I like him as a person though... seems like a cool guy.

The hate on Lewis and King by some you is outright ridiculous.

 

[KINGS17]

Perhaps. However the NHLPA is likely to argue that it's not Richards fault for not being able to get a visa and he's doing everything in his power to get one, thus he can't be in material breach for something out of his control.

Obviously that may not be the case at all and odds are pretty good that Richards did do something to cost him his visa but the NHLPA will argue that isn't proven in a court of law yet so it's an unfair jump to say someone is guilty on assumption alone.

The fact the NHLPA didn't grieve Voynov but is grieving Richards also says something I feel about how they think the situation will play out based on the information they have, which is undoubtedly more conclusive than what we have heard yet.

The entire situation was in the control of Mike Richards. If he can't get a visa, of course it's his fault. Nothing has to be proven in a court of law for the U.S. to deny entry to Richards.

 

[onlyalad]

And even so, it can still only account for events leading up to the time of the termination, right?

But jesus, like we need TWO indefinite legal situations. What a ****ing pain in the ass.

With a pending legal cae and charges on the table, would Richards, if reinstated, be suspended like Voynov was?

Nope new information can be added by either side at any time.
But all of us arm chair lawyers can speculate.
I will do so now.
Until the appeal is resolved Richards is a UFA. If he wins he is still a UFA but just paid better

 

[tsanuri]

The grievance arbitration doesn't have to wait until Richard's legal case is resolved.

But even though they are confidential could they be subpoenaed by the DA trying his case? If so he might not want a hearing until it is adjudicated.

 

[onlyalad]

But even though they are confidential could they be subpoenaed by the DA trying his case? If so he might not want a hearing until it is adjudicated.

That was my thought with Voynov

It is part of the reason I think Richards will be settle prior to arbitration. They can exclude the drug stuff for court reasons. If the arbiter hears the case every bad situation will be thrown out there

 

[kingsfan]

The entire situation was in the control of Mike Richards. If he can't get a visa, of course it's his fault. Nothing has to be proven in a court of law for the U.S. to deny entry to Richards.

You are correct, he can be denied a visa without court involvement. That's not what I am saying.

I am saying that if he can show that whatever happened at the border was not reasonably within his control then he isn't responsible for any material breach. If for example he's contending that someone put the bottle of pills in his car, without his consent or knowledge, it isn't his fault what happened at the border.

Remember, if this report of 'a bottle of pills' being found in his vehicle is true, we have no way of knowing whose bottle it is. What happens if the bottle has someone else's name on it? Richards might be arguing that while the bottle was in his car it wasn't his, he didn't know it was there and he would have thrown it away if he had.

For border security purposes they don't give a flying rats ass what your story is sometimes to deny you entry, but in terms of an arbitrator deciding if Richards committed material breach of a contract such a situation could matter if Richards can show he did everything within his power to not commit any breach of his contract.

Has anyone posted to show that a player with an already existing contract can have that contract nullified by losing his visa? Seems likely but I haven't seen anything to state that is true and if it isn't then it's possibly not a valid reason to terminate the contract.