View Full Version : A team looking for a league
02-03-2005, 08:30 PM
Wow...I am so glad I decided to keep the Boston Storm away this year. I do want to bring the team back next year, but I am still uncertain as to which league can meet my expectations.
I do not mind making an investment in a team and I do not mind personally managing the operations to ensure a decent product for the fans.
But I do want to know that the league is in it for the benefit of the sport. Also, that whoever is involved in the league has a goal and budget to operate it efficiently and effectively.
I have been reading the boards...but have been staying silent this season...wanted to see how things pan out.
If you were in my situation, where would you place the Boston Storm next year? Why should I invest money into a team in any of the leagues? Have the leagues shown progress this year...organization, marketing, fanbase, sponsors, commitment by players, teams and league officials?
I throw it out there to the inline community and to the various league owner/representatives....should I bring back the Boston Storm or some other team? and if so....please state the advantages of your league over the others and also please state the progress you have made this past year with your league. I am seriously considering all leagues, so please respond with your thoughts.
02-04-2005, 09:18 AM
Wait until the NHL is up and running and join there!
02-13-2005, 02:46 AM
I am a bit surprised that I did not get any feedback from the leagues.....
02-13-2005, 03:31 AM
Don't take it personally. I rarely get answers to my posts that request responses either. Weird stuff. LOL. /wtimages/icons/wink.gif
Inline Hockey Central
02-13-2005, 10:48 AM
If you want to join a league, you better contact them, I don't believe the leagues are going to try to "out bid" each other to get a team.
Which league you join depends on what you want, if you want no-check, join the PIHA. If you want checking with a festival format, join XIHL, but if you miss a game, Steve will toss you. You were in MLRH so you know what that is like, but it has been around since 1997. To my knowledge, MLRH has not suspended a team for missing one game, except for the Riot, but that had little to do with the game and was more an owners battle.
I myself, would only have a team in MLRH because I like the checking and the other checking leagues don't seem to last very long.
02-13-2005, 11:01 AM
so are you actually trying to say that it is ok to "miss" a game when the teams are trying to make leagues as professional as possible?? you can't be serious
02-13-2005, 11:47 AM
Not showing for a game is one thing, notifying a team 3 weeks in advance is another. If you are not paying the players, and you have a roster that limits who you can bring, there has to be some flexibility.
02-13-2005, 11:57 AM
There were also teams in the MLRH that were suspensed for missing one game. I believe the Boston Jokers were suspended by the league in 2001 or 2002 for missing a game
02-13-2005, 11:59 AM
The festival format is only for this year. From what I understand, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the XIHL will move to a full 15-20 game schedule starting around Oct 2005.
02-13-2005, 12:14 PM
No, you are wrong. Boston missed 2 games but was not suspended for just missing games, there were other reasons that were included in the decision.
02-13-2005, 12:39 PM
Thats what i hear also.
If you dont hit me im not stopping it.
02-13-2005, 12:44 PM
what rink are you guys gonna use? tewksbury? Thats the biggest problem in Mass right now for roller hockey overall, there is no decent facility to skate at.
02-13-2005, 01:09 PM
I know that to be true as well.
02-13-2005, 01:16 PM
No offense to the people having asked these questions or to you Richard for your opinion. However, if I were Charlie, Steve, or Benny, I would probably not dive into online discussion of this matter. Boston, I know that in most cases they don't like to use the IHC boards to conduct the business of the leagues. There are too many negative people out there and business of this matter should not be done on such a public forum. However I still believe it is a terrific topic and question and I myself am curious to hear the opinions of various players and fans from all of the leagues.
02-13-2005, 02:09 PM
Teams should get tossed for missing a game. It's not like we have 80 game seasons in our leagues. XIHL had a short season consisting of 8 games per team. If a team can't field a team for all 8 games, then it should be tossed because it is not a solid organization.
The Werewolves and Wings had a home and home serious(1 game in NY and 1 the following weekend in NJ) scheduled. We (Wolves) traveled 7 hours in a snow storm to go play that game. The Wings DECIDED they couldn't make it the next weekend. How fair is that to the Werewolves ?! Our owner paid for a bus to take us to Buffalo and did a lot of promoting for our game at home the following week. He, the Werewolves, and the XIHL got screwed !! Wings then got tossed.
That is a rule that is a benefit to a league not a detriment.
02-13-2005, 02:18 PM
flexibility is for gymnastics !
02-13-2005, 02:25 PM
so the rule should be 2 games??? HAHA, thats ridiculous. This conversation is over.
