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

[tsanuri]

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.

I agree that on the drug angle it will be very difficult if not impossible.

But I do think it is very reasonable to think the team wrote something into the team rules after what happened with Voynov or if not then after Stoll. To cover arrests or even police investigations and what is needed by the player.

And show me one defense lawyer that doesn't say that exact thing until the day they plead the case? They always want to sound tough especially when giving a sound bite.

 

[hatterson]

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.

That's how I read it as well.

Later discovered facts would be something like finding out Richards had sent a text or email that said he was doing this intentionally to screw over the team. Or that it was actually 30 pounds of oxy, not 30 pills.

 

[Riptide]

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.

It's been referenced "as a small amount" and "that was for personal use". I think one would have a hard time arguing that 300 pills was for personal use. I mean maybe, but I doubt the RCMP would be suggesting that that amount was for personal use like they have indicated. It has also been described (if I recall correctly) as a small bottle with a few pills in it.

Also as already said here before, the Crown (CND version of a DA/SA), isn't elected and thus (usually) isn't swayed by the idea of charging a famous person. So the fact that he's Mike Richards vs some joe blow off the street wouldn't have mattered.

Personally I think that when we eventually find out (which we likely will unless the Crown decides to drop the charges) that there'll be less than 25 pills in there, and that this will have turned out to be a case where Richards had the pills (either given to him from the team or perhaps from his wife - which would be illegal, although I doubt he'd implicate her) at home and simply packed them like he would when going on a road trip or something with the team and wasn't really thinking about them as "narcotics" but as something he takes semi regularly to deal with pain. And that packing them up for when he went home for the summer for his off season training was more of a normal habit then an intent to smuggle narcotics across the boarder. Fortunately he's only charged with possessing them and not trafficking them or smuggling them into Canada.

 

[Riptide]

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.

That's simply a stall tactic. Ensuring that this is heard later on in the year (or even next year) is by far in Richards' best interests, both in terms of how this will affect his NHL contract (if it could) and with the legal charges. With time it's possible that the Crown changes it's mind or that procedural error's were made that would aid Richards'. And even if he's found guilty, it's extremely unlikely that he'd spend time in jail. And there's many experts who say that even if he's found guilty or pleads to a lower charge that there shouldn't be a huge issue with his visa. But as long as he can get his NHL contract re-instated that ensures that he's much more likely to get bought out before his legal situation is sorted out. As long as he can get the NHL side sorted out, what happens on the legal side likely doesn't matter nearly as much to him.

 

[Riptide]

That's how I read it as well.

Later discovered facts would be something like finding out Richards had sent a text or email that said he was doing this intentionally to screw over the team. Or that it was actually 30 pounds of oxy, not 30 pills.

Or that he asked the LA team doctor to fake a prescription for the pills. I think that's unlikely... but who knows.

 

[dechire]

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.

I looked up Canada's laws about this since I suspected that one of my medications was controlled and I'm planning to go to Canada pretty soon. Turns out that it is controlled and the amount I'm allowed to bring into the country is very specific. However if I was a Canadian citizen I could bring a much larger amount (up to 90 pills with a once daily prescription). For Richards' oxy it would be a 30 day supply which would likely be between 30-60 pills but it could be more depending on the prescription.

I used this as a reference which as far as I can tell is fully updated. Additionally, oxycodone is listed as a Schedule I narcotic which is still able to be imported as it is not included in Annex I or Part J restrictions. So it is possible for Richards to legally bring it into the country and I assume that's where his not guilty plea is coming from. The issue is likely that he didn't declare it as I also wouldn't have known to declare mine before looking all of this up. Or of course if he didn't have a prescription but I assume he'd try to make a plea deal if that was the case.

 

[Riptide]

I looked up Canada's laws about this since I suspected that one of my medications was controlled and I'm planning to go to Canada pretty soon. Turns out that it is controlled and the amount I'm allowed to bring into the country is very specific. However if I was a Canadian citizen I could bring a much larger amount (up to 90 pills with a once daily prescription). For Richards' oxy it would be a 30 day supply which would likely be between 30-60 pills but it could be more depending on the prescription.

I used this as a reference which as far as I can tell is fully updated. Additionally, oxycodone is listed as a Schedule I narcotic which is still able to be imported as it is not included in Annex I or Part J restrictions. So it is possible for Richards to legally bring it into the country and I assume that's where his not guilty plea is coming from. The issue is likely that he didn't declare it as I also wouldn't have known to declare mine before looking all of this up. Or of course if he didn't have a prescription but I assume he'd try to make a plea deal if that was the case.

