Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Superstar gets a C from history

Expand Messages
  • Craig Wallace
    I thought this would be of interest to the group. Craig http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/pat_macadam/2011/01/01/16729131.html [Non-text portions of
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 2, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought this would be of interest to the group.

      Craig


      http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/pat_macadam/2011/01/01/16729131.html

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • William Underwood
      A few inaccuracies. 1-Red Berenson was never drafted. He was a Canadien owned junior having played for the Regina Pats who they sponsored. When he went to
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 3, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        A few inaccuracies.





        1-Red Berenson was never drafted. He was a Canadien owned junior having
        played for the Regina Pats who they sponsored. When he went to Michigan
        Montreal simply kept him on their protected list or neg list. There was no
        draft until 1963 and Berenson had already played 41 games in the NHL by
        then.

        2-Lewicki turned pro in 1950, sponsorship lasted until NHL expansion. Teams
        had to freeze their lists in early 1966. Now according to the NHL 6 team
        history the C Form as not gone until 1966 and we also hear a number of
        players who turned pro after the early 50's signing a C form. However the
        history also explicitly states that you could not sign one until 18 unless
        your parents singed for you. I'd be interested to see this book and to see
        the NHL records on this as to EXACTLY what changed then and how the C form
        evolved. Could it be that it was tightened up to prevent players form
        signing prior to 18 without parental consent? The odd thing is this article
        implies that the C form was gone by the early/mid 50's yet there is a lot of
        evidence that it was not truly gone when you read other bios. Now there is
        no doubt that the C form was under fire and that something happened but just
        what and when is the question. The reasons for the NHL draft being set up
        are multiple, I have heard them all over the years. To cover unowned juniors
        and prevent bidding wars (ala the Supplemental Draft of the 80's), to wean
        the league into a draft system like other pro sports, the CAHA and the
        juniors did not like sponsorship, etc. But sponsorship itself was not dumped
        until expansion was accepted.

        3-Berenson was not the first college player to play (or be as he says sic
        "drafted" into the NHL) in the NHL.that distinction goes to Billy Hay. Jack
        McCartan also played several games in 59-60 ands 60-1.



        The author gets an F in history. :-)



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • William Underwood
        Actually I was wrong.Hay is often called the first collegian to play in the NHl, there were others, at least one I can thin k of John Mariucci but Hay was the
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 3, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Actually I was wrong.Hay is often called the first collegian to play in the
          NHl, there were others, at least one I can thin k of John Mariucci but Hay
          was the first one post war I believe so I should have stated "post war"..
          Still the article is way off there.Mariucci played in the 40's!



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Lloyd Davis
          ... Well, the classic story of the C-form, and one that I suspect is the most misunderstood, involves Bobby Orr, and that was 1962. I d love to see some
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 3, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On 3-Jan-11, at 10:20 AM, William Underwood wrote:
            >
            >
            > 2-Lewicki turned pro in 1950, sponsorship lasted until NHL
            > expansion. Teams
            > had to freeze their lists in early 1966. Now according to the NHL 6
            > team
            > history the C Form as not gone until 1966 and we also hear a number of
            > players who turned pro after the early 50's signing a C form.
            > However the
            > history also explicitly states that you could not sign one until 18
            > unless
            > your parents singed for you. I'd be interested to see this book and
            > to see
            > the NHL records on this as to EXACTLY what changed then and how the
            > C form
            > evolved. Could it be that it was tightened up to prevent players form
            > signing prior to 18 without parental consent? The odd thing is this
            > article
            > implies that the C form was gone by the early/mid 50's yet there is
            > a lot of
            > evidence that it was not truly gone when you read other bios. Now
            > there is
            > no doubt that the C form was under fire and that something happened
            > but just
            > what and when is the question. The reasons for the NHL draft being
            > set up
            > are multiple, I have heard them all over the years. To cover unowned
            > juniors
            > and prevent bidding wars (ala the Supplemental Draft of the 80's),
            > to wean
            > the league into a draft system like other pro sports, the CAHA and the
            > juniors did not like sponsorship, etc. But sponsorship itself was
            > not dumped
            > until expansion was accepted.
            >


            Well, the classic story of the C-form, and one that I suspect is the
            most misunderstood, involves Bobby Orr, and that was 1962.

