MCBAIN on Channel 5 News Tonight on D6

[Road Rage]

Hey, I like MM but here's some observations.

... We've heard of as many as 16 important dads and moms leaving single associations. They want the parents more than the kids. Kids are replaceable. Strong community volunteers are not. Volunteer organizations need association leaders, coaches, managers, ice schedulers, tourney directors, fundraisers and many more bodies to assist in the running of a successful volunteer youth hockey organization that benefits all kids in the community. They're trying to help you understand that life is about serving others. Help develop the 15-20 kids your child skates with in the community. Don't be selfish and try and do something for your player that doesn't benefit the others. Your job is to help all the players in your community to become just as good as your player and spend your time with your association determining how to accomplish that task. Not bail on your responsibility to your community.

My job is to do what is best for my children. Because that is my job as a parent. Your job is to do what is best for your children. That does not mean I step on or over others, or do my job at the expense of others, but it is certainly not my job to make sure everyone is looked after. If it was, I would be the only parent on earth, or at least in my association. I mean, am I supposed to make sure that I tell everyone about every hockey camp I send my kids too? Or every extra tournament they get invited to participate in? I spend a considerable amount of time researching camps and clinics that are a good fit and will benefit my childrens' needs -- you are free to do the same rather than expect me to do it for you in the interest of "helping all players in my community..."

And before you hop back up on your "for the good of all" soapbox -- I do participate in every fundraising activity asked of me, attend booster club and board meetings, help with apparel sales, work the chuck-a-puck table, sell concessions and have managed my sons' teams. AND, I go out of my way to do whatever extra I can for MY kids, too. Given your views, that is apparently wrong. How about you raise your kids and run your association how you see fit, and stay away from mine. Maybe MM is a fit for me and my kids, maybe it is not. But that is not for you to worry about, it is for ME to worry about.

[observer]

Hey Rager,

Just trying to give some perspective. A lot of the discussions on this board leave out bits and pieces that can be important dynamics for a greater understanding. Your son will need linemates on his Squirt, PeeWee, Bantam and High School teams. That's why you develop all 17 of them together. All Associations offer a lot of opportunity but are only as good as the dedicated, energetic, volunteers that are motivated to improve the situation for all. Volunteers "graduate" away and the positions and responsibilities need to be filled by Mite and Squirt family volunteers just as dedicated to the community as the ones that left.

I do believe all Associations should be discussing what they can do to improve their offerings, training and development, striving for constant improvement and the Mite and Squirt families have valuable perspective to offer Association leadership because they've seen what's now available that wasn't 6-8 years ago. For that we do owe MM a big thanks as they have helped several Associations to examine their offerings and make improvements based on competition in the marketplace. That would be called "shared knowledge."

Here's another idea. Hire the MM staff to come to your arena and run some development clinics for your Mites and Squirts.

[seek & destroy]

Several years ago when the original discussion about MM creating a mite program first came up, there were several people on this forum saying that the long range plan was going to be to continue the program from Squirts on up and lure some of the top kids away from the association programs. Those comments were scoffed at by those supporting MM creating a mite program and they said that all they were trying to do was provide a program for mites to "supplement" the association programs which don't provide enough ice for mites in most cases.

Now they are offering Squirt programs and adding Peewee. The logical extension is that they will likely add Bantam after that and perhaps H.S. down the road as they go after their ultimate dream of creating another "shattuck" type location. The difference is that it will be located in the heart of Edina and they will have their own built in feeder program using their youth hockey system. They can pick and choose the best players (or recruit some at later years) and try to create super teams. I'm not sure if that is good or bad for hockey but it is certainly bad for association hockey (and possibly H.S. hockey) especially those near that location.

Associations like Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Jefferson, Burnsville, Chaska etc. that are part of D6 probably were probably requesting that D6 do something to help them keep their best players from leaving to go to MM at Squirts/Peewees...they can see where this is likely heading and don't want to lose these kids so they are trying to stop it before it gets that far. I don't know if it is wrong or right for them to do that but I can certainly see what their concern is. The question is, do Minnesota hockey families want to keep the 'association' model in place or let it go toward the year round AAA model in most other states?

[greybeard58]

The rule has come into play because of from what I understand,because of a number of no shows at association/District 6 league games last year; and with the expansion into the peewee level without agreements there is no reason to believe that this will not continue to create problems for the teams/associations.

