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

[bob77]

I'm curious about the cap implications of the various possible outcomes if this continues into the season. The obvious answer is that none of us know yet but I still wonder what would happen if Richards' contract is re-instated in full and the Kings are retroactively over the cap. I'm sure the league would do whatever they could to fix it but it could potentially be a huge issue. Even if they didn't apply the cap hit retroactively the Kings could still be over the cap from the date of the decision.

edit: If Voynov is deported and terminated this could be a non-issue but if both players become active by November would the Kings be over the cap with their current roster and if so by how much ?

The answer is you're counting pennies day to day at that point. That's how tight it is.

 

[tsanuri]

Thanks both of you Voynov's outcome should be determined before the Richards decision is made so the Kings should know pretty soon if they'll have to move someone. They'll probably want to keep at least 3.5m available just in case so I'm guessing a pretty substantial contract may be moved if Voynov returns. Or of course they could move Voynov out which I assume they'd like to do but they could only take about 1m in cap back which would make a good return difficult

I wouldn't count on that. Voynov is in now in the federal system and they move even slower than the state and county systems. Which took 2 months to charge him then 8 months before he decided to enter a plea.

 

[Tadite]

This may as well be called endless at this point. MR is looking at December for whatever happens with the Crown. God only knows how long or what happens after/before with the US side of things. Worse that's just best case! Dec is the early date!

 

[tomd]

This may as well be called endless at this point. MR is looking at December for whatever happens with the Crown. God only knows how long or what happens after/before with the US side of things. Worse that's just best case! Dec is the early date!

arbitration hearing is supposed to occur before start of season based on sources close to the situation. That is the only date that matters.

 

[tsanuri]

arbitration hearing is supposed to occur before start of season based on sources close to the situation. That is the only date that matters.

Unless the league then decides section 18.A-5 applies while the investigation is on going. Which the league could suspend him under until the charges are settled.
Which opens another can of worms.

 

[tomd]

Unless the league then decides section 18.A-5 applies while the investigation is on going. Which the league could suspend him under until the charges are settled.
Which opens another can of worms.

you mean the court situation? (to my knowledge there is no investigation).

That would seem extreme based upon the charges filed and the pertinence of the outcome to the reason for the contract termination. The ONLY way it would matter is if the Kings terminated his contract for his inability to cross the border but even that seems like a stretch at this point.

 

[bob77]

you mean the court situation? (to my knowledge there is no investigation).

That would seem extreme based upon the charges filed and the pertinence of the outcome to the reason for the contract termination. The ONLY way it would matter is if the Kings terminated his contract for his inability to cross the border but even that seems like a stretch at this point.

Cross the border for MR translates to will he maintain or lose his work visa. I can't imagine he will be losing his Visa. There are all sorts of people from both Canada and the U.S. at border towns that have jobs in the other country, and at times, I'm sure citizens of either country have broken the other country's law and still haven't lost their work visa. To suggest MR will lose his U.S. work visa for a minor crime that breaks Canada law seems absurd to me. And, he's not being given any special treatment.

 

[tsanuri]

you mean the court situation? (to my knowledge there is no investigation).

That would seem extreme based upon the charges filed and the pertinence of the outcome to the reason for the contract termination. The ONLY way it would matter is if the Kings terminated his contract for his inability to cross the border but even that seems like a stretch at this point.

As long as he has a pending case there is a criminal investigation on going. The investigation doesn't end when charges are filed it ends when the case has been adjudicated.
And I don't think they will but it falls under it and the league could choose to do so.

 

[tomd]

As long as he has a pending case there is a criminal investigation on going. The investigation doesn't end when charges are filed it ends when the case has been adjudicated.
And I don't think they will but it falls under it and the league could choose to do so.

I guess anything is possible but that would seem to conflict with the drug protocol which separately spells out penalties including suspensions.

I was mainly seeking clarification as to whether you were referring to a legal investigation or one initiated by the NHL and you answered that.

 

[driller1]

Unless the league then decides section 18.A-5 applies while the investigation is on going. Which the league could suspend him under until the charges are settled.
Which opens another can of worms.

