HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Let's bump this up.
Any updates on the legal process?

As hockey_is_a_choice stated on Sept 18th this lawsuit is in Federal Court case name: Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. v. Minnesota Hockey, Inc. et al.

If MM were to prevail (which I presume MN Hockey will settle before it comes to court) the landscape for MN Hockey will be altered. Even under a settlement 'association hockey' will come under even more pressure. The options for MN Hockey are between 'bad' and 'worse'.

MN is unique in that we have more indoor ice sheets per capita than most any other states and somebody will purchase that ice.

With that as my opinion - I ask this forum the following questions: What will the next hockey model look like and how soon will it occur.

I can't believe someone needs to get involved in this too! Let parents make their own decisions! Maybe if associations did a better job at training their athletes people wouldn't look for different options. Have the associations that don't like this rule ever asked parents "why" they are looking for different options....mmm that might be a good idea. Maybe it's because every ice time is "shared" check out Lakeville's ice time, there are very few "solo" practices. Maybe it's the 9:45 ice times....maybe it's because there aren't enough repititions. Maybe it's because a coach pulled out a beach ball at practice to work on a skill...would you like me to continue why people choose MM for skills vs association. I hope Bernie wins this and people will let us make up our own minds as to where we would like to get our kids TRAINING. His goal is to work on skills and SEND them back after Squirts to association not keep them through HS.

thewho wrote:I can't believe someone needs to get involved in this too! Let parents make their own decisions! Maybe if associations did a better job at training their athletes people wouldn't look for different options. Have the associations that don't like this rule ever asked parents "why" they are looking for different options....mmm that might be a good idea. Maybe it's because every ice time is "shared" check out Lakeville's ice time, there are very few "solo" practices. Maybe it's the 9:45 ice times....maybe it's because there aren't enough repititions. Maybe it's because a coach pulled out a beach ball at practice to work on a skill...would you like me to continue why people choose MM for skills vs association. I hope Bernie wins this and people will let us make up our own minds as to where we would like to get our kids TRAINING. His goal is to work on skills and SEND them back after Squirts to association not keep them through HS.

You're COMPLETELY missing the point. Parents DO get to make the decision: Association Hockey or MInnesota Made, you make the choice!!

What you don't like is that, as a parent, you don't get your cake and eat it too. If you are unhappy with association hockey........DON'T PLAY ASSOCIATION HOCKEY. Register for Minnesota Made and be happy!

I think the bigger question is has amateur sports gotten too competitive? Almost all sports at the youth level are going year round if you want to be competitive. It is becoming more difficult for kids to play multiple sports. I have a son trying to play competitive hockey and soccer and there is all kinds of overlap.
Youth sports has grown a for profit industry which promotes all year round play. I guess you can call it capitalism.
Both sides in this dispute have valid points but they will be difficult to prove in court. MN Made is charging anti-trust which the courts have set a pretty high bar to prove and District 6 is claiming health and welfare which is hard to prove without medical studies.

In a nutshell, the judge will soon rule on Minnesota Made's motion for injunctive relief against Minnesota Hockey and pals, which was argued before the judge on October 5. Minnesota Hockey and pals, in turn, have filed a motion to dismiss Minnesota Made's lawsuit (a common practice), which will be argued in front of the judge on December 7. Here's the docket report on the lawsuit:

