dekedangle_rpfanon | #11 - Kopitar Prefers Amps That Go to Eleven

This is the eleventh post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means.

Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

DA
probably not, but I can see there being some kind of legal problems clause that would allow for them to fire him if he fucked up again

NA I wonder what falls under their definition of 'fucking up'

NAYRT
I don't think it's so much about 'don't rape /fuck up' sadly, but rather 'don't embarrass the club'. Even another Madison might have counted.

I'd guess "anything that involves being investigated by the cops for something other than cocaine possession". Basically, "anything that tarnishes our brand".

But, as I've seen raised in discussions of the Mike Richards case, is a contract enforceable which alters the standard players contract with its collectively bargained rights?

I'm not sure, but if agreed to sign it wouldn't it be enforceable? I kind of think this whole thing is bs but shrugemoji

A player might agree to sign something like that but doesn't mean NHL would register a contract that conflicted with CBA, or that NHLPA wouldn't appeal action taken under such a clause.

But I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea what possible clauses wouldn't conflict with CBA. Maybe no trade clause is voided if he embarrasses the team?

From article 11 of the CBA (emphasis added is my own):

(a) Standard Player's Contract. The standard form SPC annexed hereto as Exhibit
1 will be the sole form of employment contract used for all Player signings after the execution of
this Agreement. The standard form SPC may not be amended or modified in any manner
whatsoever. Filed and approved 2005 SPCs that are valid and effective at the time of execution
of this Agreement will remain valid and effective until their expiration, as deemed modified by
this Agreement, including the Transition Rules attached as Exhibit 16 hereto, and shall be
deemed for all purposes to constitute an "SPC" within the meaning of this Agreement.

So basically the person OP is quoting is lying?

It's just some guy/gal on the internet so there's a good chance it's made up, but it's possible they misunderstood something. Like it might have been a handshake agreement of some sort, and we've had some reports of those like how a few years ago Columbus said they'd give Prospal a front office job when he retired (though that didn't happen). Or the stuff with the Wings and Cleary now.

DA

Who knows if random internet person was lying, but the "morality clause" in the SPC that was invoked to terminate Richards is very broad and left up to the teams to determine. It is entirely possible that the Blackhawks spelled out Kane's morality clause to him, more specifically, in a separate agreement that he had to sign an acknowledgment of in order to get his new contract.

IANAL, but, while such an agreement might be something the NHLPA could choose to contest in the event that were Kane terminated, they'd probably have more of a leg to stand on than it seems the Kings do with Richards (given the murky substance abuse agreement that exists and might have some sway over the Richards matter).

SA

For reference, here are the potentially relevant parts of the Standard Player Contract (which apply to the Richards matter, according to the Kings, and could apply to the Kane matter, if what gossip person said was true), which is found as Exhibit I to the CBA (available on the NHL website):

Paragraph 2(e):

2. The Player agrees to give his services and to play hockey in all NHL Games, All Star Games, International Hockey Games and Exhibition Games to the best of his ability under the direction and control of the Club in accordance with the provisions hereof.

(e) 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.

and Paragraph 14(a):

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.

(emphasis added)

That seems to me that the Hawks could have written up a document telling Kane that any one of a number of activities on his part could be considered a violation of Club rules that would constitute a material breach of his contract. But, again, if such an agreement existed, it could be contested by the NHLPA.

The NHLPA are going to grieve whatever. They have to; even if they all think Kane should be canned, they can't let it stand as precedent.

It seems more likely any agreement was a handshake deal. Bowman has had a lot of faith in Kane. Kane babysat for his family and was really supportive during Bowman's cancer, iirc, so he's going to have a positive opinion of him and want to trust him.

Can they/would they grieve if he's actually convicted? What about Mike Danton - was he under contract at the time he went to jail? Oh, and it'll be interesting to see what the Kings do with Voynov. When does he get out?

NA

If he serves all 90 days, then he'll be released October 5.

My understanding is Voynov has finished his sentence (it's common in California because of prison overcrowding to let people off early for good behavior), but he is still in jail now indefinitely pending a review of his immigration status.

That's interesting. Because I know I've seen reports before about 'out clauses' written into players contracts. For example Artemi Panarin's this summer has one where he can return to the KHL if he doesn't make the Hawks roster out of camp. Does that not count as modifying the SPC?

Without being a lawyer it's hard for me to really know, but I'm guessing there's probably a difference between a clause that has power granted by the CBA (and there is a section in the SPC that references loans) and modifying it by adding in something that isn't covered? Here's the CBA section on that though.

11.19 Loan to Clubs Outside North America. The SPC of any Player may contain a clause that
provides that, in the event his NHL Club Loans the Player to a club outside the NHL, during the
period of such Loan, the Player shall have the option to be Loaned to a club of his choice outside
North America. The clause may relieve the NHL Club of the obligation to pay the Player his
Paragraph 1 Salary for the duration of such Loan if such relief is expressly stated in the
provision, but the NHL Club shall otherwise be responsible for all other payments due to the
Player by the NHL Club pursuant to his SPC. Such clause shall be subject to any applicable
Player Transfer Agreement between the NHL and a hockey federation and/or the IIHF in effect,
at the time of the Loan. The Player shall be permitted to make financial arrangements for
compensation and other benefits with the club outside North America for the duration of the
Loan, which financial compensation and benefits shall not be included in Averaged Club Salary,
Actual Club Salary, League-wide Player Compensation or the Players' Share. The Club shall be
required to provide to the NHL and the NHLPA in accordance with Exhibit 3 any loan
agreement entered into in relation to such Loan by no later than 5:00 p.m. New York time on the
day following the day the Club has received the executed loan agreement.

Ohh I hadn't realized it would be considered a loan (as opposed to a termination of the contract). That makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for scouring the CBA for me, anon!

No problem. I think the biggest difference vs termination is that they'd have the opportunity to retain his RFA status after his contract runs out even if he's in Russia.

For sure. Viewing it as a loan is very smart for the team since they'd keep his rights no matter where he's playing and because he's also waiver exempt, they can bring him back over during the season/playoffs if they want without having to deal with the Nabokov rule.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Deke Dangle RPF Anon

An Ice Hockey RPF Anon Meme

#11 - Kopitar Prefers Amps That Go to Eleven

#11 - Kopitar Prefers Amps That Go to Eleven

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane

Re: Patrick Kane