Kings terminating Mike Richards contract for material breach [upd: grievance filed]

[mouser]

http://www.tsn.ca/kings-terminate-richards-contract-1.321143

The team announced the decision on Monday with a statement that reads: “The Los Angeles Kings today have exercised the team’s right to terminate the contract of Mike Richards for a material breach of the requirements of his Standard Player’s Contract. We are not prepared to provide any more detail or to discuss the underlying grounds for the contract termination at this time.”

Richards was placed on unconditional waivers on Sunday and cleared on Monday. The Kings were expected to buy out the remainder of Richards' contract, but instead have pursued termination.

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. There will undoubtedly be a grievance filed immediately by the PA. Most likely speculation is the team is doing this based on Richards training/conditioning.

As this seems to be venturing into new ground on the CBA and contracts I thought it was worthy of its own BoH thread. Please keep any discussion here BoH relevant. There's a Richards thread on the Trade forum if you want to discuss any non-BoH aspects.

Click to read more...

 

[YoungGuns]

so did they just shed 5.75 mil off their payroll and cap hit? how is that possible?

 

[Teemu]

so did they just shed 5.75 mil off their payroll and cap hit? how is that possible?

Strictly speaking, from the CBA

Richards can only challenge the decision through an arbitrator--the commissioner of the NHL

 

[mouser]

The PA is going to fight this tooth and nail. If the termination stands it would create a precedent that guaranteed contracts aren't as guaranteed as they appeared to be.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

If NHL upholds this ruling in arbitration ,, Could we see NHLPA strike?

 

[tsanuri]

Could this lead to a player strike?

Doubt it. That is what the CBA is there for. Suspecting the first step will be a grievance by the NHLPA. Then it will go to an arbitrator and most likely will end up in court. Unless arbitration is binding. And even in that case there are times when one party or the other can get out of it.

But you have to think the Kings did this full well knowing exactly what will happen. And even talking with the league about it first.

 

[dj4aces]

The PA is going to fight this tooth and nail. If the termination stands it would create a precedent that guaranteed contracts aren't as guaranteed as they appeared to be.

If NHL upholds this ruling in arbitration ,, Could we see NHLPA strike?

I think there's a lot of gun jumping going on here. Let's wait and see if the Kings even have a leg to stand on. Remember too, the CBA was accepted by the Players Association. They knew this would be a possibility eventually

 

[tsanuri]

And just something to think about. Lawyers make mistakes but usually know if they have a leg to stand on when they might be facing a court case for something they choose to do. Doesn't mean they will win but they feel they have a case.

 

[Slot]

http://www.tsn.ca/kings-terminate-richards-contract-1.321143


Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. There will undoubtedly be a grievance filed immediately by the PA. Most likely speculation is the team is doing this based on Richards training/conditioning.

As this seems to be venturing into new ground on the CBA and contracts I thought it was worthy of its own BoH thread. Please keep any discussion here BoH relevant. There's a Richards thread on the Trade forum if you want to discuss any non-BoH aspects.

Wow it would have to be pretty terrible (in my opinion) for a team to actually go out and hit a player with material breach considering some of the other things that are making their way through the courts right now (drug possession and domestic abuse allegations) that didn't result in an immediate material breach termination of contract.

 

[FlareKnight]

And just something to think about. Lawyers make mistakes but usually know if they have a leg to stand on when they might be facing a court case for something they choose to do. Doesn't mean they will win but they feel they have a case.

Lawyers are also employees and if the client paying them a hefty salary tells them to argue a case....they'll argue it even if the ground they are standing on is pretty shaky.

 

[Fugu]

The PA is going to fight this tooth and nail. If the termination stands it would create a precedent that guaranteed contracts aren't as guaranteed as they appeared to be.

Should be interesting to see how this evolves. LA doesn't have much cap room, so you could see why they're trying to be creative-- if there's nothing the rest of us would consider "material" in nature.

 

[tsanuri]

Wow it would have to be pretty terrible (in my opinion) for a team to actually go out and hit a player with material breach considering some of the other things that are making their way through the courts right now (drug possession and domestic abuse allegations) that didn't result in an immediate material breach termination of contract.

Stoll is a free agent so the team doesn't have any money left to pay him. And since you obviously haven't kept up he made a plea to two misdemeanors and neither was a drug charge. It was basically criminal trespass and nuisance.
And the other one they are letting it work through the courts. And has been suspended by the league since the day it happened.
If Stoll wasn't a free agent they might have done exactly this. But why go through the hassle when you're done paying him.
And if Voynov is found guilty I would expect this same clause to be used. And we don't know what will happen even if he is acquitted.

 

[tsanuri]

Lawyers are also employees and if the client paying them a hefty salary tells them to argue a case....they'll argue it even if the ground they are standing on is pretty shaky.

In this case both of them work for the team. One is the chief council the other the GM. And arguing a case even if they don't believe it is part of their job.

 

[tsanuri]

This is very interesting.

 

[Teemu]

Looks like that might be 1.35M for the next 5 seasons

 

[seanlinden]

Here's what has me confused...