I think we're going to see that that is the case. I doubt they're be charging him for possession even if he forgot to declare it if he had a valid prescription.

 

[dechire]

I think we're going to see that that is the case. I doubt they're be charging him for possession even if he forgot to declare it if he had a valid prescription.

Yeah I think we'll have to wait for the trial to get any more facts. It's also possible that he had a "valid" prescription that said he's supposed to take 5 pills daily and he had 100+ pills with him. Technically the prescription is valid since it's from a real doctor but no one should actually be prescribed that amount which makes it questionable. If that's the case then it should be pretty obvious that Richards needs help and also that his doctor should lose his license.

 

[tomd]

Yeah I think we'll have to wait for the trial to get any more facts. It's also possible that he had a "valid" prescription that said he's supposed to take 5 pills daily and he had 100+ pills with him. Technically the prescription is valid since it's from a real doctor but no one should actually be prescribed that amount which makes it questionable. If that's the case then it should be pretty obvious that Richards needs help and also that his doctor should lose his license.

I think we need to be clear here...the trial no longer has any impact on the arbitration assuming that the rumors out there of a hearing in the next 30 days are true. It is sorta pointless to talk about the trial at this point unless that is your primary focus as opposed to the arbitration.

 

[dechire]

I think we need to be clear here...the trial no longer has any impact on the arbitration assuming that the rumors out there of a hearing in the next 30 days are true. It is sorta pointless to talk about the trial at this point unless that is your primary focus as opposed to the arbitration.

That's true although I'm interested in the outcome of both. The specifics of his charge can be relevant to the arbitration though(did he have a prescription, etc). We just don't happen to know what any of those specifics are right now.

 

[tomd]

That's true although I'm interested in the outcome of both. The specifics of his charge can be relevant to the arbitration though(did he have a prescription, etc). We just don't happen to know what any of those specifics are right now.

Fair enough. Again, unless the charge is trafficking (which it isn't), I'm not sure that there is any relevance to the amount or whether he had a prescription. Termination of contract is just not an option.

 

[dechire]

Fair enough. Again, unless the charge is trafficking (which it isn't), I'm not sure that there is any relevance to the amount or whether he had a prescription. Termination of contract is just not an option.

I agree with you that the Kings will likely lose the arbitration but it's much more difficult for them to make a visa-related argument if Richards had a prescription. I think it's highly unlikely that the US would revoke a visa based on someone having a valid prescription for a drug that is legal in the US.

Actually has there been any information at all relating to his visa yet ? It's been long enough now that I assume we would have heard if it had been revoked but I'm far from an expert on visas. Even though the Kings wouldn't be allowed to discuss later developments in the arbitration I imagine it would at least be brought up if his visa stayed intact. It would certainly look bad if they wanted to make an argument based around the possiblity of him losing it while in reality it was never in question.

 

[Viktri]

I agree that on the drug angle it will be very difficult if not impossible.

But I do think it is very reasonable to think the team wrote something into the team rules after what happened with Voynov or if not then after Stoll. To cover arrests or even police investigations and what is needed by the player.

And show me one defense lawyer that doesn't say that exact thing until the day they plead the case? They always want to sound tough especially when giving a sound bite.

Thanks for the source.

Is it possible (ie: allowed) for the team to do such a thing and create team rules that can impact the employment status of its employees?

I've skimmed some cases and I see that when provisions are in the contract then such terminations have been upheld but are the LA King's allowed to have team rules given the CBA governs the employment of NHL players?

I am thinking that the King's decision is more along the lines of what you are suggesting, because I think the drug => termination argument in this case is a dead end. I don't believe the NHL would approve of such a termination anyway, because it was likely intended by the NHL/NHLPA that drugs wouldn't result in termination.

 

[Riptide]

I think we need to be clear here...the trial no longer has any impact on the arbitration assuming that the rumors out there of a hearing in the next 30 days are true. It is sorta pointless to talk about the trial at this point unless that is your primary focus as opposed to the arbitration.

Not on this arbitration... however if he's convicted and he does actually have visa issues then assuming he wins this round, we could easily see this same situation play out again. Would all depend on whether there's visa issues and how the lawyers interpret that in the drug policy.

