Rolf Neilson Suspended by OHL

[Big Punisher*]

Thanks, but this didn't answer my question and is just a repeat of the same old comment. So I will ask again, what due diligence could have been done that would have forseen this situation would have played out?

I honestly believe that the people using this term have no idea what it actually means

I actually think it's you who isn't sure what it means. The definition of due diligence is taking the proper steps to ensure someone is making a sound decision. Did Branch even question Neilson about his plans for his own kid? Some people like to excuse Branch for not acting appropriately when something embarrassing happens, since it was the first time the league had to deal with it, and this league likes to be reactive, instead of proactive. But nepotism has been an issue before in the OHL, and Branch should have asked whether a guy with a 17 year old son is buying the team for the right reasons, or to give his kid a place to play

Branch seemed way too eager to pat himself on the back when Neilson bought the team and was willing to spend a ton of money fixing an arena and giving the Whalers a new home. Considering the guy has been an absolute disaster of an owner since the beginning, it's reasonable to believe he either is a great con man, or Branch didn't look deep enough into what his motivations were, and how he was going to run the franchise

This is on Branch 100%

 

[OHLTG]

I'm curious...

What exactly was Branch supposed to do in that Nielson/son situation?

If Branch asks if Rolf is buying the team for his son's playing time, all Rolf has to do is say "no chance. I love this great sport, love your league, and want a chance to be a part of it." Is he REALLY going to admit it's all about his son's playing time? No.

 

[ohloutsider]

I actually think it's you who isn't sure what it means. The definition of due diligence is taking the proper steps to ensure someone is making a sound decision. Did Branch even question Neilson about his plans for his own kid? Some people like to excuse Branch for not acting appropriately when something embarrassing happens, since it was the first time the league had to deal with it, and this league likes to be reactive, instead of proactive. But nepotism has been an issue before in the OHL, and Branch should have asked whether a guy with a 17 year old son is buying the team for the right reasons, or to give his kid a place to play

Branch seemed way too eager to pat himself on the back when Neilson bought the team and was willing to spend a ton of money fixing an arena and giving the Whalers a new home. Considering the guy has been an absolute disaster of an owner since the beginning, it's reasonable to believe he either is a great con man, or Branch didn't look deep enough into what his motivations were, and how he was going to run the franchise

This is on Branch 100%

This is on Branch 100% - tells me you don't know how the league works. I am by far not a big fan of Branch but this falls to the whole league as the owners are the ones that voted him in - gave their approval. Also falls to Nielson for how he has acted. When he came into the league he would have guidelines to follow- he did not. This is a combination of a number of people and can not be solely blamed on Branch all be it he is partially to blame. Nepotism is never going away. There are 10,000 coach's on this continent that are coaching their kids teams and you can bet the kids are getting good ice time. If you banned nepotism where do you think those coach's come from?

 

[Otto]

I actually think it's you who isn't sure what it means. The definition of due diligence is taking the proper steps to ensure someone is making a sound decision. Did Branch even question Neilson about his plans for his own kid? Some people like to excuse Branch for not acting appropriately when something embarrassing happens, since it was the first time the league had to deal with it, and this league likes to be reactive, instead of proactive. But nepotism has been an issue before in the OHL, and Branch should have asked whether a guy with a 17 year old son is buying the team for the right reasons, or to give his kid a place to play

Branch seemed way too eager to pat himself on the back when Neilson bought the team and was willing to spend a ton of money fixing an arena and giving the Whalers a new home. Considering the guy has been an absolute disaster of an owner since the beginning, it's reasonable to believe he either is a great con man, or Branch didn't look deep enough into what his motivations were, and how he was going to run the franchise

This is on Branch 100%

The governors vote on who gets approved as an owner, so I fail to see how this is on Branch 100%

Aside from that.. whose to say the question wasn't asked?

Branch:"I see you have a son playing in the Little Caesars program"

Nilsen:" Yup"

Branch:"How's that going?"

Nilsen:"Not bad, he's a stay at home defenceman, not a lot of points, but he does his job"

Branch:"Is he going to play in Flint?"