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/09/2010 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc., Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club from District Court of Scott County, State of Minnesota, case number 70-C-10-20811. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4048305) Assigned to Judge John R. Tunheim per Antitrust List and referred to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes. (Attachments: # 1 Summons and Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 1-Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Exhibit 2-Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 4 Exhibit 3-Affidavit in Support of Motion with Exhibits, # 5 Exhibit 4-State Court Proposed Order, # 6 Cover Letter, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet, # 8 Affidavit of Service by Mail) (akl) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
09/13/2010 2 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation or wholly-owned subsidiary to report for Plaintiff Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc.. (Glover, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
09/13/2010 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc.. (Glover, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
09/13/2010 4 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. Date and time of 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Hearing to be determined by the Court. (Glover, Michael) Modified text on 9/13/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/13/2010)
09/13/2010 5 MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate).(Glover, Michael) Modified text on 9/13/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/13/2010)
09/13/2010 6 AFFIDAVIT of Bernard M. McBain in SUPPORT OF 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-M)(Glover, Michael) Modified text on 9/13/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/13/2010)
09/13/2010 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. re 2 Rule 7.1 - Disclosure Statement, 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 4 Notice (Other), 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 6 Affidavit in Support of Motion (Glover, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
09/16/2010 8 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 9/17/2010 at 3:30 PM before Judge John R. Tunheim. (HAM) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
09/17/2010 9 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John R. Tunheim: Telephone Conference held on 9/17/2010. Response is due September 27, 2010, Reply is due October 1, 2010, and Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for Tuesday October, 5, 2010 at 9:00am. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (jam) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
09/20/2010 10 ***TEXT ONLY NOTICE***NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 10/5/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 13E (MPLS) before Judge John R. Tunheim. (HAM) Modified text on 9/20/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/20/2010)
09/23/2010 11 STIPULATION re 1 Notice of Removal, of Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc. (DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 9/23/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/23/2010)
09/23/2010 12 ORDER: Pursuant to the Stipulation of Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint (Doc. No. 11 ) of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before October 14, 2010.(MMP) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
09/27/2010 13 STIPULATION for Protective Order by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service).(Glover, Michael) Modified text on 9/28/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/27/2010)
09/27/2010 14 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
09/27/2010 15 AFFIDAVIT of Robert L. DeMay in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B - I)(DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 9/28/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/27/2010)
09/27/2010 16 AFFIDAVIT of Brad Hewitt in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C - J)(DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 9/28/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 09/27/2010)
09/27/2010 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. re 15 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 16 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 14 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
09/28/2010 18 PROTECTIVE ORDER: Pursuant to the Stipulation for Protective order (Doc. No. 13 ) and based upon all of the files, pleadings, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes on 09/28/2010. (MMP) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
09/29/2010 19 TEXT ONLY ENTRY - AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing is now set for 10/5/2010 at 4:30 PM in Courtroom 13E (MPLS) before Judge John R. Tunheim. (HAM) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
10/01/2010 20 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Engkjer, Jason) Modified text on 10/1/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/01/2010)
10/01/2010 21 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. re 20 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Engkjer, Jason) Modified text on 10/1/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/01/2010)
10/01/2010 22 Second AFFIDAVIT of Bernard M. McBain in SUPPORT OF 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-E)(Engkjer, Jason) Modified text on 10/1/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/01/2010)
10/01/2010 23 AFFIDAVIT of Arthur H. Cobb in SUPPORT OF 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc.(Engkjer, Jason) Modified text on 10/1/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/01/2010)
10/01/2010 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. re 23 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 21 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 20 Reply to Response to Motion (Engkjer, Jason) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
10/01/2010 25 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association, Bloomington Youth Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Eden Prairie Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association, Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc. (Susag, James) Modified text on 10/4/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/01/2010)
10/04/2010 26 MOTION to Strike 23 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc.. (DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
10/04/2010 27 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 26 MOTION to Strike 23 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion : Motion Hearing set for 10/5/2010 04:30 PM in Courtroom 13E (MPLS) before Judge John R. Tunheim. (DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
10/04/2010 28 MEMORANDUM in Support re 26 MOTION to Strike 23 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion filed by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
