pilldoc Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Yeah, Lombardi is ticked with him. Not only did he break his word last summer, he apparently scuttled a possible trade on draft night. Unless his entire trunk was a storeroom for Oxy, there's no way this contract termination holds up. beat me to my post, but yeah, I totally echo your sentiments. The NHLPA is gonna have a field day with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Monet Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Maybe Jim McCrossin will take the fall. That be one way to get rid of him.Wait....he is still around ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samifan Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Wait....he is still around ?Yes he is. I think Uncle Ed signed him to a lifetime contract. "Jim McCrossin: Misdiagnosing injuries since 1995" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Paul Friesen of the Winnipeg Sun reports that Richards was, in fact, arrested on June 17, but was not charged. @friesensunmediaSource says Mike Richards was formally arrested at border crossing, not merely detained for questioning. Investigation now at two-week mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Paul Friesen of the Winnipeg Sun reports that Richards was, in fact, arrested on June 17, but was not charged. @friesensunmediaSource says Mike Richards was formally arrested at border crossing, not merely detained for questioning. Investigation now at two-week mark. the plot thickens......they most have had probable cause for something. You simply do not get arrested for having a 1-3 month supply of Oxy. Now if I remember correctly you have to declare that when you come across the border. If he forgot to declare it...is that an arrestable offense? There has to be much more to this story.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Article from Forbes on the legal possibilities and arguments:http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/08/12/mike-richards-so-what-now/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Article from Forbes on the legal possibilities and arguments:http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/08/12/mike-richards-so-what-now/ Yeah, it certainly looks like the Kings are effed on this "termination" thing. If you can't get a contract terminated for trying to build a cocaine ring, it's not likely having some extra Oxy is gonna get your contract terminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Yeah, it certainly looks like the Kings are effed on this "termination" thing. If you can't get a contract terminated for trying to build a cocaine ring, it's not likely having some extra Oxy is gonna get your contract terminated.Yeah, this whole thing is a bit silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Richards charged by RCMP with possession of a controlled substance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 Richards charged by RCMP with possession of a controlled substance And the NHLPA has filed a grievance on his behalf: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25265364/nhlpa-files-grievance-on-behalf-of-mike-richards-over-kings-contract-termination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 +1 for Lombardi and the Kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 And the NHLPA has filed a grievance on his behalf: Yeah, I saw that. I don't think this necessarily changes things. Kings will still lose this. How many pills did Mike have with him for chrissake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yeah, I saw that. I don't think this necessarily changes things. Kings will still lose this. How many pills did Mike have with him for chrissake? http://www.tsn.ca/richards-charged-with-illegal-possession-of-a-controlled-substance-1.351639 Canadian border guards found “some pills in a single bottle” during a random search of Richards’ car and he was arrested by RCMP, a source told TSN. “It was clearly a small quantity intended for his personal use,” the source told TSN. If that's all it is then I think the Kings have made a huge tiny mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samifan Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So Richards had a single pill bottle and was not the second coming of Tony Montana. Get Ready to pay up Lombardi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So Richards had a single pill bottle and was not the second coming of Tony Montana. Holy hell Batman....you would have thought he was working for the Sinaloa cartel....LMAO, the Kings WAAAAY overstepped their boundaries here. A few pills in a small bottle>>!>! *THIS* is the huge smoking gun that warrented his being released from his contract?? Lombardi is gonna get raked over the hot burning coals by the NHLPA over this...and rightly so!! Hey, for sure illegal, but they way they put forth the story at the draft you would have thought there was a dead body in his car along with enough Codine to kill a Sperm Whale....what a friggin JOKE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Canadian border guards found “some pills in a single bottle” during a random search of Richards’ car and he was arrested by RCMP, a source told TSN. “It was clearly a small quantity intended for his personal use,” the source told TSN. There has to be more to this then. Not prescribed to him, I presume. But something else to be charged like that. What has Mike done to the border folks to warrant this search and seizure in the first place? Why the charge? Seems we're missing something here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 There has to be more to this then. Not prescribed to him, I presume. But something else to be charged like that. What has Mike done to the border folks to warrant this search and seizure in the first place? Why the charge? Seems we're missing something here.... Well, it's an absolute given that if you cross the border with narcotics that are not prescribed to you, charges are just a formality. It's almost a 100% guarantee that you will be charged. The border is not like any other law enforcement agency, they do not need "reasonable and probable" grounds like the rest of North America....they can go by gut instinct....and Mike's reputation as a partier probably really worked against him here. Pfffft, probably a Leaf fan border