NHLPA files grievance on behalf of Mike Richards

[Kin]

I think that the NHL is terrified right now about setting a precedent considering what's going on with Patrick Kane right now.

Well, yeah,and that's the other thing that rings so hollow about the Kings/League's claim. In all of the other times a player has been arrested over the last few years, we've never once heard anything about how teams feel that they have the right to terminate contracts before any sort of charges are brought/convictions made. Reporters haven't brought it up as an option, league sources haven't said it's been a consideration...it seems to be something entirely invented for Richards.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Well, yeah,and that's the other thing that rings so hollow about the Kings/League's claim. In all of the other times a player has been arrested over the last few years, we've never once heard anything about how teams feel that they have the right to terminate contracts before any sort of charges are brought/convictions made. Reporters haven't brought it up as an option, league sources haven't said it's been a consideration...it seems to be something entirely invented for Richards.

When Ryan Malone was charged with a DUI and possession of cocaine the Lightning had to buy-out the final year of his contract. Why didn't they just terminate it? Jarret Stoll was charged with possession too this Spring, but his contract was expiring anyway. It's probably important to note though that both players signed with a new team and neither were disciplined by the league in any way (either with a fine or suspension).

Everyone and their mother knows the real reason why Richards' contract was terminated.

 

[Kin]

When Ryan Malone was charged with a DUI and possession of cocaine the Lightning had to buy-out the final year of his contract. Why didn't they just terminate it? Jarret Stoll was charged with possession too this Spring, but his contract was expiring anyway. It's probably important to note though that both players signed with a new team and neither were disciplined by the league in any way (either with a fine or suspension).

Everyone and their mother knows the real reason why Richards' contract was terminated.

Well, and that's the thing. What the Kings are claiming here, the right to terminate a contract simply based on an arrest, is a HUGE deal. It's not a minor thing. It's not something that wouldn't have been made a stink of in CBA negotiations. Leaving aside whether or not you believe in a million years Donald Fehr would agree to something like that, the idea that it wouldn't even be a point of contention to the point that it would, at the very least, be something we'd heard about stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Well, and that's the thing. What the Kings are claiming here, the right to terminate a contract simply based on an arrest, is a HUGE deal. It's not a minor thing. It's not something that wouldn't have been made a stink of in CBA negotiations. Leaving aside whether or not you believe in a million years Donald Fehr would agree to something like that, the idea that it wouldn't even be a point of contention to the point that it would, at the very least, be something we'd heard about stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

Right. It's a slippery-slope. If the Kings get away with this will Columbus be able to terminate Clarkson's contract if he gets arrested for jaywalking?

 

[Kin]

Right. It's a slippery-slope. If the Kings get away with this will Columbus be able to terminate Clarkson's contract if he gets arrested for jaywalking?

Also, I'd be pretty shocked if an arbitrator didn't have the capability to kind of broadly acknowledge what you said about everyone knowing the real motivation here. If we assume that what's in the CBA isn't "Teams have the ability to terminate contracts for whatever reason they want whenever they want", which seems like a safe assumption being as that would essentially be an end to guaranteed contracts, but it at least specifies a reason for doing it then this idea that the reason the Kings are giving is quite clearly bogus wouldn't matter seems like a stretch to me.

Even if the wording of this supposed termination clause might technically be interpreted to allow the Kings to do what they did, if you can show pretty clearly it's being used as a punitive measure because Mike Richards isn't playing hockey well, I'm pretty sure that will affect how an arbitrator sees things.

 

[bustaheims]

I think that the NHL is terrified right now about setting a precedent considering what's going on with Patrick Kane right now.

Maybe, but I imagine they're equally terrified of looking too lenient should things not go well for Kane.

 

[Bullfrog]

Just like you can bet yours that the Kings lawyers and the arbitrator will be pretty focused on the language of the CBA that governs said contract. That contract has no validity without the CBA, making the CBA the more important document.

And, again, remember this is regarding your claim that both parties could be credibly said to have drawn up the contract. That's just not true. It's a contract between Richards and the Kings, not the Kings and the NHLPA. That collective bargaining dictates what the Kings are or aren't allowed to offer Richards doesn't change that fact. Richards didn't write the contract, therefore ambiguous language in it isn't going to be held against him.