Nilsen:"He'll play for whoever drafts him, but if we take him he'll be given every opportunity to make the squad just like any player"

More than likely the exchange didn't take place like this, or even at all, but in all honesty what would you expect Rolf to say even if presented the question? It is more conceivable that Branch asked around Little Caesars to see what involvement if any Nilsen had with that program. And certainly the governors had time to complete their own due diligence before the sale was approved.

I asked this question as well before and I'll ask again: is your solution going forward then to not allow anyone with a son or grandson under the age of 20 to own a team? Because that's what it would take to make it a fair situation.

 

[bobber]

If the league wants more of these issues they just have to keep selling franchises to rich people whose sons or grandsons don't have the skill to play in this league. Third time is a charm. If they do it again it's nobody's fault but their own and Branch is their scape goat. The Sudbury fans were sick of it. Paying big bucks to watch inferior hockey.

 

[Otto]

The buck stops at the top, and that is Branch. It is his job to take the best option to the BOG and have them vote. The reality is, it's up to Branch to make sure anything the BOG votes on is up to snuff.

Maybe I'm ignorant on all the history, but what was the back up if the BOG's denies Neilson's purchase?



As I have experienced, non parent coaches are far better than parent coaches, but I would never suggest you put a ban on parent coaches in Minor Hockey because it would never work. Parent coaches are what Minor Hockey is built on. Some times good, some times bad.

But I wasn't referring to OMHA or the Alliance. My comment was about the Ontario Hockey League. There have been issues in the past with team owners and their kids. It is reasonable to ask whether this was ever a concern with the Flint situation. Like I said, either Neilson con'd Branch, or Branch didn't ask the right questions.



I agree. But the question is, was it asked? If Branch went down that ave, and Neilson lied, then it's not on Branch. But seeing how Branch has run the league, I don't think he asked. Neilson had lots of money and was able to give Plymouth a home on very short notice. I doubt the league cared about anything else



I repeat, if Branch asked the right questions, and Neilson lied, then I'll absolve Branch of any fault. I just don't think Branch asked the questions.

As far as what the league could do, I don't know if there is an iron clad solution that could work. But considering the problems that have come up in the past with team owners and their sons, I would hope the league put some thought into it, and questioned it when a guy suddenly wants to buy an OHL team just as his kid becomes draft eligible.

I question if the subject of family can even be raised legally. In a job interview the subject cannot be brought up. Is this a similar situation? I honestly don't know. But there could very easily be a case for discrimination if ownership were turned down because of family.

 

[Firebrd828]

I'm curious...

What exactly was Branch supposed to do in that Nielson/son situation?

If Branch asks if Rolf is buying the team for his son's playing time, all Rolf has to do is say "no chance. I love this great sport, love your league, and want a chance to be a part of it." Is he REALLY going to admit it's all about his son's playing time? No.

Still hasn't.

 

[BadgerBruce]

While the attached article does not speak directly to the issue of vetting Nilsen per se, it does speak to the OHL's history of ownership approval over the last 35-plus years:

http://www.mlive.com/sports/flint/i..._happen_for_the_o.html#incart_related_stories

"Asked when the last time a franchise application was denied, Branch, commissioner of the OHL since 1979, said he could not recall."

That's a little bit frightening, no? If the quote is accurate, the league had never said "No" to anyone since Jimmy Carter was US President and Pierre Trudeau (speaking of famous daddies ...) was Canada's Prime Minister.

 

[Otto]

Not an expert, but the OHL forced John Vanbiesbrouck out of the league, and the NFL denied Rush Limbaugh the chance to buy a team for reasons that had nothing to do with legal statute. I'm sure there are more examples of leagues doing the same.

With a prior history of just this, I would think the issue should have been on the minds of the OHL. If Branch couldn't legally ask the question, or have it influence the decision to allow him to purchase, then so be it. But I don't think Branch cared. He found an owner with deep pockets who could get him out of trouble. That is the problem.

Vanbiesbrouk and Limbaugh situations are not even close to this. Regardless of that you keep mentioning "prior history" what exactly are you referring to? Was there other situations where someone purchased a team for the sole purpose of having their son play for the team?

