Lefevre going solo

[coopaloop1234]

They're 10-12% higher than the current "premium" brands in the market.

I don't think their pricing structure is great to be honest.

[seagoal]

9 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

They're 10-12% higher than the current "premium" brands in the market.

I don't think their pricing structure is great to be honest.

Is there like a Star Wars Rebellion/Empire analogy screaming to be let out right now?

I can't do it I'm sick and my brain hurts. 

[dualshowman]

20 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

They're 10-12% higher than the current "premium" brands in the market.

I don't think their pricing structure is great to be honest.

I just checked your profile: B.C. ... Stateside, it appears right in-line with all others due to the exchange. So, yes, I wouldn't be excited about a 10+% bump, either. Now, perhaps with distribution that normalizes, so we'll have to see whether Lefevre's pricing is simply MSRP vs. everyone else's MAP. I'm not holding my breath, however. 

[bunnyman666]

7 minutes ago, dualshowman said:

I just checked your profile: B.C. ... Stateside, it appears right in-line with all others due to the exchange. So, yes, I wouldn't be excited about a 10+% bump, either. Now, perhaps with distribution that normalizes, so we'll have to see whether Lefevre's pricing is simply MSRP vs. everyone else's MAP. I'm not holding my breath, however. 

Factory Mad is definitely the same way, pricing-wise. It is a take it or leave it approach. I am not saying it to denigrate anyone, as I am a HUGE Factory fan boy. Dennis isn’t really all that comfortable with me saying “premium price for premium product”, but that is what it is. I do NOT mean it as an insult, and I happily pay his prices if I can afford them. I think the mass producers are WAAAAAAY over-priced, myself. Unless you are going custom, you should NEVER pay full freight for Vaughn, CCM, Bauer, or Brian’s. Custom; as long as it is truly custom, THAT is where there is value. 
 

I want to make certain the Lefebvre blocker is not a warmed over CCM piece before plunking down my hard-earned money. I am thinking antique gold with gold weave accents. I will then get a suitable grille for my toofuses. 

[Max27]

we will be seeing bernier in a lefevre pad soon peep the bottom of the screenshot

[dualshowman]

5 hours ago, bunnyman666 said:

Factory Mad is definitely the same way, pricing-wise. It is a take it or leave it approach. I am not saying it to denigrate anyone, as I am a HUGE Factory fan boy. Dennis isn’t really all that comfortable with me saying “premium price for premium product”, but that is what it is. I do NOT mean it as an insult, and I happily pay his prices if I can afford them. I think the mass producers are WAAAAAAY over-priced, myself. Unless you are going custom, you should NEVER pay full freight for Vaughn, CCM, Bauer, or Brian’s. Custom; as long as it is truly custom, THAT is where there is value. 

Here's my gear buying method:

If new gear: The least expensive, pro-level Canadian or United States manufactured stuff I can find. Patience, persistence and the complete lack of desire for the latest-and-greatest has allowed me to routinely outfit with either Vaughn, Lefevre-made RBK/Reebok, or Brian's gear for 1/3 to 1/4 of original retail. I then beat the tar out of it until I see fit to buy something else.

If used gear: The best condition, often high-market value, pro-level Canadian or United State manufactured stuff I can find. I have a gear sanitizing protocol I have been working on for years that does a lot to make the used gear option a real boon. Patience, persistence and the complete lack of desire for the latest-and-greatest has allowed me to routinely outfit with lightly used demo Vaughn, Lefevre-made RBK/Reebok, or Brian's or pro/college return gear for 1/5 to 1/10 of similar retail. I then beat the tar out of it until I see fit to buy something else.

So... I'm willing to wait a few years for Bernier returns...

[TheGoalNet]

1 hour ago, Max27 said:

we will be seeing bernier in a lefevre pad soon peep the bottom of the screenshot

Great eyes Max. Knew this was coming for awhile. Curious if anyone else goes... 

my best guesses for others:

1. Howard (assuming my hunch down below is correct)

2. Jones 

3. Hellebyuk 

4. Holtby 
 

With that said, known about the potential of the Lefevre break up for about 6 mo? Assumed Bernier’s setup this season was the 2020 Lefevre skinned as EF4  when I first saw it.  