From what I understand District 6 is giving the players/parents a choice either play with your association for the winter season or play in another league just not both. Yes District 6 and the associations are protecting their teams and leagues, the high school league also does the same. The affiliate agreements the association sign with Mn Hockey, and the affiliate agreement Mn Hockey signs with USA Hockey and the affiliate agreement USA Hockey sign with the IIHF gives the association control for the sport of Ice Hockey in a geographic area as outlined in the affiliate agreement which for most is the school district boundaries of the high school of the association. In the case of Mn Hockey the area is the state of Minnesota.

Districts can apply stricter rules but not less then the higher governing bodies and associations can also have stricter rules than Mn Hockey.

By the District 6 rule no one is being denied a chance to play the sport of ice hockey they are being given a choice to either play with a District 6 association and follow the rules of the District; or participate in another program at MM.Commitment to one or the other, as a commitment to both for some seems impossible.

[HockeyDad41]

Several years ago when the original discussion about MM creating a mite program first came up, there were several people on this forum saying that the long range plan was going to be to continue the program from Squirts on up and lure some of the top kids away from the association programs. Those comments were scoffed at by those supporting MM creating a mite program and they said that all they were trying to do was provide a program for mites to "supplement" the association programs which don't provide enough ice for mites in most cases.

Now they are offering Squirt programs and adding Peewee. The logical extension is that they will likely add Bantam after that and perhaps H.S. down the road as they go after their ultimate dream of creating another "shattuck" type location. The difference is that it will be located in the heart of Edina and they will have their own built in feeder program using their youth hockey system. They can pick and choose the best players (or recruit some at later years) and try to create super teams. I'm not sure if that is good or bad for hockey but it is certainly bad for association hockey (and possibly H.S. hockey) especially those near that location.

Associations like Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Jefferson, Burnsville, Chaska etc. that are part of D6 probably were probably requesting that D6 do something to help them keep their best players from leaving to go to MM at Squirts/Peewees...they can see where this is likely heading and don't want to lose these kids so they are trying to stop it before it gets that far. I don't know if it is wrong or right for them to do that but I can certainly see what their concern is. The question is, do Minnesota hockey families want to keep the 'association' model in place or let it go toward the year round AAA model in most other states?

I love this post.

Even if MM's goal is to create a Shattuck like superteam , and the Choice model is nothing more than the seeds of a feeder program, and I don't doubt that you might be on to something there, I don't see how it is a bad thing for the associations. Most of the kids that go to the Choice league will play for a couple of years and go back to their associations better for the experience.

A very small percentage will continue on past squirts.

An even smaller percentage would be invited to skate on the superteams. By the time it gets to this level the competition for those roster spots will have expanded beyond the local teams.

[seek & destroy]

I love this post.

Even if MM's goal is to create a Shattuck like superteam , and the Choice model is nothing more than the seeds of a feeder program, and I don't doubt that you might be on to something there, I don't see how it is a bad thing for the associations. Most of the kids that go to the Choice league will play for a couple of years and go back to their associations better for the experience.

A very small percentage will continue on past squirts.

An even smaller percentage would be invited to skate on the superteams. By the time it gets to this level the competition for those roster spots will have expanded beyond the local teams.

I like your post as well

My point was simply that if you read ahead a few years, there could be a potential threat to association hockey. It won't effect the masses but it could lure away the top players. You already have competition for those players coming from MSHSL private schools, Shattuck, USHL, NAHL and other programs. This could (emphasis could) become another one.

Most programs are very dependent on their top group of players to even have a chance to compete. They don't have the depth to lose 3, 4 or 5 top players and still be a top contender. Plus, as players leave, it causes more players to look at leaving. Look at teams like Chaska that lost the Reilly's, Mattson, Burke etc. from their squirt years and went from a top team in youth hockey to average team in H.S.. Another team that struggled with having a lot of good players leave was Lakeville with a lot of kids running to St. Thomas.

I am not saying that this is wrong or right. I'm just saying that to pretend that any program that encourages kids/parents to go somewhere else during the winter season isn't a potential threat is kind of stupid...especially when MM keeps adding new age brackets as their original group ages. It could easily lead to a bigger problem for association and even H.S. hockey down the road.

