Please help me with this,

Using the 3-step legal analysis:

1- Legal issue: identify the relevant legal issues.

2- Applicable law: identify and discuss the law relevant to the issue.

3- apply the law to facts: apply the law to the facts and come to a conclusion or opinion.

Five years ago, Vladimir Ulyanov, a professional hockey player, signed a contract with the rebels hockey club, which contained these terms:

• Vladimir Ulaynov agrees to perform for the Rebels Hockey Club and not to perform for any other hockey club for the duration of this contract.
• this contract shall run for 10 years from the date of signing
• The rebels hockey club agrees to play Vladimir Ulaynov a base salary of $6 000 000 per year for the duration of this contract.

Last year the Rebels hired a new coach, who changed the club's style of play by focusing far more on intimidation and far less on skill. Vladimir, a highly talented, but slightly built, player, wants no part of the new approach and has signed. a contract to play with a rival team. The Rebels have brought an action against him for a breach of contract. The team argues that monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy because (i) no amount of money would allow them to hire another player of Vladimir's calibre, and (ii) it is impossible to actually predict the loss of merchandising and ticket revenue that would be caused by Vladimir defection to the rival team. In response, Vladimir says that his only employment prospects outside of professional hockey lie in the food service industry, and that if he is required to take a job in a restaurant his annual income would drop from $6 000 000 to $25 000. will a court order specific performance against Vladimir? will a court order an injunction against Vladimir? what do you believe would be a fair result in this case?

what is the most appropriate legal remedy that should be granted to the Rebels for Vladimirs breach of contract?