District 6 New Rule involving playing hockey only with Dist

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:42 pm

Its a good thing that someone in D6 finally woke up and realized the potential legal liability that their director put them in. The guy should do the people of D6 a favor and resign!

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:49 pm

I know it will never happen but MN Hockey needs to get all parties in a room with a arbitrator and discuss the issues before this spins out of control. It is unfortunate that MN Hockey and USA Hockey do not have a forum to discuss how Hockey (and other sports) and are changing and for profit organizations like MM are becoming more prevelant.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:11 pm

I completely agree Warmskin! Hockey is changing in MN and people need to get their heads out of the sand.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:47 pm

Have you acutally received your JD in the mail yet? If so I'm guessing the ink is still wet. Your legal arguments are all focused on whether they can make decisions for a parent. The clear, legal answer is that they can make decisions for their organization and it's members.

I'm not sure when District 6 and Minnesota Hockey will "wake up" and write rules that are perfect for every single INDIVIDUAL that CHOOSES to participate in the organization. Thanks for bringing some new twisted entertainment to us all, Esquire.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:51 am

Quote:
It is unfortunate that MN Hockey and USA Hockey do not have a forum to discuss how Hockey (and other sports) and are changing and for profit organizations like MM are becoming more prevalent.

Mn Hockey has a forum and they hold them 4 times a year and the meeting places,times agenda and schedule are posted on their web site.

District 6 as with other Districts also post their meeting schedules on their web sites, locations, date and time also.

If any of you are truly serious on having such a discussion with either organization then go to the meetings and do not be surprised if you might hear a different side of the story.

Also the Minn State High school League has the same rule in place for all sports during their season.

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:55 am

I am not a lawyer but if this were to get into the court system the outcome could be unpredictable as well as having unintended consequences. There could be injunctions that could hurt all parties involved which means hurting the kids.
Regardless of what decisions District 6 makes they should be made in an open and transparent fashion (I know, good luck).

hockey_is_a_choice · Post by **hockey_is_a_choice** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:36 am

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.

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:46 am

Excuse my legal ignorance but does this mean MM filed suit agains District 6 in federal court. If they are filing this as an anti-trust suit those are very difficult to prove and can drag on for some time which means some heavy legal expenses.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:53 am

greybeard58 wrote:
If any of you are truly serious on having such a discussion with either organization then go to the meetings and do not be surprised if you might hear a different side of the story.

Not sure if I will be able to make a meeting. Can you sum up the different side of the story for me?

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:19 am

I have been involved in various organizations over the years including political groups and controversial issues are usually not on the agenda especially if there is pending litigation.
Each organization will come to their own conclusions but in these type of situations you need some type of arbitrator to get all sides together in a room to figure out common ground and try to discuss the differences that separate the groups. Going to court will not resolve anything.
Amateur sports is moving to a for profit model (such as MM) vs the non-profit assoc and the various associations have to accept this and evolve as necessary.
Hockey is headed toward what goes on in AAU basketball. You should read about the young LeBron James playing AAU amateur basketball to get an eye opener.

HockeyMom87 · Post by **HockeyMom87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:38 am

Well, it looks like a case was filed on September 9, 2010. Brad Hewitt is named personally, along with all district 6 hockey associations. Regardless of how it all washes out - the entire litigation will cost thousands. Who is paying for this? I certainly hope it isn't coming from the fees these associations charge their members. My understanding is members didn't vote on this and weren't aware of it until after its passage. Wow! The actions of a few are going to cost a lot of money! I think it is a sad day for hockey in MN and highly unfortunate that instead of focusing how to best meet the needs of all MEMBERS (as opposed to association control), district 6 took the dictatorial approach and has caused negative ramifications to hockey, the associations, and all young members.

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:48 am

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.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:51 am

LET THE LAWSUITS BEGIN!!! If I was from D6 I would call the president of my association and ask them how much of my association money is going to go to the defending this lawsuit. I would then call the D6 office and demand that the director of D6 resign! Notice that the director of D6 is personally listed in the lawsuit. I think this guy figured that he would scare kids from playing at MM this winter but now its going to bite him in the back side along with each association listed. GET THIS GUY OUT OF D6!!

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:58 am

Just with normal civil court proceedings this could take some time before it gets before a judge who could throw it out and even if it gets to trial it could take over a year before arguments would be heard. Just having this hanging over the head of D6 and MM would be of concern to everybody and could hurt both programs.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:09 am

Greybeard58 - Is that you Brad???

High Off The Glass · Post by **High Off The Glass** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:12 am

hockeyrocks87 wrote:LET THE LAWSUITS BEGIN!!! If I was from D6 I would call the president of my association and ask them how much of my association money is going to go to the defending this lawsuit. I would then call the D6 office and demand that the director of D6 resign! Notice that the director of D6 is personally listed in the lawsuit. I think this guy figured that he would scare kids from playing at MM this winter but now its going to bite him in the back side along with each association listed. GET THIS GUY OUT OF D6!!

