District 6 New Rule involving playing hockey only with Dist

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:09 am

The bar is pretty high for anti-trust lawsuits and it is unusual for a private party to bring this type of suit since they are usually filed by the anti-trust division of the US Justice department.
My experience serving on juries is that going to trial is a can of worms and the unpredictable can happen. Look at the recent front page trial of Denny Heckard who pleaded guilty to hopefully get a shorter prison term instead of going to trial and potentially getting a much longer sentence.
Again, a trial good result in unintended consequences to both parties.

High Off The Glass · Post by **High Off The Glass** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:31 pm

warmskin wrote:The bar is pretty high for anti-trust lawsuits and
it is unusual for a private party to bring this type of suit since they are usually filed by the anti-trust division of the US Justice department.
My experience serving on juries is that going to trial is a can of worms and the unpredictable can happen. Look at the recent front page trial of Denny Heckard who pleaded guilty to hopefully get a shorter prison term instead of going to trial and potentially getting a much longer sentence.
Again, a trial good result in unintended consequences to both parties.

Not true, most cases since the 1970's are filed by private parties and not by the Government. What makes MM position weak is that the Supreme Court has made antitrust lawsuits very difficult by directing lower courts to tighten the standards needed for a case to be brought before the court. In my opionion (minus my $350 hr fee), is that the court will look at MM antitrust position as economically implausable. Hockey players in D6 are not restricted by any means by going to a competitor, ie MM, so how is MM legal stand attenable. In reverse, the more plausable arguement in regards to a antitrust case could be made by saying this: MM hockey players are forbid to playing on the Machine and the Blades at the same time. An antitrust case basis is that commerce is being restricted by unfair practices or agreements amoung the teams and that might be driving the cost of hockey upwards artificially. The only way MM could have any chance with this case would be for the State of MN Attorney General to get involved on his side, but that WILL not happen.

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:42 pm

Maybe the lawyers MM hired were DC anti-trust lawyers that for $500/hr came up with a different conclusion:) MM may also just be looking for an out of court resolution to this.

High Off The Glass · Post by **High Off The Glass** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:02 pm

warmskin wrote:Ma
ybe the lawyers MM hired were DC anti-trust lawyers that for $500/hr came up with a different conclusion:)
MM may also just be looking for an out of court resolution to this.

Doubt it. They are all working with Microsoft on their conviction appeal on Antitrust violations. What would MM be looking for in an out-of-court settlement?

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:20 pm

There are plenty of out of work lawyers in DC and I imagine they could find an anti-trust lawyer among them.
MM might just want an out of court settlement that would appease both parties.

High Off The Glass · Post by **High Off The Glass** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:07 pm

warmskin wrote:There are plenty of out of work lawyers in DC and I imagine they could find an anti-trust lawyer among them.
MM might just want an out of court settlement that would appease both parties.

Think about it. What settlement could come out of this case that would appease both sides? D6 drops the rule and allows kids to play on two teams, but MM can only hold practices and games at a time that is not in conflict with D6 events? That's not feasible. It's going to be an all or nothing outcome for MM.

goaliewithfoggedglasses · Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:07 pm

First of all it's going to be pretty hard for MM to show damages. The rule was going to hurt Associations a lot more than MM. Most of the Mite families I know considering both were just going to chose MM over Association.

Secondly D6 notified all member Associations on September 2nd that the rule didn't apply to Mites so now people can do both if they choose without repercussion. As I understand it the rule now only applies to Squirts which I would guess would be a very, very small numnber. I can't see how it would be possible to do both at that level, I would think even Bernie would agree to that.

My bet is the whole thing gets dropped. The only thing that seems strange to me is the timing since this suit appears to be filed after D6 backed off on the Mite portion.

If you want to see the text of the email that was sent to Association members I posted it back on page 2 of the thread.