 

[Rebuilt]

The league's attorneys wouldn't have anything to say about it. They'd simply sign off that the Kings filed the paperwork correctly.

Ok So the Kings attorneys are 'idiots' for thinking they can get away with this and the league plays the three monkeys going 'I see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil' ?


Its not that Richards has no case, its the fact when some on here try to present it, its always due to the Kings and League being 'idiots' who have no idea what they are talking about and anyone with an IQ over 50 can see through their 'scam'.

Its not plausible. The Kings and League have their reasons and I can almost assure you they aren't frivolous. Bettman would have never signed off on something ridiculous as some are claiming here.

The speculating on others motives is the frustrating part to read.

 

[Riptide]

Thanks for the source.

Is it possible (ie: allowed) for the team to do such a thing and create team rules that can impact the employment status of its employees?

I've skimmed some cases and I see that when provisions are in the contract then such terminations have been upheld but are the LA King's allowed to have team rules given the CBA governs the employment of NHL players?

I am thinking that the King's decision is more along the lines of what you are suggesting, because I think the drug => termination argument in this case is a dead end. I don't believe the NHL would approve of such a termination anyway, because it was likely intended by the NHL/NHLPA that drugs wouldn't result in termination.

No. There's some very specific rules in the CBA around what team rules teams are allowed to have. There's a default set of rules that is in the CBA that teams are then allowed to make small changes to. And the rules need to be approved (NHL/NHLPA?). So it's not like they could make something stupid up. The rules would also need to comply with the CBA. So it's not like they could have a rule that said if you're arrested, you're in breach of your contract and we'll terminate it.

 

[Riptide]

Ok So the Kings attorneys are 'idiots' for thinking they can get away with this and the league plays the three monkeys going 'I see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil' ?


Its not that Richards has no case, its the fact when some on here try to present it, its always due to the Kings and League being 'idiots' who have no idea what they are talking about and anyone with an IQ over 50 can see through their 'scam'.

Its not plausible. The Kings and League have their reasons and I can almost assure you they aren't frivolous. Bettman would have never signed off on something ridiculous as some are claiming here.

The speculating on others motives is the frustrating part to read.

You're assuming that the league (Bettman if you wish) have done anything other than file the paperwork that LA submitted. I'd be willing to bet a large sum that all the league did was ensure that LA was terminating Richards wasn't because he was out of shape or due to some personal reasons between Richards and the team (staff member, Gm, whatever) or some other asinine reason like that. Realistically whatever reason they concocted lies in the grey area - even if it's in an area that LA has almost no chance in winning... I don't see a lot of downside to LA attempting this. Best case is great news for them. Them losing sucks (for them), but isn't the end of the world depending on what options they're given after the fact (negotiated between LA, NHL and NHLPA).

I do not think that the league really sat down and really looked anything over. LA said Richards was in material breach of the contract (I'm sure that DL has given Bettman or someone more details then that) and the league basically rubber stamped it, knowing full well that the NHLPA would grieve it and things would get hashed out down the road.

 

[Eric Sachs]

You're assuming that the league (Bettman if you wish) have done anything other than file the paperwork that LA submitted. I'd be willing to bet a large sum that all the league did was ensure that LA was terminating Richards wasn't because he was out of shape or due to some personal reasons between Richards and the team (staff member, Gm, whatever) or some other asinine reason like that. Realistically whatever reason they concocted lies in the grey area - even if it's in an area that LA has almost no chance in winning... I don't see a lot of downside to LA attempting this. Best case is great news for them. Them losing sucks (for them), but isn't the end of the world depending on what options they're given after the fact (negotiated between LA, NHL and NHLPA).

I do not think that the league really sat down and really looked anything over. LA said Richards was in material breach of the contract (I'm sure that DL has given Bettman or someone more details then that) and the league basically rubber stamped it, knowing full well that the NHLPA would grieve it and things would get hashed out down the road.

In addition, I would say that had the NHL blocked the move.. the Kings could have grounds to take action against them (not sure whether that would be via a grievance or court) as they would be taking away a right given to them by the CBA.

It's not up to the NHL to decide whether a material breach occurred. It's up to the team. If the player objects, it's up to the NHL/NHLPA and ultimately, arbitration.

Also, there's a very smart lawyer on the losing side of every high-profile case. Just being a lawyer doesn't make you unbeatable in a court of law. In any given case, 50% of lawyers... lose.