02-13-2005, 05:54 PM
Hey Marty. I would urge you to have us play in MLRH. There are too many problems with XIHL now that I doubt can be fixed over the summer. Bill appears to have things running smoothly this season and has been at both our games, NY Rockers, and available for questions or comments. I'd be very surprised if XIHL was around next season. I hear Steve wants out do to other responsibilities. So that leaves Benny. View XIHL message board for my comments on that.
Blah Blah Blah, Shoot the puck already
02-13-2005, 06:43 PM
if you are going to commit to this level you have to play all of the games, that is a joke if you do not show up, whether there is notice or now, how is roller hockey ever supposed to take off with attitudes like that?? that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.... you actually think it is ok to miss games??? either play them all of join a rec league where you can miss whatever games you want.
02-13-2005, 08:17 PM
Then, how do you respond to these situations (all have occurred):
1. Team shows up with 1 goal tender, but they don't have a matching jersey for him, technically the goal tender is ineligible and the team should forfeit the game, but they came. If the game is called a forfeit, should the team that forfeited be tossed?
2. A team shows up with only 7 players, but they want to play and the players are very good. Technically, they forfeit, do they get tossed (the game was played and the team with 7 players won).
3. A team fails to show for the last game of the season, when they find out they will be suspended, they schedule the game for the next week and play, with fewer players than the allowable minimum, they are not suspended.
4. A team plays a player who is rostered on another team, he was on the team for 2 years and everyone knew what team he was rostered on. The team that played this player lost, the league official said that since the team with the ineligible player lost, no penalty would be handed out.
By the way, the same league official made all the above decisions (guess who) and did not suspend any of the above teams.
If you are going to follow the rules, you can't allow teams to choose which to follow and which to ignore. To me, if you are suspending a team for missing a game, the four teams in the situations above should also have been suspended, but they were not. But in the same league, in the same year, a team that gave 3 weeks notice that it would not show was suspended. And it was the first time in MLRH history that a team was suspended for not showing for a single game. Sounds pretty fishy to me.
However, my point is that you can't suspend a team for missing a game when you allow all other infractions to occur. What if a team is late due to a traffic accident, if the ref calls the game after 15 minutes, as he should, and the team shows up 5 minutes later, should they be suspended.
This discussion is primarily about a team not showing without warning, not about rescheduling a game. If you look at the one thing that was consistant with all these instances, it was that the games were played....
The only game example where a team actually did not show, was allowed to to be rescheduled..apparently after the fact. Without knowing how much lead time was given (if any)or how many attempts(if any) may have been made prior to that game to reschedule, I could not pass judgement on whether this situation merited a team's dismissal from the league.
The issue here is when a team with extended prior notice of a league scheduled game, simply does not show, or gives less than a week's prior notice with no reasonable opportunity for the host team to reschedule. In these circumstances, there is considerable damage one A) to the hosting team, directly in terms of lost time and money, and B) to both the team and the league in terms of credibility.
However the one consistent circumstance in all these instances you selected was that in some fashion the games were played...That the manner in which one team, in your chosen examples, did not meet league rules, and thus resulted in forfeits, is the correct way to handle this, and perfectly consistant with league policy. The fact that the organization at least fielded sufficient players to put on a contest at or near the scheduled time, does not do as much damage to team and league credibility.
Where a team would exhibit this behaviour on a consistant basis, I think the league should certainly consider suspending their playing priveleges.
It is important to remember, that this is not a simple men's league, where teams show up to play and all expenses are paid for by the players themselves. This is subsidized play...Owners are involved, sponsorships are solicited, and paid to these teams and owners, rink time is committed and paid for, fan attendance is solicited, tickets are paid for ....there are direct financial consequences involved in a "no show" which someone must pay for.
The players who feel that this is "no big deal" have no respect for the efforts that many have put out so that they can play. If you want to have leagues where there is no ownership involved, or sponsorships to help defray the costs, then carry on with this "no big deal" attitude....you will have your wish come true!!!!
Just for example:
Maybe that's the real secret...make sure all the players have a vested financial interest in playing for the entire season. Let's say that running a team costs $25,000 for a 14 game season, including rink time, practices, uniforms, refs etc, etc. An owner will guarantee 50% of this budget, and the players must make up the balance through fees...a team fielding 18 total players would then be charged approximately $700.00 each to play for the season.
This money would be paid to a team account. The owner would match the fees. From this account all expenses would be paid. In a separate account, all earnings from sponsorship and ticket sales to home games would be held.