 

[Otto]

While the attached article does not speak directly to the issue of vetting Nilsen per se, it does speak to the OHL's history of ownership approval over the last 35-plus years:

http://www.mlive.com/sports/flint/i..._happen_for_the_o.html#incart_related_stories

"Asked when the last time a franchise application was denied, Branch, commissioner of the OHL since 1979, said he could not recall."

That's a little bit frightening, no? If the quote is accurate, the league had never said "No" to anyone since Jimmy Carter was US President and Pierre Trudeau (speaking of famous daddies ...) was Canada's Prime Minister.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is a lineup of people with $10 million to spare. Keep in mind the OHL wasn't really big business until the last 15 years or so.

If there were people clamoring to own teams they would have had a round of expansion by now

 

[FireBird71]

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is a lineup of people with $10 million to spare. Keep in mind the OHL wasn't really big business until the last 15 years or so.

If there were people clamoring to own teams they would have had a round of expansion by now

Not only did he pony up the cash to buy the team but he had to buy an arena AND get it up to league standards since the prior owners did squat to keep it up.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Flint isn't an expansion franchise. The team is in Flint as a relocation from Plymouth, and I don't recall ever reading or hearing about any "approval" from the league for anything other than the relocation.

As for Nilsen, Peter Karmanos found a buyer (or had one unexpectedly fall into his lap) for Plymouth and agreed to sale terms. The entire situation is less about Branch/OHL approving Nilsen and more about Karmanos agreeing to sell to Nilsen.

Was the sale conditional on relocation approval by the OHL? Probably, but that's part of the deal between Karmanos and Nilsen and not the league. I don't recall hearing anything about it, but when a longtime "good soldier" like Karmanos says, "look, I've finally found a buyer with deep pockets who will meet my price, but he wants to relocate the team," the other 19 OHL owners are unlikely to vote "No." Remember, multiple media releases by the OHL were very clear that the vote in favour of Plymouth's relocation to Flint was unanimous. I don't personally view this as an endorsement of Nilsen by the league, just a rubber stamping of a team sale by an owner who wanted out.

An interesting story about the sale, as reported by the Detroit Free Press on January 14th, can be found here:

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/2015/01/14/plymouth-whalers-flint-ohl/21752877/

The article states: "The sale is pending approval by the OHL's Board of Governors, which is set to meet Feb. 2." Perhaps more importantly, here's what Branch said at the time:

"It's a sad day for us to see Mr. Karmanos wish to move forward and sell his interest in the Ontario Hockey League. He's been a real builder of our league. He forged our league into the U.S. marketplace. He was part of a number of league initiatives to help us improve the environment for our players and the quality of the game. Certainly his leadership, his expertise, his passion for the game will be very much missed by not only the Plymouth and Detroit area but for the league as a whole."

This is on January 14th, about 2 weeks BEFORE the OHL vote. Doesn't it sound like a done deal? A thank you to Karmanos? Can you imagine the league owners saying, "sorry Peter, you have to stay ...we don't like the new guy." I can't imagine that happening.

In a nutshell, Flint as a relocation destination, not Nilsen as an owner, needed league approval. If the league said "No" to Flint, Karmanos likely would have screamed blue hell.

 

[BadgerBruce]

For the purpose of accuracy, Vanbuesbrouck was a coach and gm, not the majority team owner in the Soo back in 2003 (edit: he was a minority investor ). He voluntarily resigned and admitted that he'd called team captain Trevor Daley "the N word" in a discussion with other players. JVB owned his mistake, apologized profusely, and resigned because it was the right thing to do.

Very different from the Nilsen soap opera in Flint.

 

[Otto]

Great points BadgerBruce, thanks for posting.

 

[jason2020]

Rolf has hired lawyer and past player/agent Pat Ducharme. Rolf has only done what many other OHL teams do every year. There is a long, documented history of nepotism in the OHL and no other team has been penalized to this extent. Is it because of the old boys NHL club, that Rolf does not belong to? If Ducharme is smart, he'll blow it all up. Branch has acted days before the OHL draft, his only interest is to get kids to repot to Flint. He would do better to eliminate all clubs from drafting or signing anyone remotely related to any owner, front office staff, GM, coach etc. That would solve everything. Hundreds of MM players will sit at computers this weekend waiting for their names to be called. There is a reason why they call rounds 10-15 the family and friends rounds. Happens every year.