Obviously a mite playing some hockey at MM is not what the real concern is for the associations...

[Bronc]

[quote="seek & destroy"][quote="HockeyDad41"]



Associations (and their boards) make a lot of rules for members to abide by to be a member (code of conduct, volunteer hours, ect), if they do not want to then no body is forcing them to be a member. Their choices are simple:

- Belong & follow

- Belong and actively participate in the election process to get people in their who will manage it to their liking.

- Not belong and maybe join MM or a diffferent club. Kind of like when folks chose to stay or leave the Boy Scouts.

Funny to see MM try and get pressure on D6 thru media stunt. This would only make most people dig in harder if they have convictions.

Just as MM threatens assoc hockey, this new rule will put a hurt on MM viability due to a hurt on cash flow.

[HockeyDad41]

Associations (and their boards) make a lot of rules for members to abide by to be a member (code of conduct, volunteer hours, ect), if they do not want to then no body is forcing them to be a member. Their choices are simple:

- Belong & follow

- Belong and actively participate in the election process to get people in their who will manage it to their liking.

- Not belong and maybe join MM or a diffferent club. Kind of like when folks chose to stay or leave the Boy Scouts.

Funny to see MM try and get pressure on D6 thru media stunt. This would only make most people dig in harder if they have convictions.

Just as MM threatens assoc hockey, this new rule will put a hurt on MM viability due to a hurt on cash flow.

Do you think that it will hurt them this year? They were planning on having 4 Pee Wee teams, 8 Squirt teams, and 18 mite teams: 8 at the Gold level, 6 at the Silver level and 4 at the Bronze level.

[Puposky22]

Seek & destroy is on the right track, good work. There are many people out there who are sick and tired of “parent” run association hockey full of hidden agendas. Many associations are run and governed by parents looking to help little Jonnie and Suzie get on the right team. Many decisions (not all) are made with the beer drinkin buddies and if you don’t drink beer with them your little player doesn’t make the team. Again, not condemning all associations but you know what I am talking about.

MM has had success with the choice league because it gives players another place to play besides the poorly parent run associations. Take a look at the kids who have been playing in choice, they are from all over the metro and outlying areas. This isn’t just about D6, it’s about parent run associations and players looking for another place to play. D6 has drawn a line in the sand and has support in doing so. Just imagine the financial implications to MN Hockey on this deal.

The war has begun.

[hockey_is_a_choice]

Observer,

I’ve tried to bite my tongue and not engage you, but your oft-repeated line that “life is about serving others” really sticks in my craw for a minimum of three reasons. First, let me say that I agree with you that each of us has an obligation to try to improve this planet while we inhabit it. However, please don’t preach to me about my obligation to serve a hockey association. The men and women who have served and are currently serving in our military during war understand the definition of service. The rest of us pretend the hours we devote to the local hockey association count as service. Hockey association service does not compare to the sacrifice our soldiers make for our benefit every day.

Second, some of us who are disillusioned have worked to change our associations for the better. We have provided pro bono professional services to our associations, even when we can’t get credit for the work because it involves a private matter that can’t be shared with the membership. We’ve met our service obligations to the association.

Third, some of us have written large checks to anonymously help out a kid or a family who needed help paying ice bills. We, again, met our service obligations to the association, even though it was done anonymously.

After working over a period of years to change and improve our associations through our volunteer efforts, those of us who want an alternative choice realize all our efforts have not changed the direction of the ship. Frankly, we tried and failed.

Now what? According to you, we are supposed to keep servicing the same associations that take our time and money, but don’t respond in a positive manner to our efforts to change the direction of a program that once was respected, but now is mediocre. Sorry, Observer, America wasn’t built on the principle of service regardless of outcome. Instead, America is filled with organizations, schools, charities and schools that were started by those who wanted to serve, but didn’t want to continue to beat their heads against a brick wall trying to improve an existing organization. You see, we would not have the choices we have today, but for people starting new ventures because they were frustrated with the status quo.

America loves new ventures. We love competition so much that our law makers protect the right to compete and frown on unreasonable attempts to restrain competition. Hockey is Minnesota has operated as a monopoly for decades, but it doesn’t mean that organized hockey at the state, district, or local levels can engage in conduct that eliminates competition from a competing business. The District 6 director may be a pseudo-czar, but he still has to abide by the same laws that you and I have to follow.