But the league has already declared MR to be a free agent.

 

[mouser]

So, basically speculative walks in the dark...

If you believe that because we don't know everything about the Richards situation it means we have to pretend we know nothing at all of the facts in discussing it. Then what would be the point of having a discussion forum in the first place?

 

[bob77]

Found this while Google suspension and NHL. A liitle bit of border and a little bit of, wow, it made the league look bad!! But no one apparently panicked and no one lost their job. Tommy was an American by the way, and at the time, the ONLY American in the show!!! Rather amazing!!

Thomas Mark "Tommy, The Bomber" Williams (April 17, 1940 – February 8, 1992) was the first American ice hockey player to regularly play in the National Hockey League since the retirement of Frank Brimsek in 1950. A good skater and shooter, he received his nickname due to an incident in the early 1970s when he joked with Toronto customs officials that his bag contained a bomb (he was suspended for one game by the NHL as punishment).

 

[Viktri]

Once he got stopped at the border and found with the drugs (and presumably no prescription) it was almost a certainty that charges HAD to be brought against him.

Any more colour in this?

I'm seeing some posters believe that the NHL cannot say that they terminated Richards after he was arrested but before he was charged and therefore any related charges cannot apply to the arbitrator's decision making. I would expect that a judge/arbitrator would recognize that some arrests have a high probability of charge and take this into account in their arbitration decision, and therefore the line of reasoning that because he wasn't charged at the time he was arrested therefore the Kings are sure to lose is unlikely to occur.

I'm not saying that I think the Kings will win, but I want to clarify this point.

 

[Riptide]

But the league has already declared MR to be a free agent.

Which is what you do after terminating a contract. It was either that or tell LA they can't do what the CBA and SPC says they can do.

 

[Riptide]

Any more colour in this?

I'm seeing some posters believe that the NHL cannot say that they terminated Richards after he was arrested but before he was charged and therefore any related charges cannot apply to the arbitrator's decision making. I would expect that a judge/arbitrator would recognize that some arrests have a high probability of charge and take this into account in their arbitration decision, and therefore the line of reasoning that because he wasn't charged at the time he was arrested therefore the Kings are sure to lose is unlikely to occur.

I'm not saying that I think the Kings will win, but I want to clarify this point.

They have to take facts into account - not things that "might" happen. Which means what LA can bring to the table is the info available as of June 29th - that he'd been arrested, but not charged. If that was how LA wanted to play this, they should have waited until he was charged - then they could have brought up his charge with the arbitrator. Besides, LA cannot terminate him solely based on the drug charge unless he actually has visa/boarder issues. And they cannot terminate him based on a suspicion that he might have boarder/visa issues until he actually has visa/boarder issues. And lastly they cannot terminate him on anything to do with the charge itself due to the NHL drug policy.

 

[Viktri]

They have to take facts into account - not things that "might" happen. Which means what LA can bring to the table is the info available as of June 29th - that he'd been arrested, but not charged. If that was how LA wanted to play this, they should have waited until he was charged - then they could have brought up his charge with the arbitrator. Besides, LA cannot terminate him solely based on the drug charge unless he actually has visa/boarder issues. And they cannot terminate him based on a suspicion that he might have boarder/visa issues until he actually has visa/boarder issues. And lastly they cannot terminate him on anything to do with the charge itself due to the NHL drug policy.

I guess I can paraphrase my question as this:

Are there some arrests that will lead to charges being filed (ie: maybe the charge was not filed immediately due to processing speed - like the Crown isn't present at the time of the arrest but it's a slam dunk case and it is reasonable to assume that once the Crown gets to it then charges will be filed) and some arrests that may lead to charges being filed?

You are assuming that arrests only may lead to charges being filed, and your subsequent points are based off of this fact. I don't want to make that assumption. So my question is that is it possible that MR knew that he would be charged in due time and does the arbitrator take this into account?

Additional examples that muddle things regarding whether arrest alone is sufficient grounds for termination:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#VB2

An arrest like disorderly conduct (being rude to a police officer) is not grounds for termination.