            I'd love to see some research that sheds light on the whole issue of
            the various tryout contracts and option forms. The article Bill refers
            to does state clearly that a player could not sign before turning 18,
            and it seems to me that just about any North American jurisdiction
            reserves the right of a minor to escape any contract at his or her
            option. Still, there are so many anecdotal accounts of players signing
            _something_, and receiving cash consideration for their playing rights
            before the age of 18, whether with or without the consent of a parent
            or guardian. My feeling is that many of these players were signing
            away their _amateur_ rights.

            MacAdam writes in the Ottawa Sun article that Lewicki says he signed
            "an NHL C form" at 16. He is of the impression that this bound Lewicki
            to the Maple Leafs.

            Incorrect. On page 51 of his book, Lewicki writes that, at the stroke
            of midnight on his 16th birthday, his junior coach in Fort William --
            Leo Barbini -- went to the telegraph office and placed Lewicki's name
            on the Providence Reds' negotiating list. He says that Barbini later
            told him all six NHL teams had tried to add Lewicki to their neg list,
            only to be told it was too late.

            Lewicki writes that he had rejected earlier offers of a C form, from
            Toronto and New York. The New York offer included a bonus of $800.
            Doug Hunter, in his biography of Tim Horton, suggests that the Ranger
            offer was a B form.

            In the book, Lewicki relates a tale that he re-told at a recent
            meeting of the Society for International Hockey Research in Toronto.
            Squib Walker, the Leafs' chief scout, visited the Lewicki home,
            presented "a document" and a hundred one-dollar bills, and explained
            that the paper "would give Toronto the first opportunity to negotiate
            with me when and if I turned professional." Lewicki's mother entered
            the room and, not knowing or caring what was going on, chased Walker
            out of the house at the end of a broom.

            In the summer of 1947, Lewicki says, Barbini tells him he's been
            invited to the Reds' training camp in Sherbrooke. He would receive
            $100 "for expenses. I had to sign an agreement to ensure I would
            attend." Lewicki characterizes this as a deal "cooked up between
            Toronto and Providence."

            I have trouble with that. Providence looks to have been an independent
            operation. It would've been in their interest to wait for Lewicki to
            turn pro and then auction him to the highest NHL bidder.

            In any event, Lewicki went to the training camp, then spent 1947-48 in
            Fort William. He gets picked up by the Port Arthur Bruins for the
            Memorial Cup, and they win. He scores 21 goals in 17 games.

            Lewicki writes that, in the summer of 1948, he entertains junior
            offers from Brandon, Winnipeg, Guelph, St. Mike's, the Marlboros and
            Stratford, and settles on Stratford. Subsequently, the Leafs trade
            Jack Hamilton and a sum of cash (Hunter sets the figure at $20,000;
            Lewicki writes it was $35,000) for Lewicki's pro rights.

            Smythe's plan, according to Hunter, was to have Lewicki play for the
            Marlboros, but Lewicki's team in Fort William intervened, arguing that
            Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd. owned his pro rights, not his amateur rights,
            and that Lewicki would be playing in the Twin Cities as far as they
            were concerned.

            Essentially, they were setting up an auction. Stratford outbid the
            Marlboros, paying Fort William $3,500. Lewicki confirms this sum in
            his own book.

            The Kroehlers, meanwhile, also held the junior rights to Leaf prospect
            George Armstrong, the league scoring champion in 1947-48. He was
            another player whose pro rights belonged to the Leafs and whom Smythe
            wanted sent to the Marlboros. But Armstrong and the Kroehlers balked.
            Hunter writes that Smythe paid $2,000 and a couple of players to
            secure Armstrong's amateur rights.

            Lewicki goes to Leaf training camp in 1948, gets the tendons in his
            instep sliced by the tip of Bill Barilko's skate blade. He misses a
            dozen or so games, but still manages 22 goals in 29 games. In March
            1949, he turns 18. That summer, the Leafs decide they still want him
            for the Marlies. And this time, Smythe isn't about to pussy-foot
            around the Kroehlers. The NHL's agreement with the CAHA apparently
            specified that an NHL team could place an 18-year-old on a pro roster
            without his amateur club's consent. So the ultimatum was issued:
            Lewicki plays for the Marlies, or else he goes to the farm club in
            Pittsburgh.