10/04/2010 29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. re 26 MOTION to Strike 23 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 28 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 27 Notice of Hearing on Motion (DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
10/05/2010 30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John R. Tunheim: Motion Hearing held on 10/5/2010 re 26 MOTION to Strike 23 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion filed by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. Motions taken Under Advisement. Written order forthcoming. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (HAM) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
10/11/2010 31 AMENDED COMPLAINT against ABC Corporation, Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association, Bloomington Youth Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, John Doe, Eden Prairie Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association, Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc., filed by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-E, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Engkjer, Jason) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
10/11/2010 32 DECLARATION of Brad Hewitt in Opposition to 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. (DeMay, Robert) Modified TEXT on 10/12/2010 (mmp). (Entered: 10/11/2010)
10/11/2010 33 DECLARATION of Tom Slaird in Opposition to 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 10/12/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/11/2010)
10/11/2010 34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. re 32 Declaration in Opposition, 33 Declaration in Opposition (DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
10/12/2010 35 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (Glover, Michael) Modified text on 10/15/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/12/2010)
10/15/2010 36 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service).(DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 10/15/2010 (MMP). (Entered: 10/15/2010)
10/19/2010 37 NOTICE of Pretrial Conference: Pretrial Conference set for 11/1/2010 04:15 PM in Courtroom 6A (STP) before Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(kt) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
10/20/2010 38 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (Engkjer, Jason) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
10/22/2010 39 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE/SUBSTITUTION for Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Whitmore, Mark) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
10/22/2010 40 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE/SUBSTITUTION for Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Eden Prairie Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
10/25/2010 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal by Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association. (Whitmore, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 42 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal : Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2010 04:30 PM in Courtroom 13E (MPLS) before Judge John R. Tunheim. (Whitmore, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 43 MEMORANDUM in Support re 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal filed by Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Whitmore, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 44 AFFIDAVIT of Mark R. Whitmore in SUPPORT OF 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal filed by Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-D)(Whitmore, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association re 43 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal, 42 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 44 Affidavit in Support of Motion (Whitmore, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 46 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Eden Prairie Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc. (DeMay, Robert) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 47 NOTICE OF HEARING ON 46 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6): Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2010 04:30 PM in Courtroom 13E (MPLS) before Judge John R. Tunheim. (DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 10/25/2010 (lmb). (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 48 MEMORANDUM in Support re 46 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Eden Prairie Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate). (DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 10/25/2010 (lmb). (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/25/2010 49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Eden Prairie Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc. re 47 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 46 MOTION to Dismiss, 48 Memorandum in Support of Motion. (DeMay, Robert) Modified text on 10/25/2010 (lmb). (Entered: 10/25/2010)
10/26/2010 50 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club, Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association, Burnsville Hockey Club, Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association, District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association, Eden Prairie Hockey Association, Edina Hockey Association, Brad Hewitt, Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc., Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association, New Prague Hockey Association, Inc., Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association, Richfield Hockey Auxiliary, Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, Waconia Hockey Association, Inc..(Engkjer, Jason) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
11/01/2010 51 Minute Entry: Pretrial Scheduling Conference held before Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes on 11/1/2010. Pretrial Scheduling Order to be issued. (MMP) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
11/02/2010 52 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, and in order to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of this action, the following schedule shall govern these proceedings. This schedule may be modified only upon formal motion and a showing of good cause as required by Local Rule 16.3.DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND LIMITS 1. All pre-discovery disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) shall be completed on or before December 15, 2010. 2. Discovery will not commence until the Court rules on pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's counsel should schedule a scheduling conference after the motions to dismiss are decided and a pretrial schedule will then be decided upon for all remaining issues in the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes on 11/01/2010. (MMP) (Entered: 11/02/2010)

