St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

BlueGoose5 · Post by **BlueGoose5** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:24 pm

Are there any proposed nicknames for the proposed SCTYHA? I'd propose Renegades or Wickeds for starters. Avengers would be appropriate, too. I'm sure there'll be others that could fit.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:30 pm

Blue and Gold:

District 10 Director suggested that both groups work to build numbers up from the current 400 plus players and then come back for the split. He personally said he thinks it's a good idea, perhaps not the right timing. However, SCTYHA position has been that two associations out recruiting stand a better chance of increasing numbers than one, especially with so many schools. I know how busy EB and board members get -- lots of ground to cover.

The other option is to try to run two or three organizations under one association to achieve the same end -- three teams at pee wee and bantam, for example, for all through schools and each can decide level of play. All three sub organizations work to recruit. Just a few thoughts.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:33 pm

Mr. Goose:

I partial to Renegades, but that's just me. I will, however, dutifully bring up all your suggestions.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:34 pm

Sorry, that's supposed to be "I'm."

Blue&Gold · Post by **Blue&Gold** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:32 pm

Thanks for that update and clarification.

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:45 pm

BlueGoose5 wrote:It's hard to believe that MN Hockey would choose to break up an entire successful youth hockey association at the bemoanings of a single renegade group as is being seen in St. Cloud, especially when the current youth hockey association executive board is strongly opposed to this effort. This would be a terrible precedent and would send a terrible message to any other special interest group out there to go after their local association with vigor. It would be open season on any youth hockey group.

By the way Wicked, given your destructive actions and threats against SCYHA, your moniker "wicked" is very appropriate. Your time and efforts would be much more appreciated doing something constructive for the community.

I find it interesting that BG5 continues to attack Wicked Shot and WS is the one that is respectful in spite of their differences of opinion. Who is destructive and who is being constructive? I was somewhat of a pariah in our association because I was never afraid to confront the hockey power brokers. It never caused me to lose any sleep! My guess is that WS is sleeping easy and the critics within St Cloud are staying up at night thinking of ways to discredit the SCTYHA.

Breaking up or reorganizing an association is not unprecedented. St Cloud is in a position where the city owns and controls their arenas and ice costs. Because of this I suspect that it is easier for a new organization to exist. Rochester is a different story. RYHA pays the mortgages, owns the concession rights at all the rinks, has the ice contract with the county, owns the tournaments and has the contracts for the fundsraisers. This allows them to keep fees under $1000 for bantam A. If the families within JM got together and formed a JMYHA our costs would be way higher than RYHA's. I would expect a cost increase of 25-100%. We'd also get the less desirable ice times or whatever RYHA doesn't use. RYHA would be free to accept our team's into their invitational tourneys or not. T

Not many people have the energy or time (like Wicked Shot is doing) to organize an effort to support the school that our kids goes to. I can only hope that someone with JM ties that has young hockey players can work within RYHA to develop strong hockey talent for our school (ok, I guess all 4 Rochester schools) and not just be a feeder program for Lourdes.

I don't think it is Minnesota Hockey's mission nor is it the mission of District 10 to determine what is right for St Cloud. If the SCTYHA organization meets the guidelines of a natural hockey community, is incorporated, is a 503(c), has bylaws, officers, a board of directors etc they should be granted membership within District 10.

Another group that would benefit from multiple orgnizations in St Cloud might be their officials. Refs get a 1099 form if they make over some fixed dollar amount. If they split their time between organizations they would probably not get a 1099 and would then probably not have the tax headaches. I think this is why a lot of the top refs do high school games instead of youth games even if they have to travel further for the high school game.

blindref · Post by **blindref** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:46 am

Rocket,
St.Cloud referees are paid by District Ten from the Traveling Squirt levels on up. 1099s are just part of the deal.
For High School, you are paid by the home School District until playoffs; then the individual sections take care of all of the expenses.

Can't Never Tried · Post by **Can't Never Tried** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:52 am

elliott70 wrote: Still one more year before D10 is disbanded and combined with others.

Elliott can you elaborate on this? or was it just you and Neut kicking each other in the shins ?

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:02 pm

blindref wrote:Rocket,
St.Cloud referees are paid by District Ten from the Traveling Squirt levels on up. 1099s are just part of the deal.
For High School, you are paid by the home School District until playoffs; then the individual sections take care of all of the expenses.

My ref buddies tell me that in D8, the non-metro associations (Roch,Winona,RedWing,Dodge, others?) schedule and pay their own officials but D8 pays and schedules for the Dakota County games. For the high school games the home team high school pays the officials. Since an official is not likely to work more than 3-4 games for a particular school the official must keep track of the payments and enter them as "other income" on their taxes. I understand that 1099s are how its recorded since you are a subcontractor and not an employee. Having my own business I know that you just have to be good at keeping records.

I guess that since D10 pays the officials the SCTYHA program would not change anything for the D10 officials.