This is how it will play out. The years I spent on hockey boards over the last 15 years we always took out insurance policies that would cover lawsuits brought against board members, coaches, and anyone acting on behalf of the association. The insurance policy (which I'm sure D6 has, stupid if they didn't), will cover court costs and legal fees. D6 knew for a fact, and I believe wanted, this to go to court and was written with litigation in mind. MM and Bernie (if they brought the suit), stepped into a trap set by D6 and now it will play out in court and in public. The only association fees being used was paying the principle on the insurance policy, which members have been paying for years. MM, again if they brought the suit, will have to shell out a ton of money that from what I hear they don't have. This will take a long time, which D6 knew, and will bleed MM out of cash. I believe this was done with that in mind and that's why I think it was trap that MM fell into! Good Luck, and it will be interesting to see this all play out in court.

warmskin · Post by **warmskin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:24 am

Yes, almost all organizations will get insurance to protect their boards and officers from the cost of lawsuits. I would keep in mind these policies, like any insurance, is not open ended. Insurance companies do not like to write out checks. I am sure the insurance poilicy has clauses that would dissallow certain court costs especially if if the insurance company determines the board essentially encouraged the litigation. This could be another legal battle for D6.
Relying on insurance to cover an issue is a poor managment style. I would keep in mind that in litigation there is not just the lawyers fees, all parties involved will more than likely need people working full time to monitor and provide information to the legal team. Putting it mildly this would be a nightmare.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:26 am

I'm not an attorney but I'm guessing that MM can prove that the D6 rule harmed them. How many good hockey players in D6 decided not to take the risk of playing at MM this winter because they feared that they could be kicked off of their association team? This is exactly what the D6 director tried to do. BUCKLE UP D6!

Benito Juarez · Post by **Benito Juarez** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:31 am

Toomuchtoosoon wrote:You are all nuts!!

Well said

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:32 am

Hockey rocks,
No I am not Brad, and I do not even live in the District 6 area. However I do know him along with many former and present Mn Hockey board members, because of the over 30 years of my involvement with youth hockey one gets a chance to meet a lot of people.

High Off The Glass · Post by **High Off The Glass** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:39 am

warmskin wrote:Yes, almost all organizations will get insurance to protect their boards and officers from the cost of lawsuits.
I would keep in mind these policies, like any insurance, is not open ended.

No insurance policy is open ended, but board insurance policies start the max out at a million and go up from there.

Insurance companies do not like to write out checks.
I am sure the insurance poilicy has clauses that would dissallow certain court costs especially if if the insurance company determines the board essentially encouraged the litigation.
This could be another legal battle for D6.

This is the precise reason why boards carry this type of insurance policy

Relying on insurance to cover an issue is a poor managment style.

Not when it comes to lawsuits, it common and smart practice.

I would keep in mind that in litigation there is not just the lawyers fees,
all parties involved will more than likely need people working full time to monitor and provide information to the legal team.
Putting it mildly this would be a nightmare.

Every association usually has a person (vp of administration for example), who do nothing except paper work and would work closely with their law firm to expedite proceedings

TriedThat2 · Post by **TriedThat2** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:43 am

In the past, D-6 has had more lawyers on its Board than any other District in the state, I'm guessing that Brad, and D-6 have access to many hours of Pro Bono legal advice.

High Off The Glass · Post by **High Off The Glass** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:44 am

hockeyrocks87 wrote:I'm not an attorney but I'm guessing that MM can prove that the D6 rule harmed them. How many good hockey players in D6 decided not to take the risk of playing at MM this winter because they feared that they could be kicked off of their association team? This is exactly what the D6 director tried to do. BUCKLE UP D6!

In the end it will be VERY difficult for MM to prove the D6 rule harmed them. You answered your arguement already by saying "How many good hockey players in D6 decided not to take the risk of playing at MM this winter because they feared that they could be kicked off of their association team? Your key word is "decided", yes parents decided NOT to play at MM, if you have the "Choice", then how is D6 liable? They're not and you have no legal foot.

hockeyrocks87 · Post by **hockeyrocks87** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:49 am

high off the glass - I think you are right about MM running short on cash. I was by there yesterday and someone must have felt sorry for Bernie because they built him a new soccer field on the end of his building with a sprinkler system. Not only that, they built him a million dollar dryland facility 2 blocks away! Poor Bernie, I think the doors will close any day now.

I also heard a rumor that poor Bernie was only able to add 1 additional squirt team (8 total) to his Choice league and add a PeeWee Choice supplimental league this year. And whats going to happen to his Mite league because I think that they were only able to add a few teams this year. Bernie might have to apply for the soon to be vacated D6 director job to make ends meet this winter!

High Off The Glass · Post by **High Off The Glass** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:55 am

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.

Wow! Anitrust cases take at minimum 2-3 years to fully conclude and are very hard to prove! Bernie is trying to force an injunction to get him through this year and into next. This is a hail mary at best and if I'm D6 I would not be too worried, they might even get their court costs paid by Bernie if a judge quickly throws this thing out.