thewho wrote:I can't believe someone needs to get involved in this too! Let parents make their own decisions! Maybe if associations did a better job at training their athletes people wouldn't look for different options. Have the associations that don't like this rule ever asked parents "why" they are looking for different options....mmm that might be a good idea. Maybe it's because every ice time is "shared" check out Lakeville's ice time, there are very few "solo" practices. Maybe it's the 9:45 ice times....maybe it's because there aren't enough repititions. Maybe it's because a coach pulled out a beach ball at practice to work on a skill...would you like me to continue why people choose MM for skills vs association. I hope Bernie wins this and people will let us make up our own minds as to where we would like to get our kids TRAINING. His goal is to work on skills and SEND them back after Squirts to association not keep them through HS.

Man, here we go again! Play hockey for MM or play in D6...Simple make a choice. You, as a parent, have a choice, no one is taking the decision making choice out of your hands. Bernie filed for an injunction early on in the lawsuit and was turned down by the court. By the way, this rule made by D6 will most likely go statewide next year (BM lawsuit most likely will not even have made it in front of a judge by then).

High Off of . . . just the facts, please. I'm not sure why you are of the opinion that Bernie moved for injunctive relief earlier in the case and it was denied. I don't see an Order to that effect on the Court's docket sheet. The only motion for injunctive relief that appears on the Court's docket sheet was heard by the Court on October 5 and the Court has not issued a decision yet, at least there is no decision recorded on the docket sheet. Can you offer some onsight on this alleged decision by the Court?

I'm going to play devils advocate here. You guys say that as a parent I DO have a choice, play one or the other. Well my choice is I want my kid to play both association and Choice. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I choose to play both. D6's rule doesn't allow me to do that. That is a fact!

thewho wrote:I can't believe someone needs to get involved in this too! Let parents make their own decisions! Maybe if associations did a better job at training their athletes people wouldn't look for different options. Have the associations that don't like this rule ever asked parents "why" they are looking for different options....mmm that might be a good idea. Maybe it's because every ice time is "shared" check out Lakeville's ice time, there are very few "solo" practices. Maybe it's the 9:45 ice times....maybe it's because there aren't enough repititions. Maybe it's because a coach pulled out a beach ball at practice to work on a skill...would you like me to continue why people choose MM for skills vs association. I hope Bernie wins this and people will let us make up our own minds as to where we would like to get our kids TRAINING. His goal is to work on skills and SEND them back after Squirts to association not keep them through HS.

Don't be so naive. His goal is to start up a PeeWee and Bantam Choice league, then ultimately create an independent Midget Major team for HS-age players. The Squirt League was just the beginning.

I don't have any issue with him doing this. It's a free world and I wish him the best. But, with this lawsuit, he shows that hypocracy has no limits.

What is wrong with MM having a full blown program competing with MN Hockey, WCHA or the NHL? Maybe Bernie will replace Don Cherry on CBC.

warmskin wrote:What is wrong with MM having a full blown program competing with MN Hockey, WCHA or the NHL? Maybe Bernie will replace Don Cherry on CBC.

Nothing wrong at all with it.

Here's the issue, though:

Rule A A Child can either play Association Hockey or MM. They just can't do both.

Rule B A Child can either play MM or another summer AAA program. They just can't do both.

Bernie enforces Rule B with an iron fist, yet is going to court to overturn Rule A. Don't you see the blatant hypocracy going on with this?

hockeyover40 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here. You guys say that as a parent I DO have a choice, play one or the other. Well my choice is I want my kid to play both association and Choice. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I choose to play both. D6's rule doesn't allow me to do that. That is a fact!

I want my kid to play hockey in Edina and run cross-country in Wayzata. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I choose to play for both. You can choose to live in Wayzata and run cross-country, but can't play hockey in Edina and vise versa. Same rule in D6

GreatOne99 wrote:

hockeyover40 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here. You guys say that as a parent I DO have a choice, play one or the other. Well my choice is I want my kid to play both association and Choice. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I choose to play both. D6's rule doesn't allow me to do that. That is a fact!

I want my kid to play hockey in Edina and run cross-country in Wayzata. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I choose to play for both. You can choose to live in Wayzata and run cross-country, but can't play hockey in Edina and vise versa. Same rule in D6

Well, I don't think the comparison is even close. But, you could live in Edina and play hockey in they're youth program, and go to school in Wayzata and run cross-country.

muckandgrind wrote:

warmskin wrote:What is wrong with MM having a full blown program competing with MN Hockey, WCHA or the NHL? Maybe Bernie will replace Don Cherry on CBC.

Nothing wrong at all with it.

Here's the issue, though:

Rule A A Child can either play Association Hockey or MM. They just can't do both.

Rule B A Child can either play MM or another summer AAA program. They just can't do both.

Bernie enforces Rule B with an iron fist, yet is going to court to overturn Rule A. Don't you see the blatant hypocracy going on with this?