Just a minor point here, but I don't think it's relevant who wrote the contract provided both parties were not coerced into signing it. i.e. they both had access to legal counsel (or otherwise) for review. As Richards is a member of the NHLPA, I would say it is a fair claim that he wrote it as much as the Kings wrote it. If ambiguous language won't be held against him, then it won't be held against the Kings.

I agree with busta's point that the CBA is more important. SPC's are simple agreements that essentially say "shall abide by the CBA..." and "shall be paid this much over this term".

 

[Kin]

Just a minor point here, but I don't think it's relevant who wrote the contract provided both parties were not coerced into signing it. i.e. they both had access to legal counsel (or otherwise) for review. As Richards is a member of the NHLPA, I would say it is a fair claim that he wrote it as much as the Kings wrote it. If ambiguous language won't be held against him, then it won't be held against the Kings.

I mean, I think you're wrong but I can't really expand on that outside of simply re-stating what I've already said. I'm not really seeing any new points of contention here.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm just basing my opinion on the many contract disputes and the few mediations I've been a part of. In each case, the author of the contract was completely irrelevant. The general principle was "you signed the contract, therefore you agreed to the terms. If you had a question about any particular term or condition, then you should have asked." It was generally determined that if a contract was lop-sided, it didn't matter unless it was illegal, incapable of being enforced/completed, etc. Ambiguous language didn't benefit one party or the other depending on who wrote it; that was never an issue. It benefited whoever had a stronger argument. This argument was typically the one that was most reasonable and consistent with other aspects of the contract or with what might be considered reasonable in the circumstances.

My experience is solely with construction contracts, but I'm sure similar principles apply to just about any contract, collectively bargained or otherwise.

 

[Kin]

The general principle was "you signed the contract, therefore you agreed to the terms. If you had a question about any particular term or condition, then you should have asked."

Leaving aside our differing experiences for a second, this highlights why I think the "Hey, you never know what might be true about the CBA" argument  doesn't carry much weight. I don't for a second believe that the NHLPA wouldn't ask about and get precise terms on the ways a team can terminate a contract or whether a team reserved the right to punish players for drug abuses over and above the terms of the drug policy.

 

[Bullfrog]

I've done a bit more reading on the subject. The termination clause in the SPCs are quite vague, but they specifically reference the "Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players" and that it "should constitute a material breach of this SPC."

As such, it differs from construction contracts quite a bit. The other difference is that in construction contracts, there's a third-party "first-interpreter of the contract." That's usually my role as the person who's created the contract documents. In these cases, the contract explicitly states that all interpretations shall be impartial.

The thing that I find interesting is that even though the standard player's contract is collectively bargained and exists as an exhibit in the CBA, it appears that it is viewed as written by the Club. This bolsters your viewpoint is the major departure in how we see things.

Of course, in the case that a contract is written by the club, then ambiguity (if and where it exists) would benefit the player.

In the case of the NHL, it seems to be a hybrid. The standard contract is written by both parties (as represented by the NHL and NHLPA), but the code of conduct (referenced in the SPC) are specific to each club.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/richards-case-against-kings-after-charge-1.353065

The issue being raised now is whether being charged will hurt Richards' likelihood of success in connection with his grievance against the Kings for unlawfully terminating his contract.

The short answer is no. Before criminal charges were filed against Richards, he stood a good chance of having an arbitrator overturn the termination of his contract. While Richards has now been criminally charged, nothing has changed as far as his chances of success.

Why the uphill battle for the Kings?

The reason is the NHL/NHLPA Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Program Policy.

This Drug Policy sets out specific drug treatment protocols that must be followed in the case of an arrest or conviction related to drugs. Since it was collectively bargained between the Union and the NHL, adhering to the Drug Policy is not optional for teams; rather, it's mandatory. A team cannot simply elect to ignore the collectively bargained terms for the sake of convenience. The whole idea behind the Drug Policy is to get players the help they need. The focus of the Drug Policy is ultimately rehabilitative and not punitive.

The most severe discipline called for under the Drug Policy for repeated rehab failures is a one-year suspension without pay with reinstatement at the discretion of the league.

So the Drug Policy does not call for the termination of a player's contract in the event of an arrest or conviction related to drugs. It calls for a lot less.

This all means that if a player is picked up on a drug charge, the collectively bargained Drug Policy is triggered together with its treatment protocols.

 

[Bates]

Seems the deportation thing is a little more than Internet rumours now!!