An arrest and dismissal of charge can still lead to grounds for termination. The defendant argued that he wasn't charged and only arrested (innocent until proven guilty was used) but the commission agreed with the employer that the facts brought forth by the arrest was sufficient reason to uphold the termination of that employee given the argument that the employee's argument (it was based on discrimination).

 

[tomd]

I guess I can paraphrase my question as this:

Are there some arrests that will lead to charges being filed (ie: maybe the charge was not filed immediately due to processing speed - like the Crown isn't present at the time of the arrest but it's a slam dunk case and it is reasonable to assume that once the Crown gets to it then charges will be filed) and some arrests that may lead to charges being filed?

You are assuming that arrests only may lead to charges being filed, and your subsequent points are based off of this fact. I don't want to make that assumption. So my question is that is it possible that MR knew that he would be charged in due time and does the arbitrator take this into account?

Additional examples that muddle things regarding whether arrest alone is sufficient grounds for termination:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#VB2

An arrest like disorderly conduct (being rude to a police officer) is not grounds for termination.

An arrest and dismissal of charge can still lead to grounds for termination. The defendant argued that he wasn't charged and only arrested (innocent until proven guilty was used) but the commission agreed with the employer that the facts brought forth by the arrest was sufficient reason to uphold the termination of that employee given the argument that the employee's argument (it was based on discrimination).

I'm sure there are situations which you alluded to above that could result in termination (Patrick Kane or Slava Voynov anyone?) but in Richards case this is a drug related charge and as such is covered by the drug policy negotiated between the NHL and the NHLPA. The drug policy has no provision in it for contract termination...even after repeated violations. I'm just not sure what the Kings could possibly be arguing that the arbitrator would agree with. Just my $.02 anyway.

 

[tsanuri]

They have to take facts into account - not things that "might" happen. Which means what LA can bring to the table is the info available as of June 29th - that he'd been arrested, but not charged. If that was how LA wanted to play this, they should have waited until he was charged - then they could have brought up his charge with the arbitrator. Besides, LA cannot terminate him solely based on the drug charge unless he actually has visa/boarder issues. And they cannot terminate him based on a suspicion that he might have boarder/visa issues until he actually has visa/boarder issues. And lastly they cannot terminate him on anything to do with the charge itself due to the NHL drug policy.

Guess this needs to be put up again.
Disclosure statements are presented 30 days before the hearing and later discovered facts can still be brought up. It's not just what was know as of June 29th.

17.8 Pre-Hearing Disclosure Statements
.
The parties shall exchange Disclosure Statements
in the manner described below, which Disclosure Statements shall not be shared with the
Impartial Arbitrator. The party bearing the burden of presenting its case first shall submit to the
other party a Disclosure Statement at least thirty (30) days before the scheduled date of the
hearing; the responding party will provide to the other party a responsive statement at least
twenty (20) days before the scheduled date of the hearing. Disclosure Statements shall contain
the following information:
(a) statement of the issue(s);
(b) factual background;
(c) theory of the case;
(d) witness(es) name(s); and
(e) documents the party intends to rely on or submit as exhibits, which documents
will be attached to the Disclosure Statement, with an explanation as to what each document is
being offered to establish (demonstrative exhibits shall be exchanged prior to the hearing).
Disclosure Statements are to be provided with the purpose and intent of fully
apprising the other party of the disclosing party's case to avoid surprise. In the event an issue
arises as to the sufficiency of a party's Disclosure Statement, the Disclosure Statements may be
provided to the Impartial Arbitrator in connection with the reso
lution of that issue, if both parties
agree. Disclosure Statements shall not preclude either party from raising additional arguments or
additional, later-discovered facts in any subsequent pre-hearing Disclosure Statement or in an
arbitration hearing.

 

[Viktri]

I'm sure there are situations which you alluded to above that could result in termination (Patrick Kane or Slava Voynov anyone?) but in Richards case this is a drug related charge and as such is covered by the drug policy negotiated between the NHL and the NHLPA. The drug policy has no provision in it for contract termination...even after repeated violations. I'm just not sure what the Kings could possibly be arguing that the arbitrator would agree with. Just my $.02 anyway.