            Lewicki says the Kroehlers were prepared to make his situation a test
            case for the validity of the C form. However, in the end they and the
            CAHA backed down and Smythe got his way. Lewicki played in 1949-50 for
            the Marlboros. It appears the Kroehlers were motivated by two factors.
            First, Clarence Campbell would've blacklisted Lewicki. Second, as
            Hunter suggests, Smythe made it clear that he wouldn't loan Stratford
            another junior prospect if they didn't back down. The Kroehlers were
            not sponsored, so this would've been a valid concern.

            MacAdam is misleading in writing the C form was abolished "shortly
            afterwards." This is based on Lewicki's writing that it happened "a
            few years later."

            I share Bill's sense that "shortly afterwards" means 17 years later,
            in 1966, and that Lewicki had nothing to do with it.




            > 3-Berenson was not the first college player to play (or be as he
            > says sic
            > "drafted" into the NHL) in the NHL.that distinction goes to Billy
            > Hay. Jack
            > McCartan also played several games in 59-60 ands 60-1.
            >
            >
            >
            > The author gets an F in history. :-)


            Don't get me started.
          • francz39
            ... I left a comment on the web site on Sunday, offering a gentle chiding of the author for his efforts in research, but it looks like the Ottawa Sun thought
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 4, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > > The author gets an F in history. :-)
              >
              > Don't get me started.
              >

              I left a comment on the web site on Sunday, offering a gentle chiding of the author for his efforts in research, but it looks like the Ottawa Sun thought police would have none of it.

              Rob in 905
            • Karkoski James
              ... You ll have to explain that last sentence a bit more, Lloyd, because they way I understand it the C-form gave away the player s rights because it bound
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 4, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2011/01/04, at 4:43, Lloyd Davis wrote:

                >
                >
                > Well, the classic story of the C-form, and one that I suspect is the
                > most misunderstood, involves Bobby Orr, and that was 1962.
                >
                > I'd love to see some research that sheds light on the whole issue of
                > the various tryout contracts and option forms. The article Bill refers
                > to does state clearly that a player could not sign before turning 18,
                > and it seems to me that just about any North American jurisdiction
                > reserves the right of a minor to escape any contract at his or her
                > option. Still, there are so many anecdotal accounts of players signing
                > _something_, and receiving cash consideration for their playing rights
                > before the age of 18, whether with or without the consent of a parent
                > or guardian. My feeling is that many of these players were signing
                > away their _amateur_ rights.
                >
                >

                You'll have to explain that last sentence a bit more, Lloyd, because
                they way I understand it the C-form gave away the player's rights
                because it bound them to the reserve clause which means they could
                only resign with the same team that had previously signed them, and
                for the junior aged players who signed them it meant that they were
                bound to the NHL team because they could only resign with that team.
                It was in a sense like being drafted by the team and then when the
                player was 18 they had to come to agreement on his pro contract just
                like any player who is drafted now does.


                The mix of this having pro rights to amateur players still lives on
                today with the guys playing in the NCAA who get drafted by an NHL
                team. The NHL team doesn't have the player under contract, but they
                still have the pro rights to him.


                Bobby Orr is a good example of how the C-form bound the player's pro
                rights. He had signed his C-form and when he reached 18 he could turn
                pro and the Bruins, who had been touting him as their savior to the
                home town fans (they actually brought Oshawa to the Boston Garden to
                play so people could see him) low balled him on the salary and since
                he had Eagleson as his agent he wouldn't sign and they started talking
                about how he would play with Father Bauer's National Team, which was
                about the only other option open to Orr.



                The thing I don't understand is how the C-form tied into the
                sponsorship system which was below the junior level.


                >
                > Incorrect. On page 51 of his book, Lewicki writes that, at the stroke
                > of midnight on his 16th birthday, his junior coach in Fort William --
                > Leo Barbini -- went to the telegraph office and placed Lewicki's name
                > on the Providence Reds' negotiating list. He says that Barbini later
                > told him all six NHL teams had tried to add Lewicki to their neg list,
                > only to be told it was too late.
                >


                This is the first time I heard of a minor pro team having negotiating
                lists. Barbini must have been a Providence scout.