However, been told by multiple sources on every side of the fence Bernier’s current setup is not the Lefevre 20 and we know it’s not Axis... 

but I have a hunch the Lefevre 20 is very close Bernier’s pads. 
 

My GUESS the 20 will be 

X Stiff style EFlex core (current NHL only option)

Hot rebounds 

Square sliding edge 

Soft boot 

90 deg boot 

[bunnyman666]

5 hours ago, dualshowman said:

Here's my gear buying method:

If new gear: The least expensive, pro-level Canadian or United States manufactured stuff I can find. Patience, persistence and the complete lack of desire for the latest-and-greatest has allowed me to routinely outfit with either Vaughn, Lefevre-made RBK/Reebok, or Brian's gear for 1/3 to 1/4 of original retail. I then beat the tar out of it until I see fit to buy something else.

If used gear: The best condition, often high-market value, pro-level Canadian or United State manufactured stuff I can find. I have a gear sanitizing protocol I have been working on for years that does a lot to make the used gear option a real boon. Patience, persistence and the complete lack of desire for the latest-and-greatest has allowed me to routinely outfit with lightly used demo Vaughn, Lefevre-made RBK/Reebok, or Brian's or pro/college return gear for 1/5 to 1/10 of similar retail. I then beat the tar out of it until I see fit to buy something else.

So... I'm willing to wait a few years for Bernier returns...

Great plan.

[Big2]

13 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

Great eyes Max. Knew this was coming for awhile. Curious if anyone else goes... 

my best guesses for others:

1. Howard (assuming my hunch down below is correct)

2. Jones 

3. Hellebyuk 

4. Holtby 
 

With that said, known about the potential of the Lefevre break up for about 6 mo? Assumed Bernier’s setup this season was the 2020 Lefevre skinned as EF4  when I first saw it.  

However, been told by multiple sources on every side of the fence Bernier’s current setup is not the Lefevre 20 and we know it’s not Axis... 

but I have a hunch the Lefevre 20 is very close Bernier’s pads. 
 

My GUESS the 20 will be 

X Stiff style EFlex core (current NHL only option)

Hot rebounds 

Square sliding edge 

Soft boot 

90 deg boot 

TGN do we know if mere mortals will be able to get some of the options above - like the X stiff core  ?

If Pro options are available they certainly will  go to the top of my sons future set he like the picture you showed on a previous post the only issue is the Lefevre logo, especially white logo onto dark base.

look forward to seeing Bernie’s set

[TheGoalNet]

On 1/11/2020 at 1:36 PM, Big2 said:

TGN do we know if mere mortals will be able to get some of the options above - like the X stiff core  ?

If Pro options are available they certainly will  go to the top of my sons future set he like the picture you showed on a previous post the only issue is the Lefevre logo, especially white logo onto dark base.

look forward to seeing Bernie’s set

I don't think anything will be held back from consumers anymore.

[bunnyman666]

On 1/11/2020 at 1:13 AM, TheGoalNet said:

With that said, known about the potential of the Lefevre break up for about 6 mo? Assumed Bernier’s setup this season was the 2020 Lefevre skinned as EF4  when I first saw it.  

However, been told by multiple sources on every side of the fence Bernier’s current setup is not the Lefevre 20 and we know it’s not Axis... 

but I have a hunch the Lefevre 20 is very close Bernier’s pads. 
 

My GUESS the 20 will be 

X Stiff style EFlex core (current NHL only option)

Hot rebounds 

Square sliding edge 

Soft boot 

90 deg boot 

Most likely that set was used to develop what eventually becomes the retail product forthcoming. 

What people forget is that pro athletes are a  BIG part of the R&D for upcoming retail products. I am proud to have had a few items spray painted flat black and someone else’s brand name on it. I was very happy some of my things were used by a few pro athletes, albeit not with my brand name on it. Pro athletes can field test to failure quicker than most amateur athletes. They can come up with features that are more useful in many cases. 

I know people questioned why Bernier was playing in a pad that nobody could buy off the peg; the truth is that many pros play in stuff we will never see in that iteration as it is the big part of a primary role of the pro: R&D. 
 

