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

[GoldenBearHockey]

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.

So you are saying, if I read it correctly, that you feel player are under no obligations to inform the team they play for, that they are arrested....

None whatsoever?

 

[Eric Sachs]

So you are saying, if I read it correctly, that you feel player are under no obligations to inform the team they play for, that they are arrested....

None whatsoever?

They also aren't obligated to report to the team if their cousin's dog ate a red gummy worm in the morning.

If it's not in the CBA, SPC or other collectively bargained documents, it's not an obligation.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So you are saying, if I read it correctly, that you feel player are under no obligations to inform the team they play for, that they are arrested....

None whatsoever?

Depends on the terms of the contract he signed and the terms laid out in the CBA. If it's explicitly stated in either the SPC or the CBA that the player must do so then yes he is obligated. I've yet to see evidence pointing to such a thing. If it's not, the only way that he would be obligated to do so is if the arrest actually impacts his ability to play. Again, thus far, there is no evidence to support it actually impacting his ability. There are possibilities, for sure, but not actual impact.

But this is all regarding contract law and the justification for termination of a contract. Ideally and philosophically, it may be a different story but when it comes to contract termination and an arbitration process, it'd be hard-pressed to agree to termination based on an unwritten obligation. And I don't know about you but if an offense was so great to someone that they feel it necessary to terminate the contract, I would think that that reason should be explicitly stated in the agreement somewhere. Who knows? Maybe it actually is somewhere for the Kings but I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Dr Quincy]

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.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I think the problem is that you are putting your personal take on what "should be" and not on what actual contract law IS. I get that you think an employee owes an employer the courtesy to inform him of possible pending problems. Maybe even I agree with you.

But that's not what the CBA says and it's not what case law says. If that's the Kings' stance they are destined to lose (not that I think that is their stance).

 

[Dr Quincy]

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.

Actually, yeah it's exactly that.

 

[seanlinden]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I think the problem is that you are putting your personal take on what "should be" and not on what actual contract law IS. I get that you think an employee owes an employer the courtesy to inform him of possible pending problems. Maybe even I agree with you.

But that's not what the CBA says and it's not what case law says. If that's the Kings' stance they are destined to lose (not that I think that is their stance).

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if somebody can point me to a shred of case law that states a professional athlete has no obligation to inform his team of things which might impact his ability to play, then my opinion might change...however, that hasn't happened, and as far as i'm concerned, that's what will be argued in this case...

The kings will ultimately argue that the standards for professional athletes, especially in a salary cap system, are substantially higher than that of the everyday, replacable employee. Do I think they'll win? Ultimately not, they'll succeed in the claim that it is an implicit responsibility in his contract, but fail in the 8 days being a material breach due to the mitigating factors (offseason, not being charged yet, only 8 days passed).

 

[seanlinden]

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.

Perhaps you should read the SPC again... there's lots of things about being a hockey player which aren't explicitly stated.

My point is that if it was in the contract and/or cba, there would also be a prescribed penalty for it... and there's absolutely no way a first offence would be contract termination. The Kings are relying on the gray area here -- the fact that it's not in the contract/cba means there's also no prescribed penalty for it.

The language in the CBA doesn't really specify much in regards to the responsibilities of a player who is arrested.

 

[Dr Quincy]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if somebody can point me to a shred of case law that states a professional athlete has no obligation to inform his team of things which might impact his ability to play, then my opinion might change...however, that hasn't happened, and as far as i'm concerned, that's what will be argued in this case...

The kings will ultimately argue that the standards for professional athletes, especially in a salary cap system, are substantially higher than that of the everyday, replacable employee. Do I think they'll win? Ultimately not, they'll succeed in the claim that it is an implicit responsibility in his contract, but fail in the 8 days being a material breach due to the mitigating factors (offseason, not being charged yet, only 8 days passed).

That's not how it works. If you are arguing for a duty that doesn't exist in the actual contract/cba the onus is on you to provide case law/statutory law/US code... something.

There are no federal appeals cases saying that the player has no obligation to carry elephants on his back on a Thursday while humming "Yes We Have No Bananas" either. But the absence of such a case doesn't mean that a player DOES have the obligation to do that.

In the absence of explicit contractual obligations, the burden would be on the one claiming there is an implicit obligation in the "penumbra" of the agreement.