If he did it in the fall and that was it no big deal but he did it again.

 

[knowescape]

I asked this question as well before and I'll ask again: is your solution going forward then to not allow anyone with a son or grandson under the age of 20 to own a team? Because that's what it would take to make it a fair situation.

I completely agree with your analysis. There were no rules in place to prevent nepotism or even discourage it. The league (Board of Governors and Executive) have had lots of opportunities over the past thirty-six years to implement those types of restrictions (if necessary) but they haven't. Hate the game perhaps, but not the person who plays it.

The OHL serves the purpose of developing hockey players for the next level, but let's not lose sight of the fact that it is a business first. Team owners are going to want to turn a profit to keep the lights on and ideally keep cash in their pockets or equity in their team. An owner who acts irresponsibly risks that.

Perhaps in Nilsen's case his pockets are deep enough to finance the whole thing and he didn't need profit or equity in his team. Perhaps his intent all along was to provide a base for his son and run the team into the ground in the process. It is possible but that didn't seem to be the case in actuality - the team seemed to be drawing good crowds despite the obvious.

As a GM, my job is to run the hockey club on behalf of the owner. Some owners are hands-on; some are not involved at all. In this case, the owner was intervening on one particular issue. Right or wrong (and morally I think it was wrong), the GM either carries out his instructions or resigns; so too on down the line from coach to trainer to water boy. In business when there is a difference in ideals your choices are to stand up for change, suck it up, or walk.

Playing devil's advocate here (yes, it is ethically wrong as an owner to stack the deck for your son - it offends the notion of competition and fair-play), but what would have been the consequence of going along with it for four years? Would Flint have suffered horribly because of one player? Would fans have stayed away because of this? Would other players have stayed away from the team? Would HÃ¥kon have stayed engaged in the game with top line minutes and bottom line performance? Should the OHL decide who makes the team and how much ice time they see? I have seen players in situations over the decades where I felt their minutes were beyond what their talent warranted. I have joked that the coach must have owed the player money, but perhaps someone was bankrolling their ice time, I don't know. The reality was that even with that player's lack-luster performance, the team still carried on eventually he moved along. Nobody walked out, there were no protests and if the GM, coach, trainer or water boy objected, none of them resigned either.

 

[ohloutsider]

I completely agree with your analysis. There were no rules in place to prevent nepotism or even discourage it. The league (Board of Governors and Executive) have had lots of opportunities over the past thirty-six years to implement those types of restrictions (if necessary) but they haven't. Hate the game perhaps, but not the person who plays it.

The OHL serves the purpose of developing hockey players for the next level, but let's not lose sight of the fact that it is a business first. Team owners are going to want to turn a profit to keep the lights on and ideally keep cash in their pockets or equity in their team. An owner who acts irresponsibly risks that.

Perhaps in Nilsen's case his pockets are deep enough to finance the whole thing and he didn't need profit or equity in his team. Perhaps his intent all along was to provide a base for his son and run the team into the ground in the process. It is possible but that didn't seem to be the case in actuality - the team seemed to be drawing good crowds despite the obvious.

As a GM, my job is to run the hockey club on behalf of the owner. Some owners are hands-on; some are not involved at all. In this case, the owner was intervening on one particular issue. Right or wrong (and morally I think it was wrong), the GM either carries out his instructions or resigns; so too on down the line from coach to trainer to water boy. In business when there is a difference in ideals your choices are to stand up for change, suck it up, or walk.

Playing devil's advocate here (yes, it is ethically wrong as an owner to stack the deck for your son - it offends the notion of competition and fair-play), but what would have been the consequence of going along with it for four years? Would Flint have suffered horribly because of one player? Would fans have stayed away because of this? Would other players have stayed away from the team? Would HÃ¥kon have stayed engaged in the game with top line minutes and bottom line performance? Should the OHL decide who makes the team and how much ice time they see? I have seen players in situations over the decades where I felt their minutes were beyond what their talent warranted. I have joked that the coach must have owed the player money, but perhaps someone was bankrolling their ice time, I don't know. The reality was that even with that player's lack-luster performance, the team still carried on eventually he moved along. Nobody walked out, there were no protests and if the GM, coach, trainer or water boy objected, none of them resigned either.