 

[seanlinden]

Well should he inform the team when he first feels a tweak in his knee during a workout, or can he wait until he's seen a doctor and had an MRI? Perhaps Richards was simply waiting to properly review with his lawyer and see if the RCMP would come back with anything right away.

It's not as if this happened in April and the team only found out about it in September, it was a total of 12 days from the border stop to the contract termination.

In addition, it's not about what he should do, but rather what he's contractually obligated to do and I just don't see anywhere that says Richards would have been contractually obligated to inform the Kings of the incident within two weeks, if he even is at all.

Assuming it's the offseason, he can wait and see a doctor... given that it could be a very minor sprain. However, this didn't require a doctor and/or lawyer to determine that he would probably be in a lot of trouble. He knew he had the Oxy, he knew they confiscated it. Even if you think the first call should've been to a lawyer, it doesn't take 9 days to do that.

So if you were the arbitrator would you terminate his $22 million contract on the evidence you presented above? Did his actions really justify the loss? What if the time period had been 7 days instead of the 9 that actually transpired? or what if had been 5...or 2? What is the magic number in your mind?

No I wouldn't... however, the arbitrator is bound by the CBA... not a standard of "actions justifying the loss". The CBA states that a team may terminate a contract if it is materially breached... to me, the failure to communicate the legal issue is a breach of contract, however, I do not think it meets the standard for material breach.

You make far too many assumptions for what a reasonable person should do or know when it comes to a matter of law. There was no reasonable way to tell at the time that this occurred what the ramifications were going to be. Just because someone is charged something doesn't mean that his playing abilities will be impacted. There's not enough information at this point to really tell whether his visa has been cancelled and he's inadmissible so why is it reasonable to notify your employer about something that may or may not happen. It's not really their right to know until something ACTUALLY happens. Now if that has happened and he failed to notify then I would agree with it being reasonable to inform the team but not with it being material breach.

Of course there is.

Mike Richards knew he had Oxy. At the border, it was confiscated, and he was detained for a period of time while that happened. At some point during that ordeal, he would've been informed that bringing Oxy accross the border is illegal. None of that is a stretch assumption.

As for what a reasonable person could assume, a reasonable person would not be naive enough to think that "nobody within law enforcement or border protection is going to care". Was his Visa cancelled? no. Has he been deemed inadmissable? no. Could he have reasonably concluded that the 2 were reasonable possibilities as a result of this incident? yes.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Of course there is.

Mike Richards knew he had Oxy. At the border, it was confiscated, and he was detained for a period of time while that happened. At some point during that ordeal, he would've been informed that bringing Oxy accross the border is illegal. None of that is a stretch assumption.

As for what a reasonable person could assume, a reasonable person would not be naive enough to think that "nobody within law enforcement or border protection is going to care". Was his Visa cancelled? no. Has he been deemed inadmissable? no. Could he have reasonably concluded that the 2 were reasonable possibilities as a result of this incident? yes.

Could he have reasonably concluded it was a possibility? Sure. Does it obligate him to inform the team? Not by any document negotiated between himself and his team nor the players union and the owners. He is not obligated to inform the team of possibilities. If it actually happened then yes. At this point with it being just a possibility and it being the off-season, no he isn't obligated to tell them because nothing has actually happened in that light yet. He could have certainly done them the courtesy but he doesn't have to and I don't see how it could possibly justify a termination and I don't see how an arbiter, especially this arbiter, seeing it any differently with regards to that argument. The Kings better have something more than the border incident or failure to notify if they expect this particular arbiter to side with them because those arguments will not be sufficient.

 

[seanlinden]

Could he have reasonably concluded it was a possibility? Sure. Does it obligate him to inform the team? Not by any document negotiated between himself and his team nor the players union and the owners. He is not obligated to inform the team of possibilities. If it actually happened then yes. At this point with it being just a possibility and it being the off-season, no he isn't obligated to tell them because nothing has actually happened in that light yet. He could have certainly done them the courtesy but he doesn't have to and I don't see how it could possibly justify a termination and I don't see how an arbiter, especially this arbiter, seeing it any differently with regards to that argument. The Kings better have something more than the border incident or failure to notify if they expect this particular arbiter to side with them because those arguments will not be sufficient.

And we're back to where the opinions differ.

He's signed a contract to be a hockey player for whichever team owns his rights.