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!! The only hypocracy here is calling Bernie a hypocrite. AGAIN.....pay attention people Bernie is running a BUSINESS - hockey associations are 501 c (3) ..... a non-profit cannot tell you what you can or can't do with your time/money apparantly unless you are a MN hockey association.

blueliner2day wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

warmskin wrote:What is wrong with MM having a full blown program competing with MN Hockey, WCHA or the NHL? Maybe Bernie will replace Don Cherry on CBC.

Nothing wrong at all with it.

Here's the issue, though:

Rule A A Child can either play Association Hockey or MM. They just can't do both.

Rule B A Child can either play MM or another summer AAA program. They just can't do both.

Bernie enforces Rule B with an iron fist, yet is going to court to overturn Rule A. Don't you see the blatant hypocracy going on with this?

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!! The only hypocracy here is calling Bernie a hypocrite. AGAIN.....pay attention people Bernie is running a BUSINESS - hockey associations are 501 c (3) ..... a non-profit cannot tell you what you can or can't do with your time/money apparantly unless you are a MN hockey association.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE EITHER !!!! the non-profit isn't telling you what you can and can't do with your money but they are setting some rules if you want to do "business" with the non-profit which I assume they can do.

blueliner2day wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

warmskin wrote:What is wrong with MM having a full blown program competing with MN Hockey, WCHA or the NHL? Maybe Bernie will replace Don Cherry on CBC.

Nothing wrong at all with it.

Here's the issue, though:

Rule A A Child can either play Association Hockey or MM. They just can't do both.

Rule B A Child can either play MM or another summer AAA program. They just can't do both.

Bernie enforces Rule B with an iron fist, yet is going to court to overturn Rule A. Don't you see the blatant hypocracy going on with this?

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!! The only hypocracy here is calling Bernie a hypocrite. AGAIN.....pay attention people Bernie is running a BUSINESS - hockey associations are 501 c (3) ..... a non-profit cannot tell you what you can or can't do with your time/money apparantly unless you are a MN hockey association.

You're wrong.

The District isn't saying your kid can't play MM hockey. They are saying that you can't play D6 hockey IF you are playing MM. Big difference, they aren't telling parents, as you said, what you can/can't do with your money. Non-profits don't have to accept your money. Players get suspended or expelled from associations all the time for various infractions they deem worthy of suspension/expulsion. This is just another one of those.

Another example: A church is considered a 501 c(3) as well, they don't have to accept a new member just because someone demands so. A church won't lose their 501 c(3) status if a priest refuses to marry a couple if he feels they don't live by the principles as set forth by the Catholic Church.

As such, a youth hockey association doesn't have to accept players they feel don't abide by the dictates as set down by the association.

Pretty simple, actually.

And, yes, Bernie IS a hypocrite. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Why are so many people reading this as District 6 telling parents that they can't have their kids play Minnesota Made????? That's not what this is about at all!!!! They are simply telling parents they need to make a choice: association hockey or Minnesota Made. Why is that so difficult to understand for some? If you feel you kid is better off playing for Bernie, GO FOR IT!!!!!!! Then, if you find out the grass may not be greener, and you tire of his antics, you can register for association hockey year, or not. The "choice" is yours.

muckandgrind wrote:They aren't saying you can't play MM hockey. Parents have the choice. They are saying that you can't play D6 hockey IF you are playing MM. Big difference, they aren't telling parents, as you said, what you can/can't do with your money. Non-profits don't have to accept your money. Players get suspended or expelled from associations all the time for various infractions they deem worthy of suspension/expulsion. This is just another one of those.

Another example: A church is considered a 501 c(3) as well, they don't have to accept a new member just because someone demands so. A church won't lose their 501 c(3) status if a priest refuses to marry a couple if he feels they don't live by the principles as set forth by the Catholic Church.

As such, a youth hockey association doesn't have to accept players they feel don't abide by the dictates as set down by the association.

Pretty simple, actually.

And, yes, Bernie IS a hypocrite. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Another example...my son goes to school in St. Louis Park and lives in St. Louis Park. He is a real good hockey player so I decide that I want him to play hockey in Edina because I think it will be better for him. Edina tells me I can't do that because D6 has a residency rule that says he can't. How can they make a rule that limits my sons choices of where he plays hockey? Because Minnesota Hockey has given their districts authority to establish rules for what they feel is the best way to run their area.