                >
                > Lewicki writes that he had rejected earlier offers of a C form, from
                > Toronto and New York. The New York offer included a bonus of $800.
                > Doug Hunter, in his biography of Tim Horton, suggests that the Ranger
                > offer was a B form.
                >

                One of the forms was a one year contract which binded the player to a
                team for only for one year and not in perpetuity like the reserve
                clause did.


                >
                > In the book, Lewicki relates a tale that he re-told at a recent
                > meeting of the Society for International Hockey Research in Toronto.
                > Squib Walker, the Leafs' chief scout, visited the Lewicki home,
                > presented "a document" and a hundred one-dollar bills, and explained
                > that the paper "would give Toronto the first opportunity to negotiate
                > with me when and if I turned professional." Lewicki's mother entered
                > the room and, not knowing or caring what was going on, chased Walker
                > out of the house at the end of a broom.
                >


                Sounds like it was a C-form. So, what about Providence's negotiating
                list??????
                >
                > In the summer of 1947, Lewicki says, Barbini tells him he's been
                > invited to the Reds' training camp in Sherbrooke. He would receive
                > $100 "for expenses. I had to sign an agreement to ensure I would
                > attend." Lewicki characterizes this as a deal "cooked up between
                > Toronto and Providence.
                >
                >
                > I have trouble with that. Providence looks to have been an independent
                > operation. It would've been in their interest to wait for Lewicki to
                > turn pro and then auction him to the highest NHL bidder.
                >
                >


                I seem to remember that I learned from a post to this list that
                another form was that the player got money to attend training camp but
                after the camp was finished they weren't bound by any agreement. It
                would make sense that Providence (and the Leafs) would want to get
                Lewicki into camp and see how he stood up against pro players. If
                there was going to be a trade between the two they would want to
                assess him before they did it.


                > In any event, Lewicki went to the training camp, then spent 1947-48 in
                > Fort William. He gets picked up by the Port Arthur Bruins for the
                > Memorial Cup, and they win. He scores 21 goals in 17 games.
                >
                > Lewicki writes that, in the summer of 1948, he entertains junior
                > offers from Brandon, Winnipeg, Guelph, St. Mike's, the Marlboros and
                > Stratford, and settles on Stratford. Subsequently, the Leafs trade
                > Jack Hamilton and a sum of cash (Hunter sets the figure at $20,000;
                > Lewicki writes it was $35,000) for Lewicki's pro rights.
                >
                > Smythe's plan, according to Hunter, was to have Lewicki play for the
                > Marlboros, but Lewicki's team in Fort William intervened, arguing that
                > Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd. owned his pro rights, not his amateur rights,
                > and that Lewicki would be playing in the Twin Cities as far as the
                > were concerned.
                >
                > Essentially, they were setting up an auction. Stratford outbid the
                > Marlboros, paying Fort William $3,500. Lewicki confirms this sum in
                > his own book.
                >
                > The Kroehlers, meanwhile, also held the junior rights to Leaf prospect
                > George Armstrong, the league scoring champion in 1947-48. He was
                > another player whose pro rights belonged to the Leafs and whom Smythe
                > wanted sent to the Marlboros. But Armstrong and the Kroehlers balked.
                > Hunter writes that Smythe paid $2,000 and a couple of players to
                > secure Armstrong's amateur rights.
                >
                > Lewicki goes to Leaf training camp in 1948, gets the tendons in his
                > instep sliced by the tip of Bill Barilko's skate blade. He misses a
                > dozen or so games, but still manages 22 goals in 29 games. In March
                > 1949, he turns 18. That summer, the Leafs decide they still want him
                > for the Marlies. And this time, Smythe isn't about to pussy-foot
                > around the Kroehlers. The NHL's agreement with the CAHA apparently
                > specified that an NHL team could place an 18-year-old on a pro roster
                > without his amateur club's consent. So the ultimatum was issued:
                > Lewicki plays for the Marlies, or else he goes to the farm club in
                > Pittsburgh.
                >
                > Lewicki says the Kroehlers were prepared to make his situation a test
                > case for the validity of the C form. However, in the end they and the
                > CAHA backed down and Smythe got his way. Lewicki played in 1949-50 for
                > the Marlboros. It appears the Kroehlers were motivated by two factors.
                > First, Clarence Campbell would've blacklisted Lewicki. Second, as
                > Hunter suggests, Smythe made it clear that he wouldn't loan Stratford
                > another junior prospect if they didn't back down. The Kroehlers were
                > not sponsored, so this would've been a valid concern.
                >


                When did Lewicki sign a C form with the Leafs? And if they already had
                his pro rights then why would they have to sign him to one?




