Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

The NHLPA Files A Grievance On Behalf Of Mike Richards

Filed in: NHL Teams, Los Angeles Kings, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: mike+richards

Comments

Avatar

Good.  *#$%@& the Kings.

Posted by Garth on 08/10/15 at 12:49 PM ET

pautna's avatar

Yeah, I’m sure the Kings are shaking in their boots Garth. Lol!

I’m curious how the NHLPA plans to defend a potential international drug trafficker?

Posted by pautna on 08/10/15 at 01:16 PM ET

Alan's avatar

*grabs popcorn and watches the saga unfold*

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 08/10/15 at 01:24 PM ET

Canucklehead's avatar

I’m curious how the NHLPA defends Richards not informing the Kings of the incident immediately after it occurred.  From what I’ve read, it was several days before Kings management found out about the incident.

I’m guessing that was the final straw for Lombardi to terminate the contract.  He gave Richards another chance by not buying out the contract when he had the option to do so without cap consequences.  Richards assured Lombardi that he’d be ready to play last season and we all know how well that went.

And, I have to laugh at the Kings hate.  No one (other than Kings fans) cared about the Kings pre-2012.  All of a sudden the Kings are successful and now everyone hates the Kings with a passion.  Jealousy is very evident.

Posted by Canucklehead from Ottawa, Ontario on 08/10/15 at 01:34 PM ET

shazam88's avatar

Nothing ventured, nothing lost. The termination can either be upheld (which I tend to doubt, at least based on the disseminated information), rejected, or there can be a settlement (doubtful the arbitrator goes that way but it could theoretically emerge as an option if things get ugly for Richards). Life goes on.

Meanwhile, lookee here. Part 2 of Quick’s breakdown of “elite snipers” -
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/jonathan-quick-elite-nhl-snipers-part-2/

Posted by shazam88 from SoCal on 08/10/15 at 01:34 PM ET

Avatar

Yeah, I’m sure the Kings are shaking in their boots Garth. Lol!

I guess that’s what I said was happening?

I doubt you’re going to be laughing when he and his cap hit are back on the Kings’ books.

I’m curious how the NHLPA plans to defend a potential international drug trafficker?

HAHAHAHA.  In what world is possession the same as trafficking?

Also, I guess I missed the announcement that he has been charged with anything.

I’m curious how the NHLPA defends Richards not informing the Kings of the incident immediately after it occurred.  From what I’ve read, it was several days before Kings management found out about the incident.

Informing them of what?  He hadn’t been charged with anything and, in fact, six weeks later he still hasn’t been charged with anything.

I’m curious how the Kings defend terminating the contract of someone on the basis of him being investigated for drug possession.  I’m curious how the Kings try to get around the league’s guidelines regarding substance abuse.  I’m curious how anyone thinks the Kings have a leg to stand on here.

And, I have to laugh at the Kings hate.

I don’t hate them at all, I was cheering for them to make the playoffs and have a good run in the Western Conference last season.  I just think it was bush league BS to try to circumvent the salary cap the way that they did.

Posted by Garth on 08/10/15 at 02:06 PM ET

awould's avatar

I’m curious how the Kings try to get around the league’s guidelines regarding substance abuse.

Bingo. If he were trafficking stolen cartons of cigarettes, and was charged/convicted, he’d be gone. But he was caught in possession of narcotics, pain killers on top of that, that quite obviously falls under the substance abuse guidelines.

Now, if the USA decides to revoke his visa, then things would get interesting. But, of course, like you say, he hasn’t even been charged yet.

The Kings jumped the gun.

Posted by awould on 08/10/15 at 02:36 PM ET

shazam88's avatar

Well I could be wrong but I imagine the failure to disclose aspect will be extremely gernane to this matter; I don’t think it’ll be framed by the Kings in a manner that has much connection to substance abuse / policy (ofc the union will toss that out there; I’d do the same).