A similar thing applies here. D6 has established a rule that allows people to play MM hockey or association hockey; just not both. If the rule said that anyone who plays MM hockey will not be allowed to come back to the association in future years, it would be wrong. But it doesn't say that. BM doesn't like the rule because it interferes with his ultimate business plan which is to allow people to do both while he builds up numbers in his program. Once his program gets big enough that he thinks HE can force people to pick one over the other, he will definitely push for that...your kidding yourself if you think otherwise. He just doesn't like having people beat him at his own game.

Be careful what you ask for . . . If the District 6 rule withstands legal scrutiny and Minnesota Hockey rolls out the rule to cover all districts in the state and forces people to choose between association hockey and private teams, my bet is association hockey will lose many of its best players--at least in the metro area. Smaller associations, who are only a few players deep at the A level, will lose their best players to private teams. Programs like Edina, Wayzata, Eden Prairie and Burnsville will lose their marquee players to the top Tier I programs in Minnesota. Schools like BSM, STA, Hill Murray, Breck and Blake all have middle school age kids and could opt to form their own teams. This could come down to the "haves" and the "have nots" with the "have nots" being the only players participating in association hockey. Something tells me that Herb Brooks would not be in favor of this model. Be careful what you ask for--Pandora's box cannot be closed once it is opened.

Schools like BSM, STA, Hill Murray, Breck and Blake all have middle school age kids and could opt to form their own teams.

Wrong. Not going to happen. Youth hockey teams are hosted by community based MN Youth Hockey Associations only. A current option does allow them to play with a Youth Hockey Association team in the same community as the school.

Community Based,

You missed the point. If private programs like Minnesota Made expand their leagues to include winter teams, there is nothing stopping the private schools from forming their own "clubs" to compete against the private teams at the youth levels. My understanding is the Minnesota State High School League rules do not apply to kids who are not in high school, which means private schools are free to form any team or club they want at the youth levels. Yes, those teams will not be allowed to compete against Minnesota youth hockey association teams, but it won't matter if the best kids have abandoned their community associations to play for privately run teams and leagues because they were forced to choose between association and privately manages teams, leagues and programs. The private school teams will play the privately operated teams and participate in the privately managed leagues. Accordingly, the private school won't need to play community association teams. In a nutshell, if the District 6 rule becomes the law of the land for association based hockey in Minnesota, you will see more private teams and once Pandora's box is opened, you cannot close it.

hockey_is_a_choice wrote:Be careful what you ask for . . . If the District 6 rule withstands legal scrutiny and Minnesota Hockey rolls out the rule to cover all districts in the state and forces people to choose between association hockey and private teams, my bet is association hockey will lose many of its best players--at least in the metro area. Smaller associations, who are only a few players deep at the A level, will lose their best players to private teams. Programs like Edina, Wayzata, Eden Prairie and Burnsville will lose their marquee players to the top Tier I programs in Minnesota. Schools like BSM, STA, Hill Murray, Breck and Blake all have middle school age kids and could opt to form their own teams. This could come down to the "haves" and the "have nots" with the "have nots" being the only players participating in association hockey. Something tells me that Herb Brooks would not be in favor of this model. Be careful what you ask for--Pandora's box cannot be closed once it is opened.

I totally agree. There is a huge risk for associations drawing the line in the sand. If groups of players start looking to band together and leave their associations (could easily happen in some areas), you could have the beginning of the end for association based 'top level' hockey. However, letting BM sneak up on them and then stab them in the back isn't a good alternative either.

BM is forcing the issue right now. He could offer clinics and other training without creating a 'league' to play in and no one could stop him. Players would get extra training and no one would care. But he is choosing to make it a league program instead. This forces association based hockey to at least take notice. The district that currently has the biggest threat because of the location of MM, D6, has drawn the line and is now forcing the issue back on BM.

