Was it a mistake for Minnesota Hockey to back Brad Hewitt?

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:52 am

lefty76 wrote: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.

Oops.

gorilla1 · Post by **gorilla1** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:04 am

If that is true, he needs to resign yesterday. Does anyone else wonder why d6 doesn't update the people who are paying for this on how things are going-not strategy, just updates on the website? Just a thought.

gorilla1 · Post by **gorilla1** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:25 am

SWPrez,

Here's one exchange I could see happening when BM's attorneys are making the distinction between MM and D6:

Attorney: "Mr. Hewitt, if a player chooses to play in BM's choice league, is he allowed to play association hockey in D6?"

BH: "No. Our rules say you can only play where your home is located. My rule, I mean, D6's rule is that is you chose to play for BM, you can't play for D6."

Attorney: "Thank you."

Attorney to BM:

Attorney: "Mr. McBain, if someone doesn't like your rule that you can't play for the Blades going to the Brick and your team, does that player have other choices?"

BM: "Yes. He/she can always play for one of the other 83 million AAA teams in Minnesota"

BH heard from the back of the Courtroom: "Oh, now I get what a monopoly is; I just thought it was a game we played at Christmas."

Task Force 34 · Post by **Task Force 34** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:31 am

gorilla1 wrote:If that is true, he needs to resign yesterday. Does anyone else wonder why d6 doesn't update the people who are paying for this on how things are going-not strategy, just updates on the website? Just a thought.

They have not posted Board minutes since September 2010 either. Their web site says there is a D6 Board Meeting on January 31, 2011. I wonder which TV station will show for that meeting??

popeye · Post by **popeye** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:48 am

It seems as if Brad Hewiit, Dist 6 and Minnesota hockey has stepped over the line. Rather than baring families from doing out side programs why didn't they just make a simple attendannce rule.

'If you miss 2 practices you have to sit out the next game or the next
period"

A rule as simple as that would have been fine. If I understand the situation correctly Brad put this rule place because...

1. He said the they had cancel games because they had to few player because all the kids were at the Choice league.

2. He did not want the kids to be tired

3. He thought the kids were on the ice too much

These are his reasons? They look to be very transparent. I hope he has documentation on those canceld games because if this goes to all the way to court and is not settled he will have to prove that claim. I find it hard to believe.

hockeydad11 · Post by **hockeydad11** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:00 am

A classic SNAFU

Bad situation caused by incompetence
a mishap or mistake generally caused by incompetence and resulting in delay or confusion

silentbutdeadly3139 · Post by **silentbutdeadly3139** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:32 am

scrapiron wrote: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.

I think you just made the D6 argument. But D6 should have started with an attendance clause first instead of an either or. It would be a much more defensible position if they then went to the either or rule later. But I can see many problems if a player is in both leagues and why D6 would want them to choose one.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:37 am

I think you need to refer to it as Brad Hewitt and not as D6. This was not something that was done by D6. This was something that was done by a single individual, who apparently overstepped his bounds. D6 didn't do anything, this was Hewitt's play. He just happened to reside in D6. Also, if that "assertion" about the document that has Hewitt in a meeting stating he is going to ruin BM's business is correct/accurate, Hewitt's career in any position of authority in organized athletics in this state is more than likely over.

scrapiron · Post by **scrapiron** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:43 am

That brings us back to the first question Why didn't Dist 6 and /or Minnesota Hockey put an end to Brad's rule? Instead they let it get this far.

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:00 am

scrapiron wrote:That brings us back to the first question Why didn't Dist 6 and /or Minnesota Hockey put an end to Brad's rule? Instead they let it get this far.

There is a lot of game left in this suit.. two things that are in D6 favor. They have an insurance company paying the legal bills and MM is footing all of the bills. This is FAR from over.

TriedThat2 · Post by **TriedThat2** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:19 am

Dog,
Insurance companies do not pay for the type of legal representation that MH is using. Those additional dollars are coming directly from the general budget. This is a huge expense for MH.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:27 am

TriedThat2 wrote:Dog,
Insurance companies do not pay for the type of legal representation that MH is using. Those additional dollars are coming directly from the general budget. This is a huge expense for MH.

MH legal expense is capped at a certan $ amount.

TriedThat2 · Post by **TriedThat2** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:52 am

Mark,
Capped by whom? Insurance company or Board approval.

scrapiron · Post by **scrapiron** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:00 am

Two points:

1.Should Minnesota Hockey continue to fight a misguided case even if an insurance company is pay? Pay for Brad's personal war?

