The writer of, “clearing up misinformation over minor hockey amalgamation,” (Letters to the Editor, Trail Times May 26) seems very misinformed, we were a little surprised to learn she is a member of the BV minor hockey executive.
In 2010 when amalgamation seemed unlikely to succeed the Beaver Valley Minor Hockey Association executive opted instead to move all rep hockey from B.V. to Trail, citing a lack of “numbers” as being the main reason for calling NTIC (No Team In Category) for PeeWee, Bantam, and Midget. Call it a merger if you wish, but don’t call it right.
Declaring NTIC may have been true for the numbers in Midgets, doubtful for the Bantams, but possibly true. We heard lots about numbers, but not the actual numbers. The membership was told: “Trail will not take any of the Bantams or Midgets unless they get the PeeWee players too.”
This statement is a fact, but whether the BVMHA’s representation of RTMHA’s position was true, we cannot say. What we do know, is that there were plenty of PeeWee players.
The 2011 AGM occurred before registration, so the “numbers’” were not there to be counted.
But this year the executive also held a vote for amalgamation, and having the NTIC already declared, they guaranteed that rep hockey would be in Trail once again, in case amalgamation failed, as it did.
It is odd the writer of “clearing up misinformation-,” does not know that B.V. players have always had the opportunity to play rep hockey within B.V. and have actually played rep hockey for many, many years, until last year. We have always had great rep hockey at tier 4 level (based on population). We have had to compete with teams in different tiers, and have done so with consistent success. If you, an executive member, thinks Trail is where B.V. kids have to go to play rep hockey, then you have found the right niche within the BVMHA.
When you say that “playing house hockey is not necessarily a negative,” it is obvious that you are being disingenuous. Hockey is a good game at any level, anywhere, good for kids, and that is what is most important in all of this.
Thankfully we had B.V. house hockey here last year, and our novices and atoms. We had no identity crisis within B.V., cheering for our Hawks, and we cheered just as loudly.
But to say the rink revenue did not suffer, the concession for figure skating did not suffer, the vitality of B.V. hockey did not suffer, our local economy did not suffer, is just not true.
How can you lose all those rep tournaments, registration money, people filling the arena, people coming from adjacent areas to play rep hockey, and house hockey, and then say the BVMHA’s autocratic decision was positive? The statement is absurd.
We hear too much about some numbers, but we hear no numbers to rate the success of these blended rep teams? With all the advantages, the high expectations and sacrifices, it must have been a great year indeed. It’s odd the BVMHA wouldn’t want to crow a little.
In response to the voting and the “majority,” this is the issue. The amalgamation of B.V. with R/T was a huge step. It would be the end of B.V. hockey, and raised other concerns.
For an action of such importance, a vote with a simple majority is not enough, it requires a special resolution majority.
The vote count is indicative of the need for the greater majority especially seeing that B.V. gave up much more than B.V. gained, this past hockey season. The amalgamation had much larger implications, which were either ignored, or disregarded, by the BVMHA executive, and we all can be thankful amalgamation did not succeed under their management.
The lack of information from the BVMHA to explain all the conditions of this amalgamation, was the biggest concern, and a huge failing.
Any thinking person, pro or con, would have expected the B.V. executive to have “tirelessly” drawn up an agreement, with R/T that insured the full use of our local arena, and guaranteed it’s continued viability.
An amalgamation should be fair and equitable, and be mutually beneficial to both parties, or what would be the incentive to amalgamate?
The BVMHA’s executive pushed hard for this amalgamation, and it was their obligation to negotiate an agreement to serve the best interests of BV and in the best interests of all BV hockey players. T
hey should have presented this amalgamation agreement to the membership, prior to the vote.
Their focus, unfortunately, seems to have been on rep hockey, and not much else, when there was so much else at stake.
The lack of any such agreement, and the misrepresentation of certain “facts,” does little to promote any confidence in this BVMHA executives’ decisions.
Tom and Sally Browell