Remember learning about the Sherman Act in High School or College American History classes? The Sherman Act protects competing businesses from organizations that try to restrain trade to maintain a monopoly. Some of you may think that the Sherman Act doesn’t apply to youth hockey. In a separate post, I’ll share a case out of New York that should give us all something to think about when it comes to imposing rules that are clearly intended to protect a hockey organization’s turf.

Let’s be prudent and flexible in our decisions on this matter. This should not be a decision based on an attitude that it’s my way or the highway . . . .

[hockey_is_a_choice]

Erie Buffalo TONDAS, Plaintiff,
v.
AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION OF the UNITED STATES, New York Penn Jr. B League, Angie Federiko, Harold P. Johnson, William B. Croft, Harold Trumble, Raymond Cotter, Frank Downey, Fred Rossi and Raymond Mang, Defendants

R. William Stephens, Raichle, Banning, Weiss & Halpern, Buffalo, New York, for plaintiff. , James S. Morris, Whitman & Ransom, New York, New York, for defendants. , Williams, Stevens, McCarville & Frizzell, P.C., Buffalo, New York, for defendants Croft, Trumble & Am. Hockey Asso. , Arnold N. Zelman, Brennan, Callahan, Tesseyman, Zelman & Runfola, Buffalo, New York, for defendant Federiko. , William J. Cotter, Buffalo, New York, for defendant Cotter. , Charles H. Dougherty, Albrecht, Maguire, Heffern & Gregg, Buffalo, New York, for defendant Downey. , John E. Runals, Runals, Broderick, Shoemaker, Rickert, Berrigan & Doherty, Niagara Falls, New York, for defendants Johnson & Mang.

Elfvin, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: ELFVIN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELFVIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff commenced this private antitrust action for treble damages and injunctive relief pursuant to sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. ?? 15 and 26. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have combined, agreed and conspired among themselves and with others to unreasonably restrain and monopolize, and have unreasonably restrained and monopolized, interstate trade and commerce in amateur hockey in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ?? 1 and 2. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants wrongfully and maliciously interfered with its franchise and contract rights and business relations.

Defendants Amateur Hockey Association of the United States ("AHAUS"), Croft and Trumble have moved for summary judgment pursuant to rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They allege that plaintiff and AHAUS are not engaged in "trade" or "commerce" within the meaning of the Sherman Act, that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the antitrust laws, and that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. Defendant Cotter has moved to dismiss the complaint as to him alleging that he is not a proper party. Defendants Rossi and New York Penn Jr. B League have moved to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The purpose of the Sherman Act was to promote competition by preventing unreasonable restraints to interstate trade or commerce. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619 (1911); United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106, 31 S. Ct. 632, 55 L. Ed. 663 (1911); Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 38 S. Ct. 242, 62 L. Ed. 683 (1918). The comprehensive language of the Sherman Act shows that Congress intended to utilize its Commerce Clause power to the fullest extent and that the Act should apply to every person who agrees or conspires to restrain or monopolize commercial intercourse among the states. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533, 553, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944). Although the Act was primarily aimed at conduct which had commercial objectives, the Supreme Court has indicated that organizations which have other than commercial purposes are subject to the Act. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 487-88, 60 S. Ct. 982, 84 L. Ed. 1311 (1940); Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207, 213 n. 7, 3 L. Ed. 2d 741, 79 S. Ct. 705 (1959).

In the case nearest in point it was held that, if a non-profit amateur sports association involved solely in amateur athletics contracts, agrees or conspires to restrain trade or commerce in commercially sold articles, it is subject to the antitrust laws. Amateur Softball Ass'n of America v. United States, 467 F.2d 312 (10th Cir. 1972). Even though an amateur athletic association's primary purpose is non-commercial, its subsequent actions in carrying out its laudable objectives could trigger the applicability of the Sherman Act if such conduct restrained interstate trade or commerce in an unreasonable manner. Thus, a non-profit athletic association formed for the purpose of promoting amateur athletics, such as AHAUS, may be found to be engaging in conduct which results in an unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce.