2. With the type of ruling that the court issued the other day an insurance company will almost always cut their loses at that point and encorage the client to settle or continue own their own dime.

terrymoore1717 · Post by **terrymoore1717** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:02 am

I just put this post on another thread and thought I should post it here as well.

I read the Order last night. MM lost its motion. MM will have to live with the D6 rule for this season and next season, while the litigation progresses. There is no chance of MM recovering its fees on this motion from MH.

I disagree about the Judge's signals. If he wanted to tell MH to settle the case, then he would have granted the injunction and D6 players could do play both starting now. By denying the injunction, he keeps the rule in place for the next year or so.

I don't place much stock in judges giving "signals" in their Orders, anyway. Good judges, (like Judge Tunheim), generally decide the issues in front of them and let the case take its course from there. This is especially true where, as here, trial won't take place until 2012.

MH is moving to dismiss the case. If MH succeeds on its motion to dismiss, the case will be finished (or appealed) this spring. If not, the parties will undertake very complex anti-trust litigation. In such case, the parties have a long way to go.

hockeydad11 · Post by **hockeydad11** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:38 am

Thank you for that Mr. Terry Moore. On a side note what is your bias? That right you are "the" Blades guy.

Just a quick update on this guy, he showed up to testify against Bernie in court when a former employee of Mn Made tried to sue Bernie to get out of a non-compete contract. What was his relationship to that case? Nothing! Why would he do that, because he is a competitor of Mn Made. According to Terry "he thought the former employee needed some help".

The judge in that case did not release the former employee from the non-compete.

As far as your legal opinion you could be correct. I wouldn't know much about that.

lefty76 · Post by **lefty76** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:44 am

So, I guess Terry Moore will most likely show his face downtown on Friday at the Federal court House Room 13E at 1:30pm. Just to kill some time.

01state · Post by **01state** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:47 am

He is kind of a snake!

The Huge Hook · Post by **The Huge Hook** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:54 am

01state wrote:He is kind of a snake!

To whom do you refer????? McBain, Hewett or Moore????

Get ready for this sucker to get locked.

GreatOne99 · Post by **GreatOne99** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:55 am

hockeydad11 wrote:Thank you for that Mr. Terry Moore. On a side note what is your bias? That right you are "the" Blades guy.

Just a quick update on this guy, he showed up to testify against Bernie in court when a former employee of Mn Made tried to sue Bernie to get out of a non-compete contract.
What was his relationship to that case?
Nothing! Why would he do that, because he is a competitor of Mn Made. According to Terry "he thought the former employee needed some help".

The judge in that case did not release the former employee from the non-compete.

As far as your legal opinion you could be correct. I wouldn't know much about that.

What's that got to do with BM's lawsuit? To me it sounds like TM was trying to help out someone who needed it (little guy taken on the big guy). Isn't that the stance BM is now taking against MN Hockey? Nice try HD11.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:59 am

Like I said " It's not over till it's over".

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:01 pm

01state wrote:He is kind of a snake!

Personal attack on Terry? I think that there are a lot of snakes involved in this case. But someone offers an EDUCATED opionion on the ruling and you call him a snake.. Get a life.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:09 pm

hockeydad11 wrote:Thank you for that Mr. Terry Moore. On a side note what is your bias? That right you are "the" Blades guy.

Just a quick update on this guy, he showed up to testify against Bernie in court when a former employee of Mn Made tried to sue Bernie to get out of a non-compete contract. What was his relationship to that case? Nothing! Why would he do that, because he is a competitor of Mn Made. According to Terry "he thought the former employee needed some help".

The judge in that case did not release the former employee from the non-compete.

As far as your legal opinion you could be correct. I wouldn't know much about that.

So everyone is a slave at the "made"?

Ugottobekiddingme · Post by **Ugottobekiddingme** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:29 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:
hockeydad11 wrote:Thank you for that Mr. Terry Moore. On a side note what is your bias? That right you are "the" Blades guy.

Just a quick update on this guy, he showed up to testify against Bernie in court when a former employee of Mn Made tried to sue Bernie to get out of a non-compete contract. What was his relationship to that case? Nothing! Why would he do that, because he is a competitor of Mn Made. According to Terry "he thought the former employee needed some help".

The judge in that case did not release the former employee from the non-compete.

As far as your legal opinion you could be correct. I wouldn't know much about that.
So everyone is a slave at the "made"?

Didn't we have a civil war over slavery...we have come a long way

IBTL

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:16 pm

TriedThat2 wrote:Mark,
Capped by whom? Insurance company or Board approval.

MH board

Action taken was to pay additional amount to cover an attorney MH wanted to use. USAH (insurance) is paying most of the cost, but would not pay the extra so MH board voted to pay teh difference up to a certain $ amount.