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:16 pm

warmskin wrote:I agree with your comments Hockeymom87 but where do you think the money will come from to pay the legal costs if not from the assoc fees?
As far as I know there is no seperate legal fund for these types of things and as far as I have heard no one has come forward to do this pro bono for District 6. At a minium this will probably get into SI and/or ESPN and give MN hockey a black eye.

Before you cause a black eye you need to dial back the tint in your orange colored glasses and see if you got yourself a bigger one. Maybe the rest of us need to say no to ice time/games/tourneys scheduled at Minnesota Made. They are funded by more than the machine families and if they want to file frivolous suits to bleed our member funded organizations it might be time for a boycott of their facility. It wouldn't take much to have our teams to tell tourney organizers that we will not play there.

Funny how the problem is that your forced to make a choice when that is what they named the league. That name is no accident they were saying it is an alternative choice to the current system they (MM and its constituent families) want to have dual participation long enough to make the league viable. Eventually when they have enough kids they will make the schedule such that you can only be in their league. In MM backyard Edina, Tonka, EP, Wayzata will be fine they will loose a few but have more than enough kids to back fill. Places like Richfield, Hopkins, Armstrong, St Louis Park, and Kennedy. will loose more kids they can not replace. Hockey in those smaller associations will look more and more like Minneapolis. In 20 years I have watched hockey go from viable to nearly extinct in the city. Kids are still there but hockey isn't. 20 years from now we could see half of the metro associations gone, and with them a large reduction in the number of kids skating.

You talk about this like it is a crusade to help serve the needs of "ALL" kids. In truth this is altruism in its purest form. You are willing to put your good ahead of the good of all, and to take from the future to serve yourself now. If you are truly worried about hockey for "ALL" kids try working on making the game more affordable and accessible. Broaden the base and the pyramids top can be higher.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm

I believe its a question of unethical behavior on the part of D6. Lets be honest here, the rule was put in place to hurt MM. I believe that D6 didn't like the new PeeWee Choice supplemental league. D6 knows that if a player is forced to pick between association hockey and MM PeeWee Choice that they will pick association because the PeeWee Choice is meant to be a supplement to association hockey. The PeeWee Choice program is only 2 days a week. D6 doesn't like the expansion of the MM programs so they are using smoke and mirrors to make it appear that they are giving kids a choice when they're really not. The kids and parents should have the right to choose what they are going to do not D6.

sinbin · Post by **sinbin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:17 pm

Are we in MN turning into the club model where only the (extremely)well-off can afford hockey? It's expensive enough already for most of us, but probably about 20% of the cost of those I talk to on the East Coast or elsewhere. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to keep the base wide or one day soon the Egyptian pyramid that lasted millenia will transform into a wobbly spire that will quickly tumble.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:32 pm

Royals Dad - The reason kids go to MM is because they offer a better product then most if not all associations. It's real simple, put out a better product in your association and kids will not have a reason to go elsewhere

. The real fact is that you know that MM has better training so you want to force little Johnny & Suzy to listen to the D6 dictator. The problem is that you know that it will take years for your association to catch up so why don't we just force everyone to stay in their association so it doesn't fall apart. Let me say it again, PUT OUT A BETTER PRODUCT!!!! You tell me where my kid will get better training and I will sign them up tomorrow.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:52 pm

Sinbin - You're right that hockey is getting expensive. There are many good programs like Showcase that are reasonably priced and offer a fun competitive program for kids in the summer. Most associations are trying to keep costs down but unfortunately in this economy I think that some kids are dropping out

. Whats getting really crazy is the cost of the gear. If you look around I believe that anyone can find what they are looking for from the recreational hockey player to the high level AAA player. What is a shame is that we have people trying to put limits on parents and kids that are looking for more like high level AAA hockey.

buttend · Post by **buttend** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:56 pm

hockey_is_a_choice wrote:The gloves are off:

Minnesota Made Hockey Inc.
v.
Minnesota Hockey Inc., aka Minnesota Hockey; District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Assn., aka District 6 of Minnesota Hockey Inc., aka Minnesota District 6 Hockey, aka District6-Minnesota Hockey, aka District 6; Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, aka Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Assn.; Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Assn.; Bloomington Youth Hockey Assn.; Burnsville Hockey Club, aka Burnsville Blaze Hockey; Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Assn., aka Chaska Community Hockey Assn.; Eden Prairie Hockey Assn.; Edina Hockey Assn.; Minnetonka Youth Hockey Assn.; New Prague Hockey Assn. Inc., aka New Prague Area Hockey Assn.; Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Assn., aka Prior Lake-Savage Hockey Assn.; Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, aka Richfield Youth Hockey Assn.; Waconia Hockey Assn. Inc.; Brad Hewitt; ABC Corp.; John Doe
9/9/2010 0:10cv3884 Tunheim
(Minneapolis)Federal District Court

Removal of an antitrust complaint.

Not sure but if " Removal of an antitrust complaint" was in the filing, to me that signals that MM has dropped the suit? Maybe MM filed suit earlier and an agreement not include the Mites in D6's policy was worked out.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:58 pm

Where is the threat to association hockey? How many kids are we talking about here? Around 200 kids? That's like a fraction of a flyspeck. I don't think the pyramid is going to collapse if 200 kids aren't part of it for a year or two. In fact you could argue that when they return the pyramid gets stronger.

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:58 pm

hockeyrocks87 wrote:Royals Dad - The reason kids go to MM is because they offer a better product then most if not all associations. It's real simple, put out a better product in your association and kids will not have a reason to go elsewhere . The real fact is that you know that MM has better training so you want to force little Johnny & Suzy to listen to the D6 dictator. The problem is that you know that it will take years for your association to catch up so why don't we just force everyone to stay in their association so it doesn't fall apart. Let me say it again, PUT OUT A BETTER PRODUCT!!!! You tell me where my kid will get better training and I will sign them up tomorrow.

What a crock...Who are you kidding the Bernie isn't creating some kind of super athelete overthere and when he opens his training facility he will be just another player in the ever shrinking world of training facilities that are popping up in the twin cities. I am wonderig if your kid is gong to be an a peewee this year? This isn't about kids and choices it is about two pompas power hungry guys playing politics... District 6 is still the premeir district in the state and if you put a MM choice squirt team against a squirt A team the d 6 team would destroy them. I remember looking at the brochure for the Choice squirt league and seeing the promise of sending your kid there to train so when he became a peewee he would be ready to make the A team... The kids coming back to our association must have missed the training because I haven't seen the huge jump in development in those kids.. (sold a dream?) Bernie is all about that and making $$$$ once again I don't think that is a bad thing. The market will bear what it will and in the end Both D6 and MM will survve.

The only thing that will come out of this is the fact that lawsuits make consumers pay more $ for everything....so get ready to fork out more $$$.

My two cents.

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:00 pm

To your point Hockeyrocks87, MM is shortly opening a state of the art dryland training facility for hockey and other sports in Edina near MM. They have already had a number of D1 and NHL players training there before it offically opens. It is tough for any of the assoc to compete at this level of dryland training.
The cost of hockey on the east coast excluding the NE is sky high because there is little public funding for ice facilities. This winter 2 aging facilites collapsed on the east coast (Pittsburgh and DC) due to heavy snows.
Ice time in these areas is generally $350/$400 per hour.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:10 pm

warmskin wrote:To your point Hockeyrocks87, MM is shortly opening a state of the art dryland training facility for hockey and other sports in Edina near MM. They have already had a number of D1 and NHL players training there before it offically opens. It is tough for any of the assoc to compete at this level of dryland training.
The cost of hockey on the east coast excluding the NE is sky high because there is little public funding for ice facilities. This winter 2 aging facilites collapsed on the east coast (Pittsburgh and DC) due to heavy snows.
Ice time in these areas is generally $350/$400 per hour.

Let's pool our money and build some rinks out there!

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:13 pm

Royals Dad - Choice is an adjective in MM's world, think about it??