DL was trying to trade Richards when he found out the news, so to him at least, it was “material” and we know that he immediately informed the other teams and broke off trade talks. If one assumes that Richards’ future was discussed in detail during the exit interview (trade or buyout), I could argue that by not disclosing, Richards damaged the Kings’ position. That doesn’t necessarily make it a MATERIAL breach on Richards’ part, though, so I’m still guessing that Richards “wins” or at least gets a significant portion via settlement.

Posted by shazam88 from SoCal on 08/10/15 at 03:03 PM ET

Avatar

Bingo. If he were trafficking stolen cartons of cigarettes, and was charged/convicted, he’d be gone. But he was caught in possession of narcotics, pain killers on top of that, that quite obviously falls under the substance abuse guidelines.

I personally could care less about the Kings but it is pretty obvious that they used this incident to try to circumvent the cap and breach the contract.

 

Posted by neffernin on 08/10/15 at 03:13 PM ET

Avatar

Posted by shazam88 from SoCal on 08/10/15 at 03:03 PM ET

Fair points, but still, Lombardi was within his rights to buy Richards out.  He could’ve easily done that and it wouldn’t have been a problem, to my knowledge.

I’m not sure that there’s any way to get around the league’s drug policies.  There doesn’t seem to be a lot of wiggle room in the policy.  If arrested and if he’s convicted of a drug charge he is required to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and if he is deemed to need treatment, he will still be paid while he undergoes it.

This article seems pretty concise in terms of what the team/league can do.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/07/02/mike-richards-oxycontin-and-the-termination-of-his-contract/

Posted by Garth on 08/10/15 at 03:15 PM ET

shazam88's avatar

Garth, Macramalla strikes me as one of those people that’s often thrust into the spotlight in spite of having a minimal track record in a particular field, during course of some incident, be it war, MH370, or labor strife in the NHL, as long as he / she displays extreme confidence in sticking to a very simple but strong sounding script. I mistakenly listened to several of his podcasts on TSN (where he promoted his employer more than once) and threw up in my mouth a teeny bit.

His statements on drug policy and penalties are not incorrect, but that doesn’t mean that he’s addressing the entire issue or looking at it from the Kings’ perspective. I realize that I could be way off base here and I’m more or less talking out my a$$ but I don’t *think* that this will be framed in a “drugs are bad” way. I think this has to do with communication and legal arguments based on reliance / estoppel.

Posted by shazam88 from SoCal on 08/10/15 at 03:34 PM ET

Primis's avatar

HAHAHAHA.  In what world is possession the same as trafficking?

Posted by Garth on 08/10/15 at 02:06 PM ET

Uhhhh…. I’m pretty sure the world and place where once you try to take it across an international border (or nay border at all depending on where you’re at), it becomes trafficking.

So, you know, THIS world.

Possession become Trafficking once you try to cross a border.  In the U.S., if you even cross a *state* border, you’ve crossed from Possession into Trafficking.  Since I think he got stopped on the Canadian side, I’m not certain on the policy there, but I do know from reading up online, Canada also would very much consider it Trafficking because a border was involved.  Merely trying to cross a border with it establishes intent to Traffick, and therefore Trafficking.

That doesn’t guarantee that if he’s charged it would be for Trafficking of course.  It totally does, however, fit the very definition of Trafficking.  So no, you’re completely and totally offbase with your assumptions here.

Posted by Primis on 08/11/15 at 08:54 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

The grievance process happens when the contract isn’t followed. This is a contractual issue. The Kings terminated him when the contract affords him an option of treatment. This isn’t about hockey, it’s about the boring world of employment law. Whatever Richards did on ice should not be considered, but given the Kings wanted to be rid of him for performance issues, they’re going to lose this hearing.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 08/11/15 at 12:47 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

haberistanbul evden eve nakliyat affenspiele.net mimispiele.comgebze evden eve nakliyat solitaire oyna
turkce.yurtdisi-fx.com agario.surf agario paper.io