Was it a mistake for Minnesota Hockey to back Brad Hewitt?
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Was it a mistake for Minnesota Hockey to back Brad Hewitt?
Was it a mistake for Minnesota Hockey to back Brad Hewitt and his district 6 rule?
-
Buck Wheeler
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:30 pm
Given that Brad Hewitt put his rule in place without any debate or input from the district 6 board, Minnesota Hockey or USA Hockey it seems like it was short sighted. The rule was in place before most of the dist 6 board knew what it even was.
Why Minnesota Hockey supported Hewitt is anyones guess. Minnesota Hockey should have pulled him back. The problem is that Brad Hewitt put them in a difficult spot and in the end it would have been embarassing to Minnesota Hockey. It will cost them $200,000 because Brad does not like Bernie.
We have to remember that none of these people are professionals, they are all volunteers and they sometimes fly by the seat of their pants.
Why Minnesota Hockey supported Hewitt is anyones guess. Minnesota Hockey should have pulled him back. The problem is that Brad Hewitt put them in a difficult spot and in the end it would have been embarassing to Minnesota Hockey. It will cost them $200,000 because Brad does not like Bernie.
We have to remember that none of these people are professionals, they are all volunteers and they sometimes fly by the seat of their pants.
-
hockeydad11
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:21 pm
Post by Hockey-is-a-Choice
Today, Judge Tunheim issued the first substantive Order in the Minnesota Made versus Minnesota Hockey, District 6, et al, lawsuit. In a nutshell, although the Court denied Minnesota Made's motion for preliminary injunction, which would have prevented Minnesota Hockey and District 6 from enforcing the "outside league rule" while the lawsuit was pending, the Court determined that Minnesota Made "has shown a likelihood of success on it [sic] anti-trust monopolization claims." (Order, p. 2.)
What does this mean? It means that the Court thinks Minnesota Made's claims have merit and that money damages, as opposed to a preliminary injunction, will adequately compensate Minnesota Made. Frankly, regardless of where you fall on this issue, the Court's Opinion was a victory for Minnesota Made and a black eye for Minnesota Hockey and District 6.
Minnesota Hockey and District 6 are scheduled to argue to the Court that it should dismiss Minnesota Made's case against them in a hearing on January 7, starting at 1:30 pm, in Courtroom 13E in the Minneapolis Federal Court Building (this hearing is open to the public), Minnesota Hockey and District 6 have a huge mountain to climb to convince the Court that it should dismiss the lawsuit.
In reviewing the 19-page Order there are some interesting comments and observations by the Court.
*Minnesota Hockey and District 6 argued "that a preliminary injunction is not necessary since their own internal grievance policy is so prolonged that a player would not face discipline for violation of the rule during the hockey season." (Order, p. 6). "As a result, the Court does not find the type of harm demonstrated by plaintiff [Minnesota Made] warrants the 'extraordinary and drastic remedy' of a preliminary injunction." (Order, p. 7.)
* Probability of Success on the Merits: Minnesota Hockey argued it was exempt from anti-trust laws because it is nonprofit entity and part of USA Hockey, which is the National Governing Body (NGB) of hockey. The Court rejected this claim and, instead, determined that there is "no exemption from anti-trust liability when one local association [Minnesota Hockey] has adopted a rule for only their players." (Order, p. 9.) The Court further determined that "[t]he outside league rule changed the market in a manner antithetical to competition and [Minnesota Hockey's and District 6's] argument that the rule will improve [Minnesota Made's] business prospects runs counter to the record. . . . The Court thus finds that [Minnesota Made] has both an injury and standing to bring an anti-trust claim." (Order, p. 9.)
* The Court found that the evidence "sufficiently demonstrates [Minnesota Hockey's and District 6's] market power to exclude competition." (Order, p. 19.) "'[M]ere possession of monopoly power is not illegal. . . . However, if a monopolist abuses its monopoly power and acts in an unreasonable exclusionary manner vis-a-vis rivals or potential rivals, then [the anti-trust law] is violated.'" [citation omitted.] "The exclusionary requirement of the outside league rule coupled with the exemption of certain other leagues and activities, is adequate to demonstrate a probability of success [ by Minnesota Made on the merits of its monopolization claim]." (Order, pp. 13-14.)
* "[O]n its claim of tortious interference with prospective business relationships, the Court finds that [Minnesota Made] has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits." (Order, p. 17.)
* "The Court finds implausible the offered justification that District 6 acted to reduce scheduling conflicts and promote player well-being . . . ." (Order, p. 18.)