Part of the responsibilities of a hockey player, are keeping your team informed of issues which have a reasonable possibility of impacting your ability to play -- whether it be injury, legal, or otherwise. The Kings will argue that the need to be informed of issues which have a reasonable possibility of impacting his ability to play is an implicit requirement, given that it is not stated anywhere in the CBA or contract.

 

[tomd]

And we're back to where the opinions differ.

He's signed a contract to be a hockey player for whichever team owns his rights.

Part of the responsibilities of a hockey player, are keeping your team informed of issues which have a reasonable possibility of impacting your ability to play -- whether it be injury, legal, or otherwise. The Kings will argue that the need to be informed of issues which have a reasonable possibility of impacting his ability to play is an implicit requirement, given that it is not stated anywhere in the CBA or contract.

slippery slope those "implicit requirements" are...I can certainly see teams inventing all sorts of "implicit requirements" to suit their needs in order to terminate contracts if the Kings win this one.

It was your last few words though that buried your argument. If it is not in the CBA or SPC the odds of the Kings winning based upon what we know today are pretty bad. Were that not the case then what is the point of having a CBA or SPC? What protections does it afford either the team or the player if it can't be relied upon?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And we're back to where the opinions differ.

He's signed a contract to be a hockey player for whichever team owns his rights.

Part of the responsibilities of a hockey player, are keeping your team informed of issues which have a reasonable possibility of impacting your ability to play -- whether it be injury, legal, or otherwise. The Kings will argue that the need to be informed of issues which have a reasonable possibility of impacting his ability to play is an implicit requirement, given that it is not stated anywhere in the CBA or contract.

Not really where opinions differ. This is a matter of contract law. If you have certain requirements and responsibilities of someone you're signing to a contract, you better have it written out in there what those responsibilities are. Implicit requirements probably won't hold much weight in an arbitration process regarding a contract.

 

[seanlinden]

slippery slope those "implicit requirements" are...I can certainly see teams inventing all sorts of "implicit requirements" to suit their needs in order to terminate contracts if the Kings win this one.

It was your last few words though that buried your argument. If it is not in the CBA or SPC the odds of the Kings winning based upon what we know today are pretty bad. Were that not the case then what is the point of having a CBA or SPC? What protections does it afford either the team or the player if it can't be relied upon?

Absolutely a slippery slope... that's why this case will not be an open and shut one. It's why the Kings filed, and why the PA and Richards might just be open to some sort of settlement.

That being said, I really don't see the whole "create a bunch of implicit requirements" concern... the requirements at the end of the day have to be related to his ability to perform duties as a hockey player.

Not really where opinions differ. This is a matter of contract law. If you have certain requirements and responsibilities of someone you're signing to a contract, you better have it written out in there what those responsibilities are. Implicit requirements probably won't hold much weight in an arbitration process regarding a contract.

Just because the requirement to inform the team isn't spelled out specifically in the contract, doesn't mean it's not part of his job as a hockey player. In fact, if it was, Richards would probably have a stronger case, as there would be specified rules with which these types of situations are handled. Yes, it's generally preferable for all contracts to have all requirements explicitly stated, however, that isn't always practical and/or neccessary. The SPC likely doesn't say anything about players having to inform teams when they get hurt, that doesn't mean they don't have to.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Just because the requirement to inform the team isn't spelled out specifically in the contract, doesn't mean it's not part of his job as a hockey player. In fact, if it was, Richards would probably have a stronger case, as there would be specified rules with which these types of situations are handled. Yes, it's generally preferable for all contracts to have all requirements explicitly stated, however, that isn't always practical and/or neccessary. The SPC likely doesn't say anything about players having to inform teams when they get hurt, that doesn't mean they don't have to.

Uh, yes it actually does mean it's not part of his job as a hockey player. You're contradicting yourself when you say if it was that Richards would have a stronger case. If it was required then this would not even be contested by the PA because that would be a very black & white rule that is to be followed or consequences would occur.

The other thing that turns this argument of yours into rubbish is the fact that the CBA spells this kind of situation out on what is required of the players in instances of arrests and drugs or both. Of all the things spelled in such situations, you would think that if it was required of them to notify the team in a specific time frame, it would be in there. Don't give me such crap as it isn't always practical or necessary. When something like termination gets thrown around for a consequence of something like that, that's practical and necessary to have involved in the wording of a contract signed. That is such a weak and shallow reasoning for this kind of argument.