                I also have a question I'm hoping someone will answer, how many
                leagues world wide don't allow fighting? Thanks!


                James
                >
                > MacAdam is misleading in writing the C form was abolished "shortly
                > afterwards." This is based on Lewicki's writing that it happened "a
                > few years later."
                >
                > I share Bill's sense that "shortly afterwards" means 17 years later,
                > in 1966, and that Lewicki had nothing to do with it.
                >
                > > 3-Berenson was not the first college player to play (or be as he
                > > says sic
                > > "drafted" into the NHL) in the NHL.that distinction goes to Billy
                > > Hay. Jack
                > > McCartan also played several games in 59-60 ands 60-1.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > The author gets an F in history. :-)
                >
                > Don't get me started.
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • William Underwood
                Well a few things..first of all any pro league not just hockey has a system where a draft choice is held for x amount of time f they don t sign. For the NHL
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 5, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well a few things..first of all any pro league not just hockey has a system
                  where a draft choice is held for x amount of time f they don't sign. For
                  the NHL it is not just college players. Each classification of player has a
                  statute that varies. And it only makes sense. A junior has only two years
                  (three with overage but a draftee does not want to play overage typically)
                  left of eligibility, a collegian has 4 max and a Euro has well, perpetual
                  eligibility in their realm. Hence the length that a team holds the rights is
                  proportionate to the player's ability to have a place to play while his
                  contract situation is decided thus it is fair. And it is something that the
                  PA and NHL agree to. In the end it is fair. A player has a haven to hold out
                  in and as long as he does the NHL team can hold him, when that expires he is
                  free. And the player can always leave college to go to junior if there is an
                  issue. Now before we even say "education" he can get a deal in junior and
                  more to the point if he is leaving school as a contract ploy how much does
                  he really care about it? If school is so vital he will simply stay there
                  regardless, after all we are talking about guys who plan to leave early that
                  this would be an issue for. It is not an unfair system to any level nor to
                  the team. Heck if you really want to press it you can always sign in Europe!
                  :-) It is really a matter of balance, a team invests a choice in a pick who
                  they THINK will sign. If they lack the time to do it we get a wasted choice
                  plus too lax a period would allow players to make life hard on the drafting
                  team. Now one can argue why not do like baseball and recycle players fast,
                  well one reason is that we have another mechanism in hockey and that is we
                  only draft at 18 and 19 after which you are a free agent. Now add on that
                  even for college guys there is something unique in hockey most guys don't
                  even play in college until 19, 20 or even 21. If we allowed guys say a one
                  year window we would have anarchy. It may do no one any good. We would have
                  bidding wars on top players and our being a sport with more limited funds
                  than baseball as well as a cap it may well mean less guys get signed period.
                  And we also may make more really expensive mistakes. Now why not extend the
                  draft age? It would do two things. One it would be unfair to the juniors who
                  are a great training ground and two it may also just encourage especially
                  junior hot shots to go to Europe at 20 make big money and STILL hold that
                  gun maybe even better than the college guy who might find himself hard
                  pressed to do the same. Why? If you are already making say 750 in Europe you
                  really push that team to at least mach that AND you will be going against
                  other top guys playing in a better league and developing in say Sweden or
                  Russia for that limited cap money. And indeed if a Euro re entered the draft
                  each year with an already inflated ticket due to him making big bucks back
                  home, what does that do for say a Washington when they draft an Ovechkin or
                  worse yet a Pittsburgh when they took Malkin? He could play the "I hold out
                  until Detroit takes me" game.or a as say national team line mates say "we
                  only come as a package deal." Baseball lacks a lot of ours issues.:-) It is
                  less of an echo of the C form and more reflection of the structure of hockey
                  today. Yes the player must have rights but the team also needs to have its
                  ability to draft and develop a player protected and the sport/fans have the
                  right to enable their teams to get such access.so holding rights for a
                  little whole does not kill anyone even the player.if they did not have these
                  rights I know a TON of guys who would never have been drafted or signed.many
                  of them college guys.when a team drafts guy they hate to admit that they
                  goofed and if you do even reasonably well you will get your shot. If you
                  never had to sign him he can be buried on the minors and never get that shot
                  that a contract tends to push. I always tell guys that the advantage of not
                  being drafted is that you can pick your team and can enhance your value IF
                  you are lucky because it can also mean you get no real shot at all. Getting
                  drafted is a thing that gives you a much better set of odds to get your day.
                  If it comes down to two guys remotely equal the draftee will get the slot.
                  Simply pout al lot of guys who come out of US junior, tier two or high
                  school would not get drafted at all if teams did not have the ability to
                  wait. The fact that a team has a four year vested interest in you can be the
                  difference if you do not tear the colleges up between a two or three way NHL
                  deal or an ECHL deal. I see it all of the time, college player A and B have
                  similar careers but one has a deal with higher league the other does not but
                  player A was a draftee five years back. And is a huge difference, an ECHL
                  deal is week to week with a club option. no signing bonus and less money
                  overall.if they changed this rule the college guy may well suffer the worst
                  as he is often drafted out of lower leagues so may all of the lower tier two
                  leagues who would see less of their guys drafted thus less prestige.