 

[Riptide]

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.

Agreed - as specified in the standard player contract Richards signed.

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.

Actually, it would depend on what it said (if such a clause was in there). If for example it said he had to report such things in 48-72 hours then it would obviously help LA. If it said he had 2 weeks or until his next team check-in (or whatever) then it would help Richards.

As for players reporting injuries to the team, I would bet that there's something in there somewhere that says players have to inform the team about injuries, or talk to their doctors or something. Not everything (such as a bruised pinky) but I'd bet there's something in there for things like surgery or if something is broken/torn, or something of that nature.

I just can't imagine that an SPC wouldn't have something in there with regards to injuries in the offseason and not informing the team somehow.

Edit. Okay, took a quick look at the SPC and there is a couple of interesting things in there. As for injuries there's actually a ton in there. I didn't see a timeline, but it does state that a player must have the team doc have a look at him (or another doc of the team's choosing). AKA he needs to inform the team if he's injured.


- 2b states that a player must "keep himself in good physical condition at all times during the season".
- 2c to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.
- 3 In order that the Player shall be fit and in proper condition for the performance of his duties as required by this SPC and the Agreement, <snip>
- 5a Should the Player be disabled or unable to perform his duties under this SPC he shall submit himself for medical examination and treatment by a physician selected by the Club, and such examination and treatment <snip>

Some more reading. Termination/Material breach.

14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:
(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.
(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

NHL CBA. Player SPC is listed on page 310.
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

 

[Riptide]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if somebody can point me to a shred of case law that states a professional athlete has no obligation to inform his team of things which might impact his ability to play, then my opinion might change...however, that hasn't happened, and as far as i'm concerned, that's what will be argued in this case...

The kings will ultimately argue that the standards for professional athletes, especially in a salary cap system, are substantially higher than that of the everyday, replacable employee. Do I think they'll win? Ultimately not, they'll succeed in the claim that it is an implicit responsibility in his contract, but fail in the 8 days being a material breach due to the mitigating factors (offseason, not being charged yet, only 8 days passed).

I think this is where you're getting hung up. How does him having a legal issue in the offseason when he has 3 months before the season start qualify as "might impact" ? He wasn't charged and he was released. There was even a solid chance that everything would have been dropped.

I mean it's one thing if it's mid season and they're on the road and have 3 games in 4 days coming up and he's arrested... but in mid/late June when the season has been over for a few months? That "might" starts to become less and less of a concern.

Should he as a courtesy to the Kings? Perhaps - but then again if I had legal issues that had no immediate impact on my job, I certainly wouldn't be running to my boss saying I'd been arrested at the boarder last week.

 

[seanlinden]

Agreed - as specified in the standard player contract Richards signed.



Actually, it would depend on what it said (if such a clause was in there). If for example it said he had to report such things in 48-72 hours then it would obviously help LA. If it said he had 2 weeks or until his next team check-in (or whatever) then it would help Richards.

As for players reporting injuries to the team, I would bet that there's something in there somewhere that says players have to inform the team about injuries, or talk to their doctors or something. Not everything (such as a bruised pinky) but I'd bet there's something in there for things like surgery or if something is broken/torn, or something of that nature.

I just can't imagine that an SPC wouldn't have something in there with regards to injuries in the offseason and not informing the team somehow.

I think you're missing the point. If the CBA/contract had explicitly spelled out a timeline or requirement for Richards to report it, then 99.9percent it would also spell out the penalties for violation (like it does for a player who gets arrested /charged for drug posession).

The SPC is publicly available, is there anything about injuries and informing the team in there? If not, that will undoubtedly help the Kings case.

 

[Riptide]

Some more reading. Termination/Material breach.

14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:
(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.
(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

NHL CBA. Player SPC is listed on page 310.
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

So not that this tells us anything new. Training, Conduct, neglect to render his services. Aka, he's out of shape (will lose that one due to the timing), conduct (I could see them arguing his arrest as a conduct issue) and neglect to render his services (arguing that him being arrested could impact his visa and ability to travel).

I also see them losing those if that is what they're arguing.

 

[seanlinden]

I think this is where you're getting hung up. How does him having a legal issue in the offseason when he has 3 months before the season start qualify as "might impact" ? He wasn't charged and he was released. There was even a solid chance that everything would have been dropped.