This makes sense ^ - Nelison is doing what other parents do all the time. Try to get the best for his son and he has the deep pockets. How many times have you heard a player just got traded and then the additional comment - " Did not want to trade the kid but we had to trade the dad". The GM and coach were doing what most do and giving the kid the appropriate ice time/healthy scratches for his skill level and age. That was why they were fired the first time. That was when Nelison crossed the line. League steps in and we all know what happened after that. Nelison went too far and the league probably handled this poorly. I know of no other situation that went this far - even Sudbury is not quite like this one. So I don't see the league/owners doing anything with this other than hoping it goes away. My last comment on the issue.

 

[Whalers Fan]

Flint isn't an expansion franchise. The team is in Flint as a relocation from Plymouth, and I don't recall ever reading or hearing about any "approval" from the league for anything other than the relocation.

As for Nilsen, Peter Karmanos found a buyer (or had one unexpectedly fall into his lap) for Plymouth and agreed to sale terms. The entire situation is less about Branch/OHL approving Nilsen and more about Karmanos agreeing to sell to Nilsen.

Was the sale conditional on relocation approval by the OHL? Probably, but that's part of the deal between Karmanos and Nilsen and not the league. I don't recall hearing anything about it, but when a longtime "good soldier" like Karmanos says, "look, I've finally found a buyer with deep pockets who will meet my price, but he wants to relocate the team," the other 19 OHL owners are unlikely to vote "No." Remember, multiple media releases by the OHL were very clear that the vote in favour of Plymouth's relocation to Flint was unanimous. I don't personally view this as an endorsement of Nilsen by the league, just a rubber stamping of a team sale by an owner who wanted out.

An interesting story about the sale, as reported by the Detroit Free Press on January 14th, can be found here:

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/2015/01/14/plymouth-whalers-flint-ohl/21752877/

The article states: "The sale is pending approval by the OHL's Board of Governors, which is set to meet Feb. 2." Perhaps more importantly, here's what Branch said at the time:

"It's a sad day for us to see Mr. Karmanos wish to move forward and sell his interest in the Ontario Hockey League. He's been a real builder of our league. He forged our league into the U.S. marketplace. He was part of a number of league initiatives to help us improve the environment for our players and the quality of the game. Certainly his leadership, his expertise, his passion for the game will be very much missed by not only the Plymouth and Detroit area but for the league as a whole."

This is on January 14th, about 2 weeks BEFORE the OHL vote. Doesn't it sound like a done deal? A thank you to Karmanos? Can you imagine the league owners saying, "sorry Peter, you have to stay ...we don't like the new guy." I can't imagine that happening.

In a nutshell, Flint as a relocation destination, not Nilsen as an owner, needed league approval. If the league said "No" to Flint, Karmanos likely would have screamed blue hell.

Excellent points. Also, keep in mind that at that point the franchise had to relocate. Karmanos had put both the arena and the team up for sale, and USA Hockey jumped at the opportunity to purchase the arena. Once that sale happened, the facility was no longer available to the Whalers.

 

[bobber]

The point of this whole hypothetical lesson is if a person buys a franchise to place his unskilled son or grandson on a team is it fair to others that worked their tails off to get to this level. If the league allows this with out asking about the said owners agenda then it's basically a league without class or morals. Does it happen in the NHL I doubt it. Why here? We recently saw it with another franchise they had to find puppet coaches that did the bidding of the owner. When it happened in Flint they were fired. Now if people think that is the way to run a franchise or league more power to them. I just think it's wrong and apparently going by sanctions it was.

 

[Purple Phart]

This entire fiasco has the issue of nepotism as it's root cause. My opinion is that this practice does little for the player who is the intended beneficiary. While it might give them an unearned boost, it doesn't honestly give the player the satisfaction of having worked for, and rightfully earning something as a result of their efforts, alone. It robs them of a sense of achievement, while possibly fostering a sense of entitlement.