                  As for the C form, I think it would be interesting to get a better
                  description than we have out there. I have never seen a lawyer who has
                  really SEE the old by laws and contract truly explain it. One thing is
                  certain and that is that it was on shaky legal ground at best. One thing
                  that Lewicki may have done was to make the league be a bit more careful in
                  how they were handled. One problem with the whole process in finding out
                  about it is that we generally have the word of players who signed the form
                  with no agent and understood no more than the club told them. They were just
                  kids and their families often lacked an education. And again this was not
                  just an NHL thing, MLB did the same with its prospect "Take this money, sign
                  here kid and become a Yankee, we own you now understand". Nor were football
                  and basketball in the pre agent era.it was always the same "sing this, get
                  this and you are ours." And as most of these guys were not Rhodes Scholars
                  and wanted to play they just said "ok sir."It was the way sports in general
                  worked in that era as well as today if they can get away with it although
                  with agents it is way harder.provided that your agent is not a crook that
                  is.:-) The problem is that we have little CLEAR explanation of it or its
                  evolution from a NEUTRAL source, we either have guys who really never fully
                  understood what they are signing or league guys who also kept it terse and
                  simple. What we never have seen is the fine print and details. Most sources
                  just either leave it at "they owned you" or you have to go into a myriad of
                  rules to get gist of what it all meant and still there are questions. This
                  is why I'd love to see a copy of the NHL by laws circa that era. THEN it
                  could all be pieced together fully.



                  Now as to how they owned a guy at a lower level we have that much explained.
                  For each junior team that you sponsor, you could list players from up to
                  three affiliated organizations below it on your 18 man junior protected
                  list. One question I have is how you could hide amateur players on pro
                  lists. Did they have to have signed a C form or what? Still some guys fell
                  through the cracks such as Ted Lindsay.It was a system that was very much on
                  shaky legal ground and I think that the NHL knew that and in the 60's
                  another reason for the amateur draft never spoken was fear of a competitor.
                  They knew that the AFL was out there, the Continental league had threatened
                  to come into existence and there was the short lived ABL. The WHL was making
                  noises. This was all food for a massive anti trust suit that would have won
                  hands down. After all they lost their reserve clause in a case with the WHA
                  in 72 POST C form etc. I once asked a prominent scout form the era why they
                  didn't just allow the new expansion clubs to develop/buy sponsorship chains
                  and he said he didn't know. Now of course there were extraneous issues but
                  there were two very key ones that hit right at home. The WHL threat.they
                  pretty much screwed the dub in expansion, no old owners got teams no
                  indemnification worth talking about to the league.why make a more tempting
                  target? Also there was a Players Association on the horizon, they had to
                  know that it was inevitable. Again do they want to add fuel to a fire? The C
                  from system could exist as ling as players were afraid to really go to court
                  and challenge it and risk a career. But a competing league or PA would look
                  at things like anti trust and have no issue about a war. Maybe I am giving
                  them too much credit for brains but Campbell was indeed a lawyer. So the
                  theory does have legs.you see rival leagues popping up or threatening to and
                  you even see in your own sport one lurking.the WHL had been talking about
                  trying to become a Western Div of the NHL for years and had gone into cities
                  that made an independent effort open. And the rise of agents and PA's in
                  other sports had to raise concern at least to a man of Campbell's brains.
                  Could these be the major pressure points that ended the C Form?