Right, I'm not arguing for Richards in particular. Just want to better understand how the legal process would work in this instance - so far I see two main arguments against the termination that have been expressed: 1) the CBA has provisions to deal with drug related offenses and none contain termination clauses; and 2) there's not enough evidence as at the date of the King's termination to warrant the termination and therefore the termination is unlikely to hold up under the scrutiny of an arbitrator's review.

I agree with 1) and don't see evidence to support 2) so I want to see whether 2) is a valid argument. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the argument that the King's make isn't solely focused on drugs but on some other issues given what we know of drugs + termination.

Guess this needs to be put up again.
Disclosure statements are presented 30 days before the hearing and later discovered facts can still be brought up. It's not just what was know as of June 29th.

Thanks, that's what I was looking to see. I think that's a big misconception that's been floating around. May I ask where this document comes from?

 

[Eric Sachs]

Guess this needs to be put up again.
Disclosure statements are presented 30 days before the hearing and later discovered facts can still be brought up. It's not just what was know as of June 29th.

additional, later discovered facts likely references things that were uncovered about the initial event, not events that transpired afterwards. It references the 'discovery' of the fact, not that it was a new fact. There's a distinction there.

As in, if the Kings today find out that he had X amount of pills, was traveling with Y person or was also arrested on suspicion of Z on June 29th.

Events that happened after June 29th have no effect on whether the Kings can rightfully terminate his contract given as of June 30th, Richards was no longer under contract with the Kings. Can't breach something that doesn't exist.

 

[tsanuri]

Thanks, that's what I was looking to see. I think that's a big misconception that's been floating around. May I ask where this document comes from?

Pg 113 of the CBA.

 

[mouser]

Guess this needs to be put up again.
Disclosure statements are presented 30 days before the hearing and later discovered facts can still be brought up. It's not just what was know as of June 29th.

I think there are two separate issues here:

1) Was Richards in breach of his contract on June 29th when the Kings terminated it?

2) Would Richards have been in breach of his contract at a later date?

"New" facts like Richards being charged in August might support #2, but not #1.

 

[tomd]

I think there are two separate issues here:

1) Was Richards in breach of his contract on June 29th when the Kings terminated it?

2) Would Richards have been in breach of his contract at a later date?

"New" facts like Richards being charged in August might support #2, but not #1.

And at this point it seems irrelevant anyway since the arbitration will almost certainly take place before the next court date. And other than being formally charged, it doesn't appear that there are any material facts that have popped up or changed since 6/29.

 

[tsanuri]

And at this point it seems irrelevant anyway since the arbitration will almost certainly take place before the next court date. And other than being formally charged, it doesn't appear that there are any material facts that have popped up or changed since 6/29.

We still know very little considering how long this case has been open.
We know it was one bottle, by a source. But was that bottle 30 pills, which is a normal script, or 300 pills. And I could see both falling under personal use and not distribution charges. Partly because he's a famous person from that area.
And I have little to no hope that we will learn much of anything unless this does go to trial. Which I really suspect it never will he will plead in the end. And the only info we will get is that the arbitrator has ruled in favor of "X" party.

 

[tomd]

We still know very little considering how long this case has been open.
We know it was one bottle, by a source. But was that bottle 30 pills, which is a normal script, or 300 pills. And I could see both falling under personal use and not distribution charges. Partly because he's a famous person from that area.
And I have little to no hope that we will learn much of anything unless this does go to trial. Which I really suspect it never will he will plead in the end. And the only info we will get is that the arbitrator has ruled in favor of "X" party.

You are correct that we don't know all the details. On the other hand, if the Kings terminated the contract for anything drug related I don't know how they will win this arbitration. The drug policy is too specific and makes no provision for contract termination.

If you want to argue notification or ability to enter the USA then that is a different argument and we can argue the merits.

It should also be pointed out that Richards' attorney indicated that he will fight the charges and plead not guilty.