Be careful what you wish for also. The cost of hockey may become a lot higher for those top players if they start traveling longer distances to play against AAA teams year round. Also, the parents of the players who get cut for the latest new recruit will find out that there were some good things about hanging with your friends in association based hockey rather than being part of a "for profit - what have you done for me lately" hockey model.

hockey_is_a_choice wrote:Community Based,

You missed the point. If private programs like Minnesota Made expand their leagues to include winter teams, there is nothing stopping the private schools from forming their own "clubs" to compete against the private teams at the youth levels. My understanding is the Minnesota State High School League rules do not apply to kids who are not in high school, which means private schools are free to form any team or club they want at the youth levels. Yes, those teams will not be allowed to compete against Minnesota youth hockey association teams, but it won't matter if the best kids have abandoned their community associations to play for privately run teams and leagues because they were forced to choose between association and privately manages teams, leagues and programs. The private school teams will play the privately operated teams and participate in the privately managed leagues. Accordingly, the private school won't need to play community association teams. In a nutshell, if the District 6 rule becomes the law of the land for association based hockey in Minnesota, you will see more private teams and once Pandora's box is opened, you cannot close it.

It doesn't follow. Why would private schools START a team AFTER a rule is in place saying a player can't play assoc and for the private school. It would have made more sense had they seen a need and started these teams already. My guess is they don't see the need, or least the benefits don't outweigh the overhead of running these teams and if/when the rule goes state wide none of that would change.

seek & destroy wrote:

hockey_is_a_choice wrote:Be careful what you ask for . . . If the District 6 rule withstands legal scrutiny and Minnesota Hockey rolls out the rule to cover all districts in the state and forces people to choose between association hockey and private teams, my bet is association hockey will lose many of its best players--at least in the metro area. Smaller associations, who are only a few players deep at the A level, will lose their best players to private teams. Programs like Edina, Wayzata, Eden Prairie and Burnsville will lose their marquee players to the top Tier I programs in Minnesota. Schools like BSM, STA, Hill Murray, Breck and Blake all have middle school age kids and could opt to form their own teams. This could come down to the "haves" and the "have nots" with the "have nots" being the only players participating in association hockey. Something tells me that Herb Brooks would not be in favor of this model. Be careful what you ask for--Pandora's box cannot be closed once it is opened.

I totally agree. There is a huge risk for associations drawing the line in the sand. If groups of players start looking to band together and leave their associations (could easily happen in some areas), you could have the beginning of the end for association based 'top level' hockey. However, letting BM sneak up on them and then stab them in the back isn't a good alternative either.

BM is forcing the issue right now. He could offer clinics and other training without creating a 'league' to play in and no one could stop him. Players would get extra training and no one would care. But he is choosing to make it a league program instead. This forces association based hockey to at least take notice. The district that currently has the biggest threat because of the location of MM, D6, has drawn the line and is now forcing the issue back on BM.

Be careful what you wish for also. The cost of hockey may become a lot higher for those top players if they start traveling longer distances to play against AAA teams year round. Also, the parents of the players who get cut for the latest new recruit will find out that there were some good things about hanging with your friends in association based hockey rather than being part of a "for profit - what have you done for me lately" hockey model.

Its not AAA/Tier I etc. that is a whole different can of worms ... see many thread on here.

hockey_is_a_choice wrote:Community Based,

You missed the point. If private programs like Minnesota Made expand their leagues to include winter teams, there is nothing stopping the private schools from forming their own "clubs" to compete against the private teams at the youth levels. My understanding is the Minnesota State High School League rules do not apply to kids who are not in high school, which means private schools are free to form any team or club they want at the youth levels. Yes, those teams will not be allowed to compete against Minnesota youth hockey association teams, but it won't matter if the best kids have abandoned their community associations to play for privately run teams and leagues because they were forced to choose between association and privately manages teams, leagues and programs. The private school teams will play the privately operated teams and participate in the privately managed leagues. Accordingly, the private school won't need to play community association teams. In a nutshell, if the District 6 rule becomes the law of the land for association based hockey in Minnesota, you will see more private teams and once Pandora's box is opened, you cannot close it.

Oh and would Bernie sue them cause those kids probably wouldn't be allowed to play for both either AND he would lose players to those private school teams.