RLStars · Post by **RLStars** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:04 pm

blindref wrote:Rocket,
St.Cloud referees are paid by District Ten from the Traveling Squirt levels on up. 1099s are just part of the deal.
For High School, you are paid by the home School District until playoffs; then the individual sections take care of all of the expenses.

The officials are actually members of the Suburban Hockey Referees Association (SHRA) and are scheduled and paid by their association. If St. Cloud is moved to District 5, the officials would probably be scheduled through the West Suburban Officals Association (WSOA).

Wicked Shot,

I just need to add to the comment you posted on one of the first pages about Boergers camp. My son was a participant of his camp for several years. We do not live in St. Cloud and he never said a word about his camp being exclusively for Cathedral kids, that may have changed when it was referred to as a STP training program. That was about when my son started attending and I can not speak for the years prior to that. I think a few of his team mates also attended Boergers camp, but they could have been leaning towards Cathedral for HS.

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:14 pm

How many ref associations are there?

The youth refs are in MHOA (Minnesota ? or Minneapolis?)
The high school refs are in SMHOA and they have the Big 9 and some other conferences. I have been told that they do not do Section 1 playoff games but I am sure that I have seen some of the same guys so they must belong to at least one other "OA" or "RA"

How is their pay set? skill grade? years of experience?

RLStars · Post by **RLStars** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:19 pm

Rocket78 wrote:How many ref associations are there?

The youth refs are in MHOA (Minnesota ? or Minneapolis?)
The high school refs are in SMHOA and they have the Big 9 and some other conferences. I have been told that they do not do Section 1 playoff games but I am sure that I have seen some of the same guys so they must belong to at least one other "OA" or "RA"

How is their pay set? skill grade? years of experience?

MHOA is the Minnesota Hockey Officials Association and every official in Minnesota is a member. Years ago, each youth hockey association would hire their own officials. In my area, most youth hockey associations have a local officials association handle all the scheduling and payments, except payments for tournaments are usually handled onsite by the host teams and on the spot.

The association that my son is a member of, has a rating system and mentoring program inplace to help put the right officials in the right situations with the right official. They also have an evaluation system setup to check out how well the officials handle their games and let them know what they need to work onto become a better offical. It seems to work out pretty good.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:25 pm

Can't Never Tried wrote:
elliott70 wrote: Still one more year before D10 is disbanded and combined with others.

Elliott can you elaborate on this? or was it just you and Neut kicking each other in the shins ?

Shin kicking, perhaps.

But, redistricting should be completed by next year and D10 will be modified if we all get on the same page.

stripes · Post by **stripes** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:52 pm

But, redistricting should be completed by next year and D10 will be modified if we all get on the same page.

Next year as in 08-09? or 09-10?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:03 pm

stripes wrote:But, redistricting should be completed by next year and D10 will be modified if we all get on the same page.

Next year as in 08-09? or 09-10?

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:27 pm

Rocket78, you're incorrect in a couple of points.

RYHA does have a contract with the city of Rochester/Olmsted county but there is nothing prohibiting another association from the same deal. Ice rental in Rochester is discounted based on the number of hours bought. Assuming a new association would buy 150 hours of ice (I think that's still the threshold) they'd get the same deal as RYHA, ISD #535, RFSC, etc. This happened with the local swimming clubs when they split. Both use the Rec Center pool and both get desirable hours. It's against the law for the City/County to give equal groups different rates, times, etc. Based on the experiance of the ORCA's/Med City split feelings do get hurt and fingers are pointed akin to a couple of third graders tattle tailing but beyond that things are relatively smooth as far as the pool goes, there is no reason to believe the same thing wouldn't happen in hockey. The City can't block out a period and say these are for RYHA use only, what does happen is RYHA buys their ice so early they end up getting most of the prime time ice but if another association broke away happen: RYHA wouldn't be able to buy as much ice as it would be cost prohibitive.

While RYHA does run their tournament there is nothing stopping a seperate association from running their own tournament, all they have to do is buy the ice, hire refs, etc. The RAASC does this, the BBL does this, the Return of the Robin does this. The same holds true for a fund raiser.

RYHA did put/promise a substantial amount of money into the Graham complex, a debt that the tax payers will have to pick up I might add as RYHA won't be able to fulfill their obligation but they (the city and RYHA) knew that going into this. This doesn't prohibit another group from buying the ice, RYHA has no say in how the ice is rented or how the buildings are run, they are public buildings open and available to all. Years and years ago IBM had an adult league that used up a bunch of prime time hours at the Rec Center on Wednesday evenings, RYHA complained but running an ice rink is expensive and you can't be hostage to one group and not lose a ton of money.