Once a week a review of the earnings and expenses would be handed to the players and diecussed after practice....The team rep.(a player) would have access to all figures at any time.
At the end of the season, any balance remaining in the team account would be added to the balance in the earnings account and divided equally between the owner, and the team...all players who showed consistantly for the whole season with the exception of injury time off, would receive a full share...a division by 18 of 50% of the balance. Players who did not comply with an acceptable attendance schedule would receive less.
A schedule for acceptable missing of games and practices..say 2 per season... could be established....Players not playing on a particular game roster, would not be penalized for not attending, but, their attendance to these games, would offset missed practices or games beyond the allowable total..up to a total of two.
Just a thought.....Maybe then players would consider the downsides and upsides more seriously....If they help with the promotion, and help with the credibility, for the entire season, they might just break even, if really good, especially soliciting sponsorships, they might even make a bone or two....
Through a system like this, we would begin to see who really "has your back" and who really wants to play. Players who consistantly fail to meet their team contractual obligations, could be voted off the team at any time by a majority of 75% of the active player votes.
Maybe this would "make it real", and give the players a taste of what it takes to make something like this work!!! No doubt there are players already thinking....BS no way am I going to put anything up to play....and then they will end up paying to play somewhere else anyway...This way everyone has to recognise that to make this whole concept work, everyone of you has to be in it together.
02-14-2005, 08:31 AM
I believe many of the teams did (or do) require some cost sharing with the players, but not at the level in your example. But this is a good idea, a team could show but a single player not show, without a good reason and that player should be suspended.
But what will happen is that if a player puts up $700 and a better player is signed by the team, the first player sees his playing time significantly reduced, he will be bitter. Also, what if the player who fails to show is your best player, would he get suspended? not likely because winning is still the objective.
So, until the league can pay players, there will be missed games, but the solution is not to toss every team out of the league, especially when there are multiple leagues. There has to be a better way.
02-14-2005, 09:00 AM
I think you are confusing "team" with "organization". A league wants solid organizations to run its teams. That said, in today's roller hockey it is very easy to confuse the two.
Teams are made up of players. But it is the ownership (aka organization) that really makes things work. Just because you have an owner, doesn't make it happen. That person(s) has to do their bit. I can speak for a fact that when an owner steps up, suddenly, nobody has road flu. Suddenly people show up. If the owner is simply there, but not doing his part, guess what happens? Nothing.
When a league tosses a team, they are really tossing the owner. The players do come back to play in other organizations.
As far as history goes: MLRH AAA tossed plenty of teams for failing to show once: Fredricksburg Sabers, Mass Jokers, 2/3s of the West in that one season, the Crunch, and yes, the Riot. I'm pretty sure there are a few more, but that is some 9 teams.....
One last thing, I was there. Your version of why the Riot was tossed is wrong.
Read it more carefully...75% 0f the team has to vote....there is also some built in "allowability" in the schedule for missed games...The guy who doesn't play is still on the 18 man roster....he can get paid his money back, or a portion of it, and work hard at practice to make it....sorry, but that's part of the sacrifice. This isn't house hockey where everyone get's a guaranteed line change every 2 minutes.....The point is you know about this up front...there would be no promises. The player who did not make frequent trips onto the playing roster would know this up front..or at least that it could happen....
A "star" player who did not show regularily would also have his "share" cut significantly through his absence, if it surpassed the "allowance" on the schedule, in addition to risking being voted off the team. The point is it's about becoming a positive influence and a dynamic team which feels the need to depend on each other's efforts, not just on the floor, but throughout the season....Players that feel a system like this would not work, are more likely to be the one's who feel thay can jump from team to team and league to league, at their whim...and not be one's you would want.
02-14-2005, 01:28 PM
Thanks. I thought I was having Senior moments again. I did remember a slightly different way of that ending. All names but the Riot were mentioned in that post. Hmmm...wonder why.
02-14-2005, 02:53 PM
The problems with the XIHL this season were a result of a few select teams and players who didn't respect the league and thought that they can do whatever they want. I'm not saying that XIHL is the best choice, but just wanted to let you know that the league staff were little to blame for the problems that took place. The MLRH seems to have gotten out to a decent start, but seems that except for 1 or 2 teams, these teams are not "elite" squads. With exception with the Sting, The XIHL featured the best of the best. I'm sure that the Sting will make some moves and make there team stronger for next year. There is not a big pool of "elite" players and teams in roller hockey so I would say that the league to go with next year is the league that has the most talent. Could be MLRH, PIHA or XIHL(again) ??? I just wish these league owners would realize that what would be best for everyone would be for them to join forces to get all the elite talent together in one league.