The terms "trade" or "commerce" have been interpreted in a broad, rather than restrictive, fashion. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S. Ct. 2004, 44 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1975); United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485, 70 S. Ct. 711, 94 L. Ed. 1007 (1950). It is sufficiently established that professional sports, with the exception of baseball, engage in "trade" or "commerce" as those terms are defined in the Act. Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, 77 S. Ct. 390, 1 L. Ed. 2d 456 (1957); United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc., 348 U.S. 236, 75 S. Ct. 259, 99 L. Ed. 290 (1955). Non-profit athletic associations which sanction and regulate professional tournaments, races and other contests are subject to the antitrust laws. Deesen v. Professional Golfers' Ass'n of America, 358 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1966); Heldman v. United States Lawn Tennis Ass'n, 354 F. Supp. 1241 (S.D.N.Y.1973); STP Corporation v. United States Auto Club, Inc., 286 F. Supp. 146 (S.D.Ind.1968). In view of the broad reach of the Sherman Act and the expansive interpretation given "trade" or "commerce", an exemption for amateur athletics is unwarranted. Agreements entered into by an amateur athletic association which restrict the activities of an amateur team should be judged by the rule of reason. An evaluation to determine the reasonableness of the restraint placed on the amateur team should not be foreclosed by carving out an absolute exception to the applicability of the antitrust laws.

Summary judgment is a drastic device which can only be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Gladstone v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 536 F.2d 1403, 1406 (2d Cir. 1976). Dismissal of a complaint before any discovery has taken place is even more drastic. Egelston v. State University College at Geneseo, 535 F.2d 752 (2d Cir. 1976). When making a determination on a motion for summary judgment, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Heyman v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Co., 524 F.2d 1317 (2d Cir. 1975); Judge v. City of Buffalo, 524 F.2d 1321 (2d Cir. 1975). Moreover, the Supreme Court has cautioned that summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S. Ct. 486, 7 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1962).

The affidavits submitted by both parties reveal that there are material factual issues in the present case. Plaintiff alleges that amateur hockey is not merely a sport but is a large commercial enterprise, which is organized and operated for the benefit and profit of the individual teams. Defendants deny this and assert that the funds raised by AHAUS and its members are used solely to defray expenses and to promote the development of amateur hockey. Plaintiff alleges that it competed for patrons with the teams affiliated with the New York Penn Jr. B League. Defendants disclaim that any economic competition existed between the plaintiff and such teams.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants were motivated by financial considerations to eliminate it as a competing amateur hockey team in the Buffalo area. In addition, plaintiff alleges that these financial considerations were discussed by the defendants prior to the refusal of the AHAUS to allow plaintiff to play its games in North Tonawanda. Defendants assert that the decision of the AHAUS to withhold such permission was not motivated by any economic anticompetitive scheme or purpose, but was made in order to develop American amateur hockey and improve the quality of young American amateur hockey players. Also, defendants deny that financial considerations were discussed at certain meetings conducted prior to the decision of the AHAUS to refuse to permit plaintiff to play in North Tonawanda. Plaintiff alleges that AHAUS has considerable economic and market power, but defendants refute this contention and assert that AHAUS strictly adheres to its charitable, educational and scientific objectives and purposes. Because of these material factual issues, summary judgment is precluded.

AHAUS, Croft and Trumble further urge that summary judgment should be granted because plaintiff and AHAUS are not competitors. Defendants' reliance, however, on San Francisco Seals, Ltd. v. National Hockey League, 379 F. Supp. 966 (C.D.Cal.1974), is misplaced. That case merely held that a professional hockey league team does not compete in an economic sense with its league and other league members, and thus territorial restraints imposed on a member by its own league do not violate the Sherman Act. In the present case, plaintiff contends that it competed for patrons with the teams affiliated with the New York Penn Jr. B League, not the teams associated with the Southern Ontario Junior Hockey League to which it belonged. Thus, the present case is distinguishable because it cannot be said as a matter of law at this point that the conduct of AHAUS did not restrain economic competition.