I mean it's one thing if it's mid season and they're on the road and have 3 games in 4 days coming up and he's arrested... but in mid/late June when the season has been over for a few months? That "might" starts to become less and less of a concern.

Should he as a courtesy to the Kings? Perhaps - but then again if I had legal issues that had no immediate impact on my job, I certainly wouldn't be running to my boss saying I'd been arrested at the boarder last week.

Just because he wasn't charged at the time, doesn't mean he was cleared. At the time of being released, he would've been told that he had charges pending based on the lab results of the pills.

Sure, there was (and still is) a possibility that everything gets dropped, but there's a similar level of possibility that this impacts his ability to play.

In a normal employment situation, the informing of your boss would be considered a "courtesy", what the Kings will argue is that hockey players, due to how tied they are with the organization's ability to make money, and level of irreplacability, have a higher standard. To me, that's a tough one for the Kings to lose.

 

[Riptide]

I think you're missing the point. If the CBA/contract had explicitly spelled out a timeline or requirement for Richards to report it, then 99.9percent it would also spell out the penalties for violation (like it does for a player who gets arrested /charged for drug posession).

The SPC is publicly available, is there anything about injuries and informing the team in there? If not, that will undoubtedly help the Kings case.

Injuries just says (paraphrasing here) that he needs to submit to an exam by a team doctor (or someone of their choosing). No time lines specified. However there's a bunch of crap about doctors and who pays for what and whatnot in there. So even there there's room for leeway, however I think he'd be fine up until the time he talked to his (or a local) doctor. At that point I think he would have to give some sort of indication to the team about what's going on.

 

[mouser]

Just because he wasn't charged at the time, doesn't mean he was cleared. At the time of being released, he would've been told that he had charges pending based on the lab results of the pills.

Sure, there was (and still is) a possibility that everything gets dropped, but there's a similar level of possibility that this impacts his ability to play.

In a normal employment situation, the informing of your boss would be considered a "courtesy", what the Kings will argue is that hockey players, due to how tied they are with the organization's ability to make money, and level of irreplacability, have a higher standard. To me, that's a tough one for the Kings to lose.

I disagree, but rather then debate that, let me ask this question:

Suppose the Kings are correct that Richards had an obligation to notify them. Would the delay of 9 days between Richards incident and the Kings being notified be so severe that it's a material breach of contract? As opposed to a lesser breach?

 

[seanlinden]

Injuries just says (paraphrasing here) that he needs to submit to an exam by a team doctor (or someone of their choosing). No time lines specified. However there's a bunch of crap about doctors and who pays for what and whatnot in there. So even there there's room for leeway, however I think he'd be fine up until the time he talked to his (or a local) doctor. At that point I think he would have to give some sort of indication to the team about what's going on.

Yeah, lots of ambiguity there, and nothing regarding whether he must actually disclose... will undoubtedly help the Kings, because disclosing injuries is obviously a responsibility to a hockey player.

 

[seanlinden]

I disagree, but rather then debate that, let me ask this question:

Suppose the Kings are correct that Richards had an obligation to notify them. Would the delay of 9 days between Richards incident and the Kings being notified be so severe that it's a material breach of contract? As opposed to a lesser breach?

Personally, I don't believe so. In my view it's a breach forsure, but will ultimately fall short of a material breach.

 

[Riptide]

Yeah, lots of ambiguity there, and nothing regarding whether he must actually disclose... will undoubtedly help the Kings, because disclosing injuries is obviously a responsibility to a hockey player.

And how well this help the Kings? As far as I'm aware, Mike Richards doesn't have an injury. Thus, while this is interesting from a conversation stand point, it's kind of meaningless about when or if he must inform the Kings about his off ice conduct.

Edit. Maybe (and I'm just completely guessing and throwing **** out here) he took the same standard players use with doctors (inform the team after they've talked to a local doctor) and applied that to his lawyer? He was arrested, let go and waited until he talked to his lawyer before informing the Kings - which is why they heard about it Friday morning at the draft.

 

[seanlinden]

And how well this help the Kings? As far as I'm aware, Mike Richards doesn't have an injury. Thus, while this is interesting from a conversation stand point, it's kind of meaningless about when or if he must inform the Kings about his off ice conduct.