It's a number of years ago now but the southside parents wanted to break away from RYHA, they actually would have lowered costs by reducing overhead which in turn would have increased participation. Their proposal wasn't as thought out as the St. Cloud one is and wouldn't get a fair shake as the RYHA board was stacked with northside and Lourdes people. Had they done it this way it is very likely Rochester would have at least 2 if not 3 associations now.

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:44 am

Goldy, There was an ice agreement between the city/county and RYHA dating back to when the first Graham building was built in the late 60's. The weekend tournament ice was either free or deeply discounted. This all factors in to lower the overall ice cost. I don't think that agreement would extend to any new groups.

Tell me more about the Southside group. When did they try to breakway? I've had a family member in RYHA continuously for 20 years and this is the first I had heard about it. When you say Southside do you mean along the old Mayo-JM boundary? Did they go to MinnHockey to seek an affiliate contract?

I'm curious too about the statement that RYHA will not be able to fulfill their obligation. Are we not using enough ice? Are revenues down? If so, somebody better start recruiting more players. The girls are growing but the boys numbers are shrinking.

stripes · Post by **stripes** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:49 am

Incidentally, we're having a open meeting next Thursday evening at 7 p.m. at the St. Augusta American Legion and sent invitations to all SCYHA members and have invited its president to sit with me so that we can both answer questions in an open, civil and constructive way.

Anything productive happen at your meeting?

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:52 am

Morning everyone:

I was just about to post when I saw your question on last night's meeting. We sent out invitations to about 345 members (all of St. Cloud Youth Hockey Assocation) last Wednesday and Thursday inviting them to the open meeting and posted it on our webiste. We had about 26 show up. There were several who were in support for the new association, a small group who came for information (budget questions, resources, how it would benefit kids etc.) and the majority said they didn't want a new association. Their opinions varied on the idea of dividing teams by schools under one association, with some saying they didn't think it was a bad idea, but most seeming to indicate they preferred the way it is now.

There was some spirited debate, with several attending who have been opposed to a division by school under any circumstances. They have been very vocal in the past and were again last night. No one representing the executive board of St. Cloud Youth Hockey attended, although at least two received personal invitations and the others who invited.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:54 am

Sorry that should have read the others were invited. There were at least two general board members there who I recognized -- just to clarify.

huskyhockey17 · Post by **huskyhockey17** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:26 am

Since a survey was sent out and the response that came back from that indicated that the majority of the association wanted to keep everything as it is and then at your meeting last night you said the majority want to keep everything as it is does this mean that you are going to stop pushing the issue? Seems to me that would be the prudent thing to do. If the vast majority of the association says leave it as it is why wouldn't you listen to what they are saying?

George Blanda · Post by **George Blanda** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:06 am

huskyhockey17 wrote:Since a survey was sent out and the response that came back from that indicated that the majority of the association wanted to keep everything as it is and then at your meeting last night you said the majority want to keep everything as it is does this mean that you are going to stop pushing the issue? Seems to me that would be the prudent thing to do. If the vast majority of the association says leave it as it is why wouldn't you listen to what they are saying?

I'd imagine they'd continue pushing the issue being that it is on the Minnesota hockey agenda for their upcoming meeting.

I would imagine, based on the survey and meetings, that the majority of people don't favor the split. However, very few people had input before this small group was formed. I have spoken with several people from Apollo, Tech, and Cathedral. None of them had any input in this group and NONE of them wanted to split.

To hell with democracy.

So, to sum it up, this group was formed by a few people without consent of the majority (not even the majority of south siders). I don't think the group will give up the fight.

Chad Hommerding has spoken on behalf of Tech High School and School District 742. That should not be tolerated and he should be subject to immediate removal from his position, IMO.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:09 am

We would if we knew what the "majority" wanted. The response rate of the survey was 56 percent -- of those, 80 percent opposed a new association. That leaves about 189 families out of 342 who didn't express any opinion one way or the other and I'm sure for a variety of reasons. Also, as I've indicated publicly, we made an error in not getting out our position, our names and more communication before the survey was taken. That was our fault and I'd do it over differently if I would.

We are going to have a discussion with MN Hockey and I am sure SCYHA board members will be there. I think the discussion will raise a lot of good points and we're looking forward to having it.

George Blanda · Post by **George Blanda** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:20 am

That is why I said..."I would imagine" and not The survey says that majority.

But, in looking at the survey...56% or whatever it was is a VERY large sample size. Also, there are several families (both north and south) that have kids in MiniMites and Mites and aren't concerned with this issue, notably the benefits it will have on Tech hockey...probably why a lot of people didn't respond to the survey.

Edit---didn't take in to account the person before me and their comments on the majority---my mistake.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:20 am

Sorry for the typos today.

GB:

Do you think other coaches should be fired for expressing their opinions and speaking on behalf of their school? Or just Hommerding? Also, to my knowledge, I can't find anywhere in any notes where he said he was speaking on behalf of the district or the school. Can you point me in that direction?

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

Elliot?

Re: Elliot?

Wickedshot?