In addition, AHAUS is not immunized from the antitrust laws simply because it is not a competitor of the injured party. A non-competitor who agrees, contracts or conspires with another to restrain trade or commerce is subject to the antitrust laws. United States v. General Motors Corp., 121 F.2d 376, 404 (7th Cir. 1941). Although AHAUS alleges that it does not directly compete with plaintiff, any agreement, contract or conspiracy between it and another party which unreasonably restrained interstate trade or commerce would be violative of section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants' contention that plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to state a claim pursuant to section 2 of the Sherman Act lacks merit. As stated earlier, the market power possessed by AHAUS remains open to debate. Plaintiff's affidavits contain sufficient allegations of economic power to surmount a motion for summary judgment.

Defendants' arguments that plaintiff lacks standing to sue pursuant to section 4 of the Clayton Act and that the requested injunctive relief should be foreclosed are equally unavailing. Viewing the complaint and accompanying affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiff, I cannot rule as a matter of law at this stage of the proceedings that plaintiff was not in fact injured by the alleged violations or that irreparable damage is missing. Issues of fact exist with regard to both questions. Unless there is no genuine issue of fact with respect to the damages sustained by plaintiff, summary judgment is inappropriate. Carswell Trucks, Inc. v. International Harvester Co., 334 F. Supp. 1238 (S.D.N.Y.1971).

Defendant Cotter has moved to dismiss the complaint as to him on the ground that he is not a proper party. He contends that the Amherst Youth Hockey Association, Inc., of which he is a director, is the proper party to be sued and should defend in his stead. This contention is wide of the mark. A cause of action in a private antitrust suit for treble damages is a tort action. Northwestern Oil Co. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 138 F.2d 967, 970 (7th Cir. 1943), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 792, 64 S. Ct. 790, 88 L. Ed. 1081 (1944). As such, a conspirator in a private antitrust action is a joint tortfeasor and is jointly and severally liable. An action brought pursuant to section 4 of the Clayton Act will thus lie against any party who committed the alleged offense. State of Washington v. American Pipe & Construction Co., 280 F. Supp. 802, 804 (S.D.Cal.1968). If Cotter himself participated in the alleged conspiracy, he would be personally liable under the antitrust laws regardless of whether another party, such as the Amherst Youth Hockey Association, Inc. which might have also participated in the conspiracy, was or was not sued by the injured party. Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require that the corporation itself be sued in a private antitrust action, but only comes into play when an injured party in such an action chooses to sue the corporation directly.

Defendants Rossi and New York Penn Jr. B League have moved to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties. It is settled that defendants who are charged as members of a conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws cannot insulate themselves from liability by claiming the indispensability of fellow conspirators. Martin v. Chandler, 85 F. Supp. 131 (S.D.N.Y.1949); United States v. National Lead Co., 63 F. Supp. 513 (S.D.N.Y.1945), aff'd, 332 U.S. 319, 67 S. Ct. 1634, 91 L. Ed. 2077 (1947).

It is therefore hereby

ORDERED that all motions made by defendants are denied.

[exhiled]

I am just curious how much this lawsuit is going to cost in the end. Association fees will be paying however many lawyers will be working on this case along with court fees and anything else concerned due to one mans actions. Maybe the DD could take a look at taking the rule down for a year until he, and the board, are sure whatever lawsuit will not be lost. Eventually McBain could sue for lost clients and cost the associations more in the end.

[High Off The Glass]

I am just curious how much this lawsuit is going to cost in the end. Association fees will be paying however many lawyers will be working on this case along with court fees and anything else concerned due to one mans actions. Maybe the DD could take a look at taking the rule down for a year until he, and the board, are sure whatever lawsuit will not be lost.

Eventually McBain could sue for lost clients and cost the associations more in the end.

Sue on what basis. His clients have a "choice", either skate with your association in D6 or skate at MM. Make up your mind and pick is all D6 is saying. How can you prove any damages if your "client" has the option (very important word), for whom they play for? It's simple...One or the other, what's the big deal. Move to Wisconsin, play for the Fire. Go to Alaska and play up there. No one is telling anyone where they can or can not play. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't and go play somewhere else. It's D6 for crying out loud, pretty good hockey is played there, some families from other less competitive districts would cut off their arm for their kid to have a chance to play in that district. Stop whining and get a grip!

[murray]

Hockey is a choice

I think my brain froze.