02-14-2005, 06:57 PM
You hit the nail on the head!!! One league is the way to go.
Blah Blah Blah, Shoot the puck already
02-14-2005, 11:07 PM
You are wrong about the Riot, because I am the Riot and you were not on the phone when I talked to Steve or Jamie.
02-14-2005, 11:26 PM
Yeah so which league is it gonna be. Again the problem is cooperation or superiority. Neither exist! So I choose to stay loyal and so it appears so does everyone else, well except for everyone that left mlrh last season.
02-14-2005, 11:34 PM
Here is another perspective... if you blame the players, inevitably its the owners fault anyway for picking bad or unreliable players in the first place or not replacing them when they recognized a problem. I agree 100% with this post. Owners are what is impt in these leagues, not because I am one, but because I have also been just a player and crappy ownership is what inspired the formation of the Growl in the first place. As an owner you must take resposibility for everything that occurs with your squad.
Loyal?..LOL..when the XIHL was formed, no one outside of Bill Raue new if there would be an MLRH league for sure, no one was certain of the future plans for PIHA either, as there were rampant and varied positions on the future and timing of PIHA given Charlie Yoder's apparent involvement with American Hockey Properties...
How can you imply any kind of "disloyalty" for organizations and players who made decisions to play some sort of hockey with only the facts at hand as they appeared in August and September of 2004?
I do NOT believe anyone of the owners associated with the XIHL ever felt that they were going in that direction to capture the "big bucks", but given all the information at hand at the time, felt that this was the most viable alternative. The intent of that league was to improve on the percieved situation at hand.
That said, I was also dissapointed that the various factions could not see a way to work it out either, as the last thing inline hockey needs are more splinter groups. The intent of the new group was just that...to unite all the various factions...and it didn't happen.
02-15-2005, 02:02 AM
I apologize! When I read my post again, I realized the error in my statement. The point I was trying to get across is that the teams for the most part are loyal, because their is no attempt at a collective effort and better options are not present. Additionally, a move from one to the other is basically a lateral move anyway. Now those involved in the higherarchy of the leagues know that there was no one in any of the three leagues that pushed for this unity more than I did. I am sure Steve, Benny, and Charlie will all back that up. The point I was trying to make with mentioning that their were teams that left MLRH, was that they chose to pursue a different option because they were unhappy and MLRH gave them no reason to in fact remain loyal. Also it was MLRH that remained away from the bargaining table when discussion was happening between the leagues.
To defend PIHA, the future plans of the league were well known as we had regular meetings that began as early as one week after the season had ended. I agree no one had a clue about MLRH and at the time of the XIHL split, the only league that had plans for a concrete season was in fact PIHA.
I hope for a continued effort between PIHA and XIHL to atleast work together in an effort to provide both a contact and non contact league during non-competing seasons.
I am sorry that I was so easily misinterpretted, which was my fault. I agree with your thoughts 100%, there needs to be united effort and I can say that I tried as best I could make to make this happen.
02-15-2005, 09:49 AM
Hey John! I knew this had to be either you or Chris (nancy, you owe me a quarter!).
You are correct, I was not on the phone with you and Steve and/or Jamie. But during that same time, I was in contact with darn near every other owner. We (the other owners) had numerous e-mail & phone exchanges about this issue. You and I had several exchanges about this. We took a vote and let you know in advance what our decision would be if you guys didn't go to Marple. Our league's bylaws stated that right up front.
I was privy to all of that and I can say in all honesty John that I never picked up any "power play to remove John P" vibes. I also never felt that this was a railroad attempt aimed at the Riot or anyone else.
I do know you had other issues that you felt very strongly about. And those issues were quite serious. I also know that your peers (the other owners & myself) said, very clearly, "We will listen to your issues, but you must play your scheduled game." History knows the outcome.
Look, I'm not trying to start a peeing contest here. Frankly, it isn't needed. I just want you to know the position I saw this incident from. I know from your previous public statements that you saw this differently. Hell, maybe you are right. I have been bambozzeled before. Christ! I bought a roller hockey team for goodness sake ;)
But, if that was the case, the rest of our peers got fooled as well.
John, I hope all is well with you and that you read the message with the intent in which it was written. That is to simply clarify, not to provoke.
02-15-2005, 11:55 AM
Hey! Who bamboozled you to buy the team? That was a great team!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.