Today, Judge Tunheim issued the first substantive Order in the Minnesota Made versus Minnesota Hockey, District 6, et al, lawsuit. In a nutshell, although the Court denied Minnesota Made's motion for preliminary injunction, which would have prevented Minnesota Hockey and District 6 from enforcing the "outside league rule" while the lawsuit was pending, the Court determined that Minnesota Made "has shown a likelihood of success on it [sic] anti-trust monopolization claims." (Order, p. 2.)
What does this mean? It means that the Court thinks Minnesota Made's claims have merit and that money damages, as opposed to a preliminary injunction, will adequately compensate Minnesota Made. Frankly, regardless of where you fall on this issue, the Court's Opinion was a victory for Minnesota Made and a black eye for Minnesota Hockey and District 6.
Minnesota Hockey and District 6 are scheduled to argue to the Court that it should dismiss Minnesota Made's case against them in a hearing on January 7, starting at 1:30 pm, in Courtroom 13E in the Minneapolis Federal Court Building (this hearing is open to the public), Minnesota Hockey and District 6 have a huge mountain to climb to convince the Court that it should dismiss the lawsuit.
In reviewing the 19-page Order there are some interesting comments and observations by the Court.
*Minnesota Hockey and District 6 argued "that a preliminary injunction is not necessary since their own internal grievance policy is so prolonged that a player would not face discipline for violation of the rule during the hockey season." (Order, p. 6). "As a result, the Court does not find the type of harm demonstrated by plaintiff [Minnesota Made] warrants the 'extraordinary and drastic remedy' of a preliminary injunction." (Order, p. 7.)
* Probability of Success on the Merits: Minnesota Hockey argued it was exempt from anti-trust laws because it is nonprofit entity and part of USA Hockey, which is the National Governing Body (NGB) of hockey. The Court rejected this claim and, instead, determined that there is "no exemption from anti-trust liability when one local association [Minnesota Hockey] has adopted a rule for only their players." (Order, p. 9.) The Court further determined that "[t]he outside league rule changed the market in a manner antithetical to competition and [Minnesota Hockey's and District 6's] argument that the rule will improve [Minnesota Made's] business prospects runs counter to the record. . . . The Court thus finds that [Minnesota Made] has both an injury and standing to bring an anti-trust claim." (Order, p. 9.)
* The Court found that the evidence "sufficiently demonstrates [Minnesota Hockey's and District 6's] market power to exclude competition." (Order, p. 19.) "'[M]ere possession of monopoly power is not illegal. . . . However, if a monopolist abuses its monopoly power and acts in an unreasonable exclusionary manner vis-a-vis rivals or potential rivals, then [the anti-trust law] is violated.'" [citation omitted.] "The exclusionary requirement of the outside league rule coupled with the exemption of certain other leagues and activities, is adequate to demonstrate a probability of success [ by Minnesota Made on the merits of its monopolization claim]." (Order, pp. 13-14.)
* "[O]n its claim of tortious interference with prospective business relationships, the Court finds that [Minnesota Made] has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits." (Order, p. 17.)
* "The Court finds implausible the offered justification that District 6 acted to reduce scheduling conflicts and promote player well-being . . . ." (Order, p. 18.)
If the courts decision is as Hockey-is-a-choice is reporting. It may not be over, but it should be. My experience is that the Judge is basically telling the parties which way he will rule and that they should settle.
To get to this point, each party has most likely spent $50,000 to $75,000 each in legal fees or more. BM/MN Made will be entitled to his attorneys fees and possible twice his attorneys for damages. When you factor in Minnesota Hockey's own attorneys fees this case could cost Minnesota Hockey over $200,000.00 dollars.
I hate to say it, but it might have been easier to make a simple attendance rule for players.
To get to this point, each party has most likely spent $50,000 to $75,000 each in legal fees or more. BM/MN Made will be entitled to his attorneys fees and possible twice his attorneys for damages. When you factor in Minnesota Hockey's own attorneys fees this case could cost Minnesota Hockey over $200,000.00 dollars.
I hate to say it, but it might have been easier to make a simple attendance rule for players.
-
Buck Wheeler
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:30 pm
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
-
Buck Wheeler
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:30 pm
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
-
James B Mcbain
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:15 pm
Re: Was it a mistake for Minnesota Hockey to back Brad Hewit
Obviously!scrapiron wrote:Was it a mistake for Minnesota Hockey to back Brad Hewitt and his district 6 rule?
-
The Huge Hook
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:10 am
- Location: South of Hwy. 2
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
Do I think that bernie needs a monetary gain out of this? Is that what you're asking?The Huge Hook wrote:Let me get this straight........You blame Bernie for this predicament, not Brad???MrBoDangles wrote:So now the Grinch that is Bernie is going to take away a quarter million from the kids of Minnesota Hockey.