guard that arrested him.....lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 Well, it's an absolute given that if you cross the border with narcotics that are not prescribed to you, charges are just a formality. It's almost a 100% guarantee that you will be charged. The border is not like any other law enforcement agency, they do not need "reasonable and probable" grounds like the rest of North America....they can go by gut instinct....and Mike's reputation as a partier probably really worked against him here. Pfffft, probably a Leaf fan border guard that arrested him.....lol. Even so, if it's a drug issue then the team has to follow the process laid out in the CBA. They can't just cut the player loose. Unless there is still more that we don't know about I don't know how the Kings can expect to win this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Even so, if it's a drug issue then the team has to follow the process laid out in the CBA. They can't just cut the player loose. Unless there is still more that we don't know about I don't know how the Kings can expect to win this. Well, here's the thing: At the border it's not just a drug thing. It's now "smuggling." If I had to hazard a guess, the Kings are going to hang their hat on this. My understanding is that USC&BP takes almost a zero tolerance stance on drugs crossing the border, regardless of how much. Which means that Mike could lose his Visa. Which means that Mike would be ineligible to work in the USA anymore. At that point it would cease to be a drug issue, and become a failure to perform issue (How could he play for LA or Manchester if he can't play in their home games?). Of course, that hasn't happened, at least not yet. There's no guarantee it will happen. But I think the Kings are hoping it will. The Kings definitely jumped the gun terminating the contract. However, with the stipulations about drugs in the CBA, how likely is it that the NHL would have allowed the termination if they felt that was all there was to it? I'm sure the owners want non-guaranteed contracts, but given what we know, is the Mike Richards arrest really the battleground to fight it out on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 @AJgoal As per usual, you bring fresh new clarity to the topic. You have a real gift for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 @jammer2 Thanks, but I'm really just spitballing. We really have very little information, weird considering the profile of the individual and the events that are surrounding this. While I have no doubt that Mike's contract length, the friction with Lombardi, and his decreased production all have a role in what is going on, I just can't see Lombardi and the Kings going this far off the rails to get rid of him, AND the NHL going along with it, despite the protections in the CBA, UNLESS there was another shoe that they know about that the general public doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 Well, here's the thing: At the border it's not just a drug thing. It's now "smuggling." If I had to hazard a guess, the Kings are going to hang their hat on this. My understanding is that USC&BP takes almost a zero tolerance stance on drugs crossing the border, regardless of how much. Which means that Mike could lose his Visa. Which means that Mike would be ineligible to work in the USA anymore. At that point it would cease to be a drug issue, and become a failure to perform issue (How could he play for LA or Manchester if he can't play in their home games?). Of course, that hasn't happened, at least not yet. There's no guarantee it will happen. But I think the Kings are hoping it will. The Kings definitely jumped the gun terminating the contract. However, with the stipulations about drugs in the CBA, how likely is it that the NHL would have allowed the termination if they felt that was all there was to it? I'm sure the owners want non-guaranteed contracts, but given what we know, is the Mike Richards arrest really the battleground to fight it out on? All good questions. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens with the grievance process. I assume it will go to arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 So, just came across this. Don't know how accurate it is: http://www.borderimmigrationlawyer.com/home/2011/10/10/canadian-summary-conviction.html So long as there is only one (1) summary conviction, and the individual has no other criminal record, disposal of the criminal charge by summary conviction should not affect admissibility to the U.S. This is because Canadian summary convictions qualify for the “petty offense exception” provided for under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). Thus, Canadian citizens with only one (1) conviction, which was disposed of via summary conviction, do not require a waiver of inadmissibility to enter the U.S. If that's accurate, then it sounds like this might not affect Richards' ability to enter the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGreatGazoo Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Spitballing like we all are here. But contracts can be modified(slightly) during a trade; hence the questions about if a NMC/NTC is still in force when a player is traded. Is it possible that something was added,at the agreement of both parties, when Richards was acquired? Not sure that's even allowed. BUT if it were, could that be a basis for the Kings' actions. Obviously, the NHLPA would know about any addition, which makes this highly unlikely, given their grievance. In addition, player contracts have to adhere to the CBA, and there is specific wording regarding Drugs offenses, as others have pointed out. Just thinking outside the box here as to what might be going on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Good find, Jack. You really can't modify the contract very much, except for the dollar amounts and any NTC/NMCs that might exist. After signing, no changes can be made, period, unless they are made automatically as happens when a player is traded before an NTC/NMC takes effect. There really shouldn't be any confusion surrounding Richards' NMC - since he was traded before it coming into effect, it should not remain attached to his contract, UNLESS the Kings decided to keep it - but why would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.