                  As to fighting.not many leagues outside of North America allow it without
                  ejection. However it is on the rise in Europe. With the relaxing of import
                  rules in the Elite League in Britain as well as the DEL it has gone up and
                  the KHL singed Chris Simon a couple of years back and actually had a major
                  brawl last year. In North America, Canadian junior and pro use the same
                  rules, the USHL does too except in the last 5 minutes of the game when there
                  is an EJ and suspension. The NAHL also allows only 5 for fighting in
                  American junior. Note the commercial US junior leagues who have any gate at
                  all allow fighting the ones that are reliant on tuition such as the EJ do
                  not. It is a cultural commercial thing. If you need a gate, ie are not
                  charging kids or have a school endowment to support your program you tend to
                  not have fighting if you want/need butts in seats you do. And in Europe it
                  is cultural. Note England which is a nation that has rugby, wrestling and is
                  a major boxing center is more liberal, Germany where hockey is in most
                  places like the US not a real staple and Russia which is trying to compete
                  with the NHL have all loosened up the most although I understand that in
                  Finland there is more glove dropping,. Now in the last case we must remember
                  that in only two countries is hockey clearly the number one sport..Canada
                  and Finland. Finland has always had a number of Canadians playing there and
                  also has no doubt been influenced by its guys coming over here to play and
                  with no soccer dominant culture to recoil in shock.well maybe that explains
                  it. In the case of the first three, they have more imports both as players
                  AND maybe even more key, coaches. And in the case of Germany and Britain, as
                  in the US they need to really do anything that they can to differentiate the
                  product and push the game. Russia is harder to figure..Now these league have
                  tougher rules on fighting in North America in the surface but underneath it
                  they differ from other parts of Europe in two vital ways. There are no
                  really any long term ramifications for fighting. No huge suspensions or
                  fines.Two they actually recruit and develop more aggressive players who are
                  prone to fighting. I also understand that there is some fighting in the Asia
                  Hockey League which again is import heavy. They also need to battle fro
                  coverage.



                  I think James that you can sum it up by saying that in Canada it is just a
                  part of the sports culture and history from the early days. And if you want
                  to read about tough hockey read the new Eddie Shore book, those guys were
                  CRAZY! In those days a knuckle sandwich was a matter of survival. They tell
                  about how Sprague Cleghorne would put talcum powder on his stick to
                  facilitate butt ending.cross checks to the face---- you name it and it
                  happened! The US inherited that and enhanced it for commercial reasons. a
                  wild logging camp type of exotic game to sell. Genteel soccer oriented
                  Europe where police did not even carry guns until recent decades had no such
                  a legacy. This is not to say that Europeans can't be just as brutal but it
                  is just a different form. College sport has a different set of roots that
                  were originally non commercial. Tuition sports have to get parents money. So
                  we can almost generalize, the more North Americans involved the more likely
                  it is you see fights and the more commercially reliant a league is the more
                  likely it is you are to see fights. So when you add the two together watch
                  out for the gloves to fall doubly and when you inject a more North
                  American/Anglo influenced audience which has more of a contact sports
                  culture the odds go up exponentially. And I back that up with another
                  example.Australia.in Aussie Rules when tow guys square off they just let
                  them square off and if they break it up when they are told.they aren't even
                  sent off., they only face tribunal if they get out of hand. Australia is
                  another rough and ready Anglo settler cultural off shoot.

                  _____



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.