Case law on a hockey blog. Sweet

[black sheep]

. Many associations are run and governed by parents looking to help little Jonnie and Suzie get on the right team. Many decisions (not all) are made with the beer drinkin buddies and if you don’t drink beer with them your little player doesn’t make the team. Again, not condemning all associations but you know what I am talking about.

if u think you will get away from the "good ole boys"...good luck...as long as your child plays u will find this...in hockey and life

grass is greener when fewer walk on it...but its grass just the same...and the sheep will find the new grass eventually

IF u are good enough u make the team...but bubbles float...at every level...from mites to HS to juniors to pro...get used to it...its only going to get worse for u

[HockeyDad41]

Hockey is a choice

I think my brain froze.

Case law on a hockey blog. Sweet

That's how you know it's serious.

[greybeard58]

The case law if anyone noticed is for the Junior B level and they operate different and have a different set of qualifications than youth hockey. USA Hockey has made a number of changes since they changed their name.

[karl(east)]

Hockey is a choice

I think my brain froze.

Case law on a hockey blog. Sweet

I love it.

Whoever said hockey boards can't be educational?

[Ugottobekiddingme]

Educational??? Let's discuss how association hockey follows 501(c) regulations as it relates to all participating members. I'm starting to understand why AAA hockey has grown and association hockey is protecting their turf. Want to tackle this one Greybeard?"

[hockey_is_a_choice]

High Off of . . .

You're right, of course, people who don't like the new D6 rule should just suck it up and go along--or move to Alaska. End of discussion.

Exiled,

I'm right there with you--let's encourage the Bernster and D6 to avoid litigation. It's expensive and messy. Let's find a solution to the problem.

Bernster and other program managers, you're creative business types, right? Get out your ad writing pencils and rewrite the marketing blurbs for your programs. The following blurb might work:

"Fall, Winter and Spring Mite, Squirt and Peewee Fun with Bernie at the Made. This is NOT a League, nor is it a Team or an Association. We will skate and work on skills and other hockey stuff. We might play what looks like a game but we won't keep score or call penalties so it doesn't meet our definition of a game or a scrimmage.


You won't be assigned to Teams because that would be wrong. Instead, you will be assigned to committees. Each committee will be made up of 17 committee members. Your committee assignment will be to work together in an UNorganized manner. We call it shinny hockey."

The dispute is solved, right?

[Bronc]

The dispute is solved, right?[/quote]

MM is a business looking to expand their market share thus increase revenue.

D6 is a business looking to hold onto their top talent and stay amongst the premiere Districts.

Both are trying to protect/enhance their business. If Walmart changes its strategy to compete with Target does everyone complain? Both should have the same prices, return policies, etc?

Its a business of training kids to play hockey. One is more intent on profit and developing a small group, while the other is driving a community based environment (remember 90% of the kids in the assoc do not play A and many of them are not interested in businesses like MM) for all levels to play.

Wally World, Target, Kohls, Kmart, etc all compete and ultimately it is good for the consumer. They all plagerize each other at some point based on what their core customers want.

They each get to set their own rules and policies. If you want to follow them, shop there if not, shop somewhere else.

[greybeard58]

If I had wrote about anything being educational I would or if I was discussing the non-profit tax status I would gladly debate you. If you read my posts on this thread you will see neither. So pick another subject if yo want.

Why did you not answer the private message's I had sent you earlier?

[Cut Above]

Delete

[HockeyDad41]

NO REFUNDS!!!

[JSR]

The dispute is solved, right?

MM is a business looking to expand their market share thus increase revenue.

D6 is a business looking to hold onto their top talent and stay amongst the premiere Districts.

Both are trying to protect/enhance their business. If Walmart changes its strategy to compete with Target does everyone complain? Both should have the same prices, return policies, etc?

Its a business of training kids to play hockey. One is more intent on profit and developing a small group, while the other is driving a community based environment (remember 90% of the kids in the assoc do not play A and many of them are not interested in businesses like MM) for all levels to play.

Wally World, Target, Kohls, Kmart, etc all compete and ultimately it is good for the consumer. They all plagerize each other at some point based on what their core customers want.

They each get to set their own rules and policies. If you want to follow them, shop there if not, shop somewhere else.

[/quote]

I am not taking sides but your analogy is problematic in that neither Target or Walmart has the ability or the right to say that if you shop at one you cannot shop at the other. That is a huge difference and hence your analogy is faulty.