Hey Bernie, if you're human you better drop it??!!](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
-
outside_observer
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:52 pm
Well, unfortunately, he may not need it, but he does deserve it.MrBoDangles wrote:Do I think that bernie needs a monetary gain out of this? Is that what you're asking?The Huge Hook wrote:Let me get this straight........You blame Bernie for this predicament, not Brad???MrBoDangles wrote:So now the Grinch that is Bernie is going to take away a quarter million from the kids of Minnesota Hockey.
Hey Bernie, if you're human you better drop it??!!
Lawyers fees, and loss of revenue reimbursement. (if they can prove there was any)
then MH will have to pay their own lawyers.
Oh and by the way, MH will just raise their fees to cover it. The kids won't suffer. Are you running for office? that's a very polititiany thing to say.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
"fees go up" So us as parents know that we are each probably going to be handing Bernie a $50. Might price some families out... Are you another one on their knees?outside_observer wrote:Well, unfortunately, he may not need it, but he does deserve it.MrBoDangles wrote:Do I think that bernie needs a monetary gain out of this? Is that what you're asking?The Huge Hook wrote: Let me get this straight........You blame Bernie for this predicament, not Brad???
Lawyers fees, and loss of revenue reimbursement. (if they can prove there was any)
then MH will have to pay their own lawyers.
Oh and by the way, MH will just raise their fees to cover it. The kids won't suffer. Are you running for office? that's a very polititiany thing to say.
-
The Huge Hook
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:10 am
- Location: South of Hwy. 2
You'll be handing Bernie $50.00 due to Brad's rash decision making and personal vendetta.MrBoDangles wrote:"fees go up" So us as parents know that we are each probably going to be handing Bernie a $50. Might price some families out... Are you another one on their knees?outside_observer wrote:Well, unfortunately, he may not need it, but he does deserve it.MrBoDangles wrote: Do I think that bernie needs a monetary gain out of this? Is that what you're asking?
Lawyers fees, and loss of revenue reimbursement. (if they can prove there was any)
then MH will have to pay their own lawyers.
Oh and by the way, MH will just raise their fees to cover it. The kids won't suffer. Are you running for office? that's a very polititiany thing to say.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
I'll go $25 on stupidity and $25 on greed.The Huge Hook wrote:You'll be handing Bernie $50.00 due to Brad's rash decision making and personal vendetta.MrBoDangles wrote:"fees go up" So us as parents know that we are each probably going to be handing Bernie a $50. Might price some families out... Are you another one on their knees?outside_observer wrote: Well, unfortunately, he may not need it, but he does deserve it.
Lawyers fees, and loss of revenue reimbursement. (if they can prove there was any)
then MH will have to pay their own lawyers.
Oh and by the way, MH will just raise their fees to cover it. The kids won't suffer. Are you running for office? that's a very polititiany thing to say.
Again my take is that this was a misguided effort to go after someone that Mr. Hewitt did like personally.
The real question is, what is Minnesota Hockey going to do at this point? Are they going to move forward with a case that the court/judge has made clear that he would most likely rule agaist. The "out side league" rule was not handled correctly from the start.
People/members of Minnesota Hockey should put pressure on Minnesota Hockey to resolve this case. I just feel Minnesota hockeys effort, time and resources would be better spent on making hockey better in the state
The real question is, what is Minnesota Hockey going to do at this point? Are they going to move forward with a case that the court/judge has made clear that he would most likely rule agaist. The "out side league" rule was not handled correctly from the start.
People/members of Minnesota Hockey should put pressure on Minnesota Hockey to resolve this case. I just feel Minnesota hockeys effort, time and resources would be better spent on making hockey better in the state
What do you think the fallout will be in additional choice leagues around the city?
The problem I see with this happening outside of Minnesota Made, which is a privately owned facility, is that local associations have a 'monopoly' on local ice.
How is the Super Rink, and other arenas that are subsidized by the taxpayer, able to form exclusive agreements with local associations?
I am no lawyer, but this exclusive relationship, seems to eliminate an opportunity for competition.
The problem I see with this happening outside of Minnesota Made, which is a privately owned facility, is that local associations have a 'monopoly' on local ice.
How is the Super Rink, and other arenas that are subsidized by the taxpayer, able to form exclusive agreements with local associations?
I am no lawyer, but this exclusive relationship, seems to eliminate an opportunity for competition.
They're not exclusive. You can go and rent time for any block that's open. Now, if you can make a long term commitment for large block of prime time ice, you might get the ice times the associations get.Royal24 wrote:How is the Super Rink, and other arenas that are subsidized by the taxpayer, able to form exclusive agreements with local associations?
I am no lawyer, but this exclusive relationship, seems to eliminate an opportunity for competition.