Voynov has been sentences and already served jail time.  They are trying to deport him now.

I'm not sure about the deportation thing - I think that's mostly internet chatter/rumour - but the league is apparently still conducting their own investigation (whatever that means), and are considering all possible options, including terminating his contract. Nevertheless, he's still suspended indefinitely, and there's a very real chance he'll never dress in the NHL again. The Kings have really just deferred to the league on this one.

 

[bustaheims]

Seems the deportation thing is a little more than Internet rumours now!

Not really. Immigration has taken him into custody while they go through his case. They're still not "trying to deport him." They're investigating and doing their due diligence. He might get deported. He might not. This is just how the process works in these situations.

 

[Bates]

If they weren't trying to deport him what would be the point of taking him into custody and having a hearing???  That's just silly talk.  If they didn't want to deport him they would have just left him where he was.

Seems the deportation thing is a little more than Internet rumours now!

Not really. Immigration has taken him into custody while they go through his case. They're still not "trying to deport him." They're investigating and doing their due diligence. He might get deported. He might not. This is just how the process works in these situations.

 

[bustaheims]

If they weren't trying to deport him what would be the point of taking him into custody and having a hearing???  That's just silly talk.  If they didn't want to deport him they would have just left him where he was.

Because, as I said, that's part of the process. He's a foreign national that convicted of a crime for actions he committed on US soil. That pretty much automatically triggers a hearing with immigration. They took him into custody because of his current status - his legal right to be in the US is up in the air. The hearing will determine whether or not they pursue deportation as an option. This has nothing to do with what anyone wants or doesn't want. This is just how the system works. It's really that simple and, that cut and dry. They couldn't "just leave him where he was." He was released from prison, and, because his status is in flux, they had to take him into custody that that point - and, because of the violent nature of his crime, they've chosen not to release him on their equivalent of bail.

 

[Bates]

So he's having a hear with the Immigration Dept to see if he will be allowed to stay in the US or be deported but it's not a deportation hearing???  They did not have to do this hearing, they chose to have the hearing.  It was a blindside to his defense team when the sentence was being read.  Not sure how you aren't seeing that??  Don't remember this from the Stoll trial??

If they weren't trying to deport him what would be the point of taking him into custody and having a hearing???  That's just silly talk.  If they didn't want to deport him they would have just left him where he was.

Because, as I said, that's part of the process. He's a foreign national that convicted of a crime for actions he committed on US soil. That pretty much automatically triggers a hearing with immigration. They took him into custody because of his current status - his legal right to be in the US is up in the air. The hearing will determine whether or not they pursue deportation as an option. This has nothing to do with what anyone wants or doesn't want. This is just how the system works. It's really that simple and, that cut and dry. They couldn't "just leave him where he was." He was released from prison, and, because his status is in flux, they had to take him into custody that that point - and, because of the violent nature of his crime, they've chosen not to release him on their equivalent of bail.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I wondered before if we'd see this situation end with a settlement between the two parties, it looks like that might be the case:

http://www.tsn.ca/kings-richards-working-on-settlement-1.373302

It sounds like talks are far enough along that it could possibly get wrapped up today, but that is by no means guaranteed.

It's a delicate and complicated case, to be sure. At least a couple of times in the last couple of weeks, a settlement was believed to be getting closer, only to see it not nailed down. But the two parties have been working hard to get it done. It appears it's getting closer again. But as we so often say in difficult negotiations like these, it's not a done deal until it's signed, sealed and delivered and it's not there yet.

...

If a settlement is reached, there's no word yet on what salary cap penalties the Kings would still face. There's bound to be something, but not likely as onerous as the full value of Richards' contract, which carries with it a cap hit of $5.75 million. If there's a settlement, Richards would undoubtedly become a free agent though there's no telling at this point what monies he would be entitled to from the Kings in a settlement.

Seriously, screw the Kings if they somehow end up getting out of this with a cap hit less than what his buyout would have been.

 

[Kin]

I get why McKenzie thinks that a settlement makes some sense in terms of both sides hedging their bets but if you're the PA don't you very much want someone to decide whether or not the CBA lets a team do what the Kings did?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I get why McKenzie thinks that a settlement makes some sense in terms of both sides hedging their bets but if you're the PA don't you very much want someone to decide whether or not the CBA lets a team do what the Kings did?

Exactly, this would set a terrible precedent.