Directly, and indirectly, it has a very negative impact on team dynamics, and has the potential to also impact the coaching staff and support staff. The parent/owner who chooses to engage in this practice, is not only doing his team and organization a disservice, but is besmirching the reputation and integrity of the league. I tend to believe that when this practice began creeping into the league, there was a conscious decision to turn a blind eye toward it, but it's now become too big to ignore.

However the composition of league ownership has begun to shift, and I believe that as franchises become available, that more former NHL players just might see an OHL franchise as the way to extend their hockey vocational endeavours. This is where more of this situation has the potential to develop. Those former players are highly likley to have teenaged sons who either have hockey aspirations, or have a dad who is choosing to relive their hockey careers viccariously, through their sons.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an answer, but I do feel that it's become an issue that the league simply can't afford to ignore.

 

[knowescape]

This entire fiasco has the issue of nepotism as it's root cause. My opinion is that this practice does little for the player who is the intended beneficiary. While it might give them an unearned boost, it doesn't honestly give the player the satisfaction of having worked for, and rightfully earning something as a result of their efforts, alone. It robs them of a sense of achievement, while possibly fostering a sense of entitlement.

Directly, and indirectly, it has a very negative impact on team dynamics, and has the potential to also impact the coaching staff and support staff. The parent/owner who chooses to engage in this practice, is not only doing his team and organization a disservice, but is besmirching the reputation and integrity of the league. I tend to believe that when this practice began creeping into the league, there was a conscious decision to turn a blind eye toward it, but it's now become too big to ignore.

However the composition of league ownership has begun to shift, and I believe that as franchises become available, that more former NHL players just might see an OHL franchise as the way to extend their hockey vocational endeavours. This is where more of this situation has the potential to develop. Those former players are highly likley to have teenaged sons who either have hockey aspirations, or have a dad who is choosing to relive their hockey careers viccariously, through their sons.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an answer, but I do feel that it's become an issue that the league simply can't afford to ignore.

You already had the solution in your answer. The player who is getting the perceived benefit really *isn't* in the long run. As a GM or Coach, if I didn't have the intestinal fortitude to convince an offside owner there was a better way, I would have resigned. If I did my job differently than I was told to and I got fired for it, that is what civil suits are for.

Bottom line, it is his club, right or wrong. I would have never let that filter into the dressing room or involved the players. Far better for the players to sort ice time issues out amongst themselves and put an asterisk beside the owner's kid as you are doing your calculations. They're a smart bunch I am sure they can do the math and come to the proper answer.

I agree this could have been handled far better by the OHL and Nilsen. The two sides giving each other black-eyes "publicly" only taints everyone involved. Holding your nose privately for a year or so probably would have been a better plan. I sincerely believe that failing an NHL draft of his son, both parent and child would have tired of the game.

 

[bobber]

I never said the situations were identical (but someone wants to muddy the waters to avoid acknowledging why something happened, and who was responsible). And I don't believe JVB stepped down on his own accord. I have no doubt he was forced to by the league. Look at the resignation of the Duke Lacrosse coach (people need to watch that 30 for 30 episode)

And speaking of the Soo, the league also stepped in and did an investigation following the hiring of Sheldon Keefe to determine if they would allow him to be a coach in the OHL.

The point is, as far as I know, the league has every right to dictate who can own a team, and even who can coach. So thinking they had no option to prevent the sale from PK to Neilson appears to be incorrect. So I ask again, how many questions were asked of Neilson before the league approved the sale? Or did they just need an owner, and he was there to sign the cheque?

While you are looking into the league's dark past, take a read about Conner Burgess and the Sudbury Wolves. Then you might see why some of us think this problem could have been avoided.

Since the league did nothing despite the problems with severe nepotism in Sudbury (speaking of, see who the owner hired to be his GM?), does anyone think it would have done anything about Neilson if the players hadn't walked out and made international headlines?

The answer is no.