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
Good, maybe he can finally build that third sheet now. Lord knows he's going to need it.MrBoDangles wrote:So now the Grinch that is Bernie is going to take away a quarter million from the kids of Minnesota Hockey.
Hey Bernie, if you're human you better drop it??!!
Hopefully the D6ers will get rid of this clown Hewitt before he does any more damage.
Solving all of hockey's problems since Feb 2009.
Scrapiron,scrapiron wrote:Again my take is that this was a misguided effort to go after someone that Mr. Hewitt did like personally.
The real question is, what is Minnesota Hockey going to do at this point? Are they going to move forward with a case that the court/judge has made clear that he would most likely rule agaist. The "out side league" rule was not handled correctly from the start.
People/members of Minnesota Hockey should put pressure on Minnesota Hockey to resolve this case. I just feel Minnesota hockeys effort, time and resources would be better spent on making hockey better in the state
In the US anyone can sue anyone regardless of the case they have. MN Hockey got sued. Resolving this is not up to them as they did not bring the lawsuit.
I have trouble with the merits of MN Made's case regardless of this preliminary ruling. If I understand things right, D6 restricted players to only playing in their league during the season.
Per postings on this board, MN Made recently restricted players from trying out and playing in the Brick Tournament for another team. Those who would cross the lines would be banished. Now, have they ever banished anyone? I don't know, but D6, to date hasn't banished anyone to my knowledge for skating in both programs. There is very little, if any, financial damage to MN Made for the policy.
This was filed to have a Trial by Jury. I cannot imagine sitting on a jury when an attorney asks Mr. McBain, "You filed a suit because an organization wanted their players only to play on their teams, yet have you ever restricted your players from skating with a competing program."
Only attorneys win in lawsuits like this. MN Made, regardless of the outcome will not win. They will not come out with more money than they put in....even long term. It is the rare exception that attorney's fees are awarded (though it is standard to ask for them). MN Made will spend a lot more money than they would get from a non-profit that is in the business of helping kids play hockey economically (and it is very economical when compared nationally or with the product MN Made provides).
Both parties will lose and are currently losing on this deal regardless of the outcome. MN Made should pull themselves out of the quick sand of this lawsuit, sit down with someone from MH - without attorneys - tell D6 to drop their policy, shake hands, and move on to building their business because that is the best they can do in my opinion.
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
SW, I understand your comments, but there is a differents between the 01 Machine players playing on the Brick team and the Choice league player playing in both the Choice and association hockey.
First the Choice players/teams are not in direct competition with association teams. They will never play each other. The 01 Machine and Blades will face against each other a number of times each summer.
As part of any team you are expected to be at practice and games and the Machine teams do have a strick attendance rule. The 01 Brick team has stated that they would be practing for about a month before going to the Brick tournament. This would be the same time frame that the Machine team would be practicing for both Winnipeg.
The 01 Machine team is also working on a four team series with other non-Brick teams that would be played the same week end as the Brick. This would be a direct overlap. Because of schedules and team commitment it would be necessary to make a choice as to wich team a player would skate for, it would not be possible to skate for both.
I am quite sure that this is by design because Bernie wants the Machine players to stay Machine players. I don't see how you can fault Bernie or the staff of the 01 Machine for that. I am also sure that the coaching staff of the Blades and other AAA teams would like for their team (that they work hard to put together and train) remain loyal to the team and to the schedule that has been put in place.
First the Choice players/teams are not in direct competition with association teams. They will never play each other. The 01 Machine and Blades will face against each other a number of times each summer.
As part of any team you are expected to be at practice and games and the Machine teams do have a strick attendance rule. The 01 Brick team has stated that they would be practing for about a month before going to the Brick tournament. This would be the same time frame that the Machine team would be practicing for both Winnipeg.
The 01 Machine team is also working on a four team series with other non-Brick teams that would be played the same week end as the Brick. This would be a direct overlap. Because of schedules and team commitment it would be necessary to make a choice as to wich team a player would skate for, it would not be possible to skate for both.
I am quite sure that this is by design because Bernie wants the Machine players to stay Machine players. I don't see how you can fault Bernie or the staff of the 01 Machine for that. I am also sure that the coaching staff of the Blades and other AAA teams would like for their team (that they work hard to put together and train) remain loyal to the team and to the schedule that has been put in place.
There is an interesting bit of information that is hurting Minnesota Hockey case that I don't think that many people know about. MN Made attornys have a signed statement from past Distric 6 president Art Cobb stating that he was in a meeting where Brad Hewitt said that they where going to go after Bernie and put him out of business. This gives strong support to the claim that Minnesota Hockey is using monopoly position in an anti-competitive mannor. Good luck Brad.