Open Letter To The DVHL

[James]

Sure Tree.....if your ok with all rink owners being allowed to kick out existing clubs and starting there own and stealing all the players...... go ahead and let them in.
There will be a lot of clubs looking for new rinks then.....
promote the game not the club.

Were there any issues with Quakers ?
What was the reason they were forced out??? Was it because of the game or was it for the benefit of another club ?

[tree408]

Were there any issues with Quakers ?
What was the reason they were forced out??? Was it because of the game or was it for the benefit of another club ?

Funny but I know people that were at the Quakers board meeting when they discussed the situation, the Quakers had an option to stay at IceLine and chose not to.  They had an option to tell the general members about the situation much earlier than they did and didn't until it was too late.  From what I'm told the Quakers board did a horrible job at the general meeting which is why 90% of the club stayed at IceLine for a club that didn't have a league.  I'm sure there are former Quaker families that would tell you their board put their egos ahead of the club and kids.

[Guest]

Sure Tree.....if your ok with all rink owners being allowed to kick out existing clubs and starting there own and stealing all the players...... go ahead and let them in.
There will be a lot of clubs looking for new rinks then.....
promote the game not the club.

Were there any issues with Quakers ?
What was the reason they were forced out??? Was it because of the game or was it for the benefit of another club ?

No tears for the quakers.
They "stole" players from other teams for years, only to cry foul about TP stealing their players after they grossly mismanaged their situation.  Funny thing is, most of the other organizations that "steal" players every year are the same organizations at the most risk of losing their ice bc the rink supposedly wants to run their own organization.  There will be no tears for them either.

[James]

I’m sure there were mishandlings by the club. It is my understanding that the offer to stay would have increased the tuition a lot (that was also admitted by Jim Binns in the DVHL meeting last year) I think the exact words were “the contract was undoubtedly heavily in our favor”
I’m sure when the Quakers tabled the offer they were not expecting the offer to be pulled.
So .... yeah....you could say shame on the Quakers for putting their membership first.

As far as stealing players from club to club.......
Happy people don’t leave !!!! Except is there is a chance that the existing club will not have a rink to play at.

But that aside.... happy people don’t leave.

I don’t blame the families for going with TP because of the certainty of the rink......but now they have to live with what they get.

[Youth Hockey Info]

A few things I can remember from the old Quakers site.

Graves absolutely said they could stay but the framework of the contract was so outlandish it made it completely impossible for the club to continue to exist after the first season if they did.

Ice prices would go up exponentially, the first payment to secure ice was so high there was no way possible for the club to collect the money quick enough to pay for it. It was due by June or something. All Quakers uniform purchases would go through the Ice Line pro shop, Graves would take a % of the profit which I think was 10%, but probably more? There's more, I just can't remember off hand.

Long story short, he didn't offer the Quakers an option to flourish, it was framed exclusively for failure. To force them into caving to his demands or leave.

They left.

[Youth Hockey Info]

I could have my time line a little off, too many rumors floating around. I was told it was reported in January, but obviously you reported earlier than that. I was only aware of the TP kid, didn't realize there were others. I know they pulled up kids from the American team, were the other 3 from there?

My same son last year played 14U A Nat and a completely different coach M***k did much the same. He himself was suspended and still on the bench. He was suspended for allowing a suspended player to participate 2 weeks prior. Coincidentally his own son was under a 2 game suspension and he too was playing. He even scored a goal and it was logged on the scoresheet. The coach signed it and his son was on it. A complaint was submitted to the DVHL and they did nothing. This was at BCI.

In 16-17 my youngest son was Pee Wee A American. They were playing at VFC and the Colonials team had 3 A National players on the team, they blew my sons team away. A complaint was submitted and the DVHL did nothing.

The 16U situation this season was nothing new, this is common practice for VFC to play their teams however they see fit. Rules are meaningless to them.

[James]

What he did sets a awful precedent for other rinks. Jack up prices so high that a club can’t continue unless they raise tuition to cover it.....and when a club stands up for the kids and Parents the rink then kicks them out. Now more rinks will raise rates and the sport will suffer because of it.
I can’t believe any person would support this.

Like I said ...... things maybe could have been handled different but the bottom line is a club was doing what was in the best interest of the kids

[James]

When youth sports becomes big business ...... the athletes suffer.

[Guest]

The sad thing is the people who don’t want Team Philly in the DVHL don’t see the big picture. Who does it punish? The kids! The kids want to play hockey and with another local team it means, less travel more, playing against friends and an overall better experience. To think you are punishing the owner of Iceline by not letting them in the DVHL is a misguided concept. They make their money on tournaments and everything else regardless if they are in the DVHL or not. I would think he understands that more local teams the better. Everyone put your egos aside and think about what is best for the kids.

[Guest]

So what was the vote...