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:21 pm

Hockeydad41, there are plenty of hockey rinks for sale on the east coast if you really want to become an owner. There is one near the Pittsburgh airport that might get torn down in favor of a warehouse.
It is difficult outside the major hockey markets to make any money with ice arenas plus in weak hockey markets you better be nice to the figure skaters and short track skaters. MD and Seattle are the 2 hotbeds for short track skating.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:45 pm

Sorry guys & gals but I have to go back to work so I can do my part to help redistribute the wealth as I'm sure Mr. $350/ hr is doing as well.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:56 pm

warmskin wrote:Hockeydad41, there are plenty of hockey rinks for sale on the east coast if you really want to become an owner. There is one near the Pittsburgh airport that might get torn down in favor of a warehouse.
It is difficult outside the major hockey markets to make any money with ice arenas plus in weak hockey markets you better be nice to the figure skaters and short track skaters. MD and Seattle are the 2 hotbeds for short track skating.

I was being facetious.

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:45 pm

hockeyrocks87 wrote:Royals Dad - Choice is an adjective in MM's world, think about it??

As in "look at this choice car I can buy when I cash all these idiots checks". Ahh I am beginning to see your point.

HockeyMom87 · Post by **HockeyMom87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:49 pm

You are all missing the point. We could've avoided this all by not having a rule. Why does District 6 care if the kids are doing something else? Judging from the comments - you all think this is about association hockey vs. MM. What an unfortunate circumstance. The point is Hewitt shouldn't even tried to legislate his personal views this way. But - I imagine all you people have been doing this so long that this doesn't seem weird to you. It seems very weird to me. Even if there is insurance (and the insurance companies are nuts if they don't put limits on directors going off half-cocked on their own - no wonder premiums are so high - thank you gentlemen), the point is that this is directing everyone's attention away from children and hockey (and children's love of hockey) and into litigation. Win or lose - district 6 has FAILED already. You've missed the point. District 6 could've prevented this by passing a rule saying that you cannot have more than 3 unexcused absenses. MM can avoid the rule by creating a religious-based league and calling it a church activity. Schools cannot be associated with groups that discriminate on religious bases and I'm guessing, MN Hockey would back down as soon as they lost the ability to control high school hockey. Maybe time to form a brand new league to deal with hockey in the State of MN. I would've found a more creative way around the rule. The point is some kids need other CHOICES - MM provides that. The two could be mutually compatible if we didn't have male egos involved. The two together could've helped all kids and fostered MN as the hockey state. Instead - we get a control pissing match. All MN Hockey officials should retire. Way too old and way too stuck in their thinking for creative resolutions if this is the type of rule they support. It is so offensive on a variety of levels - anti-trust is just the legally most sustainable grounds. I am appalled and MN Hockey has lost a lot of my respect. Their position at MN Hockey isn't to put forth their personal views. They have a fiduciary duty to hockey - and they blew it over their jealously over MM, apparent hatred of BM, closed-mindedness that theirs is the only correct way, and the assumption that they have to control everyone to "win." The emotions run so high on this that everyone gets off point. Should've had a mediator long ago.

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:22 pm

There is a difference between not getting the point and disagreeing with it. I get it but I disagree with you. I honestly believe having AAA in season and specifically year round Tier 1 in Minnesota would be bad for hockey.

I think what you see as a step forward would be a big step back. As has been said many times before the grass is not greener on the other side of the border. If MM is such a better product why is it so hard to just turn your back on Minn Hockey and go there?

I work a great deal in Chicago, Jersey, New York, and Boston. I have many colleges and friends who have kids in both Tier 1 and lower teams outside of Minnesota. I think we have it better and would hate to see it broken in the name of progress. I am not that old (40) nor am I stuck in the past, I am not against business making a profit but I also know where that profit will come from.

icnet01 · Post by **icnet01** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:48 pm

[quote="royals dad"]
I think what you see as a step forward would be a big step back. As has been said many times before the grass is not greener on the other side of the border. If MM is such a better product why is it so hard to just turn your back on Minn Hockey and go there?

quote]

here here