Edit. Maybe (and I'm just completely guessing and throwing **** out here) he took the same standard players use with doctors (inform the team after they've talked to a local doctor) and applied that to his lawyer? He was arrested, let go and waited until he talked to his lawyer before informing the Kings - which is why they heard about it Friday morning at the draft.

No he doesn't... what the Kings will argue is that the CBA/SPC doesn't expressly say everything that a player needs to do (in terms of informing his team about things that have potential to impact his play)... but it's a pretty obvious responsibility for a hockey player that he failed to uphold.

 

[Dr Quincy]

No he doesn't... what the Kings will argue is that the CBA/SPC doesn't expressly say everything that a player needs to do (in terms of informing his team about things that have potential to impact his play)... but it's a pretty obvious responsibility for a hockey player that he failed to uphold.

Then they should have put it in writing when they collectively bargained the contract. What's "pretty obvious" is that parties are bound by the contract they signed, not what an anonymous poster on a message board personally thinks makes sense.

 

[seanlinden]

Then they should have put it in writing when they collectively bargained the contract. What's "pretty obvious" is that parties are bound by the contract they signed, not what an anonymous poster on a message board personally thinks makes sense.

Well they didn't... just like they don't spell out every little detail associated with being a hockey player in the SPC/CBA.

The lack of explicit statement doesn't mean it's not a responsibility. It means it's unclear as to whether or not it's a responsibility as part of being a hockey player.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Perhaps you should read the SPC again... there's lots of things about being a hockey player which aren't explicitly stated.

My point is that if it was in the contract and/or cba, there would also be a prescribed penalty for it... and there's absolutely no way a first offence would be contract termination. The Kings are relying on the gray area here -- the fact that it's not in the contract/cba means there's also no prescribed penalty for it.

The language in the CBA doesn't really specify much in regards to the responsibilities of a player who is arrested.

None of which you are referring to are actual obligations. Just because a team may set expectations that are higher than that does not make them obligations nor does it make any of it something that could be upheld as a reason for contract termination. Your point is not applicable to the situation.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

They also aren't obligated to report to the team if their cousin's dog ate a red gummy worm in the morning.

If it's not in the CBA, SPC or other collectively bargained documents, it's not an obligation.

Not quite true.....but ok.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Agreed - as specified in the standard player contract Richards signed.



Actually, it would depend on what it said (if such a clause was in there). If for example it said he had to report such things in 48-72 hours then it would obviously help LA. If it said he had 2 weeks or until his next team check-in (or whatever) then it would help Richards.

As for players reporting injuries to the team, I would bet that there's something in there somewhere that says players have to inform the team about injuries, or talk to their doctors or something. Not everything (such as a bruised pinky) but I'd bet there's something in there for things like surgery or if something is broken/torn, or something of that nature.

I just can't imagine that an SPC wouldn't have something in there with regards to injuries in the offseason and not informing the team somehow.

Edit. Okay, took a quick look at the SPC and there is a couple of interesting things in there. As for injuries there's actually a ton in there. I didn't see a timeline, but it does state that a player must have the team doc have a look at him (or another doc of the team's choosing). AKA he needs to inform the team if he's injured.


- 2b states that a player must "keep himself in good physical condition at all times during the season".
- 2c to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.
- 3 In order that the Player shall be fit and in proper condition for the performance of his duties as required by this SPC and the Agreement, <snip>
- 5a Should the Player be disabled or unable to perform his duties under this SPC he shall submit himself for medical examination and treatment by a physician selected by the Club, and such examination and treatment <snip>

Some more reading. Termination/Material breach.

14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:
(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.
(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

NHL CBA. Player SPC is listed on page 310.
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

Seems like everyone is skipping 2C

 

[Riptide]

No he doesn't... what the Kings will argue is that the CBA/SPC doesn't expressly say everything that a player needs to do (in terms of informing his team about things that have potential to impact his play)... but it's a pretty obvious responsibility for a hockey player that he failed to uphold.

Question. Other than Varlamov and Voynov, when was the last time a player with an active contract (so not a pending FA like Stoll) was arrested during the offseason? I know E/P Kane this summer, but I'm thinking before this summer.