I get that Lombardi was/is desperate. However, if this was about Richards not showing up in good enough shape, it seems like a pretty dumb move. He didn't show up 50lbs overweight, he was never suspended for violation of team rules, and they cannot require him to train in LA for the summer without requiring the whole team to. He'll lose the grievance anyways, but now has to deal with the uncertainty of that, as well as being the GM who tried to screw a player out of ~$10m.

On the flip side, if this is something like substance abuse related, doesn't the NHL & PA have a program for that?

 

[Slot]

Stoll is a free agent so the team doesn't have any money left to pay him. And since you obviously haven't kept up he made a plea to two misdemeanors and neither was a drug charge. It was basically criminal trespass and nuisance.
And the other one they are letting it work through the courts. And has been suspended by the league since the day it happened.
If Stoll wasn't a free agent they might have done exactly this. But why go through the hassle when you're done paying him.
And if Voynov is found guilty I would expect this same clause to be used. And we don't know what will happen even if he is acquitted.

You're right re Stoll (I also understand that he is UFA), but the sentiment still holds, what exactly does one have to do to be in material breach of their contracts when held up against some pretty hefty allegations of misconduct and not a peep.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Stoll is a free agent so the team doesn't have any money left to pay him. And since you obviously haven't kept up he made a plea to two misdemeanors and neither was a drug charge. It was basically criminal trespass and nuisance.
And the other one they are letting it work through the courts. And has been suspended by the league since the day it happened.
If Stoll wasn't a free agent they might have done exactly this. But why go through the hassle when you're done paying him.
And if Voynov is found guilty I would expect this same clause to be used. And we don't know what will happen even if he is acquitted.

Richards doesn't even have a legal case against him, so obviously the termination isn't linked to the criminal charge (or plea).

 

[Sharpshooter]

The Luongo Rule!

 

[Freudian]

Is this a unilateral thing or did the league review the case and approve the termination?

 

[Fugu]

Here's what has me confused...

I get that Lombardi was/is desperate. However, if this was about Richards not showing up in good enough shape, it seems like a pretty dumb move. He didn't show up 50lbs overweight, he was never suspended for violation of team rules, and they cannot require him to train in LA for the summer without requiring the whole team to. He'll lose the grievance anyways, but now has to deal with the uncertainty of that, as well as being the GM who tried to screw a player out of ~$10m.

On the flip side, if this is something like substance abuse related, doesn't the NHL & PA have a program for that?

Yes, the CBA has some steps that spell out what teams can do, perhaps prior to seeking termination of a contract. Suspension seems the obvious first step if a player is out of shape, or otherwise unable to perform, including being sent to a program IF substance abuse is an issue. (Let's not go there though as we have no idea is this is relevant in THIS case. Just spelling out the process.)

Is this a unilateral thing or did the league review the case and approve the termination?

Teams have the right to suspend or seek termination without getting NHL approval. Of course, they might consult with Daly to make sure their interpretation of the CBA is the correct one. It's not known IF they talked to the league.

 

[seanlinden]

Yes, the CBA has some steps that spell out what teams can do, perhaps prior to seeking termination of a contract. Suspension seems the obvious first step if a player is out of shape, or otherwise unable to perform, including being sent to a program IF substance abuse is an issue. (Let's not go there though as we have no idea is this is relevant in THIS case. Just spelling out the process.)

Yeah, so I guess what I'm digging at is...

What could he have possibly done that would make Lombardi think he has legal ground to stand on?

Lombardi's ability to sign free agents will undoubtedly take a hit here. If it's as simple as him not being in good enough shape and loses, then he looks even worse and it puts him in a worse position from a cap management standpoint... so there must be something strong to go off of?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

If the PA files an appeal and wins, could the Kings get stuck over the cap?

(Theoretically)

 

[Fugu]

Yeah, so I guess what I'm digging at is...

What could he have possibly done that would make Lombardi think he has legal ground to stand on?

Lombardi's ability to sign free agents will undoubtedly take a hit here. If it's as simple as him not being in good enough shape and loses, then he looks even worse and it puts him in a worse position from a cap management standpoint... so there must be something strong to go off of?

I would agree. Teams have suspended players for showing up out of shape, and then they go off and exercise, and report back, get reinstated.

Richards has not been suspended, but more interestingly, this is the off-season, so it's not like they can say he showed up to camp out of shape. If it had happened during the season, why no suspension? They certainly needed the cap relief at that time.

I personally have to think it would need to be a fairly egregious violation, and not easily remedied since he has 5 (?) yrs remaining on his contract. Something that is a temporary issue surely can't warrant the termination, sans suspension anywhere along the way, of the entire term.

 

[Fugu]

If the PA files an appeal and wins, could the Kings get stuck over the cap?

(Theoretically)

The Kings would have to buy him out. The next question is if they could still have a buy out if this has to go to arbitration before resolution. Buyouts can only happen during a brief window (right now). If his contract and status are in question, he can't hit the UFA market.

If they buy him out, they get hit with the buyout hit (10 yrs, 2/3rds remaining amount). If they do not buy him out and the termination is nixed, they're stuck with his full cap hit.