Great post Punisher

 

[Otto]

I never said the situations were identical (but someone wants to muddy the waters to avoid acknowledging why something happened, and who was responsible). And I don't believe JVB stepped down on his own accord. I have no doubt he was forced to by the league. Look at the resignation of the Duke Lacrosse coach (people need to watch that 30 for 30 episode)

And speaking of the Soo, the league also stepped in and did an investigation following the hiring of Sheldon Keefe to determine if they would allow him to be a coach in the OHL.

The point is, as far as I know, the league has every right to dictate who can own a team, and even who can coach. So thinking they had no option to prevent the sale from PK to Neilson appears to be incorrect. So I ask again, how many questions were asked of Neilson before the league approved the sale? Or did they just need an owner, and he was there to sign the cheque?

While you are looking into the league's dark past, take a read about Conner Burgess and the Sudbury Wolves. Then you might see why some of us think this problem could have been avoided.

Since the league did nothing despite the problems with severe nepotism in Sudbury (speaking of, see who the owner hired to be his GM?), does anyone think it would have done anything about Neilson if the players hadn't walked out and made international headlines?

The answer is no.

And VanBiesbrouck was after the fact, he'd being hired/approved and then the situation changed when his actions dictated a move must be made. Just like real life, I could interview someone today and there are certain questions I legally can and can't ask. Once they are hired, if their actions indicate that they are not a fit for the organization I have the right to terminate employment.

Regardless of all that, as it's been said in the past, there has been no situation like the Flint situation. No one could have foreseen this happening unless Rolf was actively involved in similar situations at Little Caesars, and there hasn't been anything surface that says he was.

I asked before, is your solution to ban anyone from owning a team if they have a son/nephew/grandson under the age of 20? I can tell you that the BOG will never make it a rule that family can not play for a team. The last thing they want is to have a star all of a sudden rise up and not have access to them.

As far as Flint goes, you would have blocked the sale why? And what would you have done with the team for the 2015/16 season?

 

[BadgerBruce]

When Nilsen purchased Plymouth from Karmanos last year and announced the team was moving to Flint, Hakon Nilsen was not the property of any OHL team, having gone undrafted in 2014.

During the same 2-3 week period that the Plymouth sale went down, former Belleville Bulls owner Gord Simmonds sold the team to Michael Andalauer and that team was relocated to Hamilton.

Simmonds' son, Scott, was drafted by the Bulls and played on the team from 2010-2014. The sale of the team to Andalauer was announced almost one year to the day after Scott Simmonds finished his Bulls playing career. Coincidence? Maybe.

And the new owner of the Bulls, Michael Andalauer? Everyone knows about his AHL ownership and stake in the Habs. Seems like a guy who just loves the game and has deep pockets. Except .....

His son, Michael Jr., was selected by the Windsor Spitfires in the 12th round -- one of the "family and friends" rounds-- in the 2013 OHL Midget draft.

Imagine if owner Andalauer had put his son on the Hamilton team? The OHL would have had two new owners of relocated franchises with their kids playing. As it sits, Andalauer's boy is playing Tier II in nearby Milton and remains on the Spitfires 50 player protected list, but there's always next year . . . . can you imagine if this happens? Two sales/relocations and two owners' kids lacing 'em up? I'm going to watch this one closely.

And of course there's Ben Hawerchuk, son of Dale, in Barrie with the Colts. As of today, he has played more OHL games than any other 2014 6th round draft pick. Is he a better player than Burgess was in Sudbury or Nilsen in Flint? Absolutely. Would he have made any other OHL roster coming out of training camp as a 6th round pick in 2014? If his name was Ben Smith?

At any rate, Nilsen's desire to have his son play major junior hockey is hardly unique and we are likely to see this kind of thing again and again.

 

[bobber]

I am sure the league will be more diligent next time they sell a franchise. If a son or grandson is a highly skilled player all teams will have access to him if they don't respect the code of silence. You know. Don't draft my kid. We are taking him in round four. Kerby Rychel was drafted by Barrie I believe. Kid had talent and should be in the league. If they are just spoiled rich kids that are not at OHL level no they should not be allowed to play. It effects the whole team when a player is given free range over the whole team and will lead to another Flint fiasco. Sudbury was only different because coaches quit and others were brought in that would do the owner's bidding. Even if you buy a team for your kid you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.