[TheGoalNet]

Translated article about an upcoming legal battle:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/entreprises/202001/10/01-5256414-guerre-de-jambieres-lefebvre-veut-bloquer-ccm.php&prev=search

I have some opinion on this...

To everything I know, CCM and Lefevre was a true partnership. Even in the early days, Karhu / The Hockey Company shared some of their materials knowledge obtained via Heaton products with the Koho by Lefevre. As time as evolved and the consumers demand from a goalie product required materials PhDs, University research data, and a true and R&D test lab the "contribution dial" moved again. The reality is that it's something only true full line hockey company with player gear has and access too.

This is NOT to take anything away from Lefevre. I have contacts that are more friends at this point on both side of the fence here and I wish everyone well.

It just feels like there is a perception out there that CCM had no hand in the equipment's design. To my knowledge, that is miles from the truth. I think there is a place for both Lefevre and CCM moving forward and I hope they both thrive going forward.

[bunnyman666]

26 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

Translated article about an upcoming legal battle:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/entreprises/202001/10/01-5256414-guerre-de-jambieres-lefebvre-veut-bloquer-ccm.php&prev=search

I have some opinion on this...

To everything I know, CCM and Lefevre was a true partnership. Even in the early days, Karhu / The Hockey Company shared some of their materials knowledge obtained via Heaton products with the Koho by Lefevre. As time as evolved and the consumers demand from a goalie product required materials PhDs, University research data, and a true and R&D test lab the "contribution dial" moved again. The reality is that it's something only true full line hockey company with player gear has and access too.

This is NOT to take anything away from Lefevre. I have contacts that are more friends at this point on both side of the fence here and I wish everyone well.

It just feels like there is a perception out there that CCM had no hand in the equipment's design. To my knowledge, that is miles from the truth. I think there is a place for both Lefevre and CCM moving forward and I hope they both thrive going forward.

NDA’s and break up payments go a LONG way. Shame none were done here... 

Will read the article, but I kind of suspected someone was not going to be A-OK with this move.

And I thought it was going to be CCM suing Lefevre. Interesting! 

Is there are large umbrella corporation that CCM is under? I know they are no longer part of Adidas. 
 

Looks like I need to fire up the Stanley Cup shaped popcorn maker...

[TheGoalNet]

14 minutes ago, bunnyman666 said:

NDA’s and break up payments go a LONG way. Shame none were done here... 

Will read the article, but I kind of suspected someone was not going to be A-OK with this move.

And I thought it was going to be CCM suing Lefevre. Interesting! 

Is there are large umbrella corporation that CCM is under? I know they are no longer part of Adidas. 
 

Looks like I need to fire up the Stanley Cup shaped popcorn maker...

CCM is owned by a PE company 

[bunnyman666]

4 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

CCM is owned by a PE company 

Well, I can’t imagine the countersuits not coming, then. 
 

 

[creasecollector]

57 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

Translated article about an upcoming legal battle:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/entreprises/202001/10/01-5256414-guerre-de-jambieres-lefebvre-veut-bloquer-ccm.php&prev=search

I have some opinion on this...

To everything I know, CCM and Lefevre was a true partnership. Even in the early days, Karhu / The Hockey Company shared some of their materials knowledge obtained via Heaton products with the Koho by Lefevre. As time as evolved and the consumers demand from a goalie product required materials PhDs, University research data, and a true and R&D test lab the "contribution dial" moved again. The reality is that it's something only true full line hockey company with player gear has and access too.

This is NOT to take anything away from Lefevre. I have contacts that are more friends at this point on both side of the fence here and I wish everyone well.

It just feels like there is a perception out there that CCM had no hand in the equipment's design. To my knowledge, that is miles from the truth. I think there is a place for both Lefevre and CCM moving forward and I hope they both thrive going forward.

It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.

[raucebyalien]

Thought this might be a bit more complicated than it first looked - especially with CCM still producing the Eflex line which is based off of a Lefevre design.

A constant theme from the GSBB days (circa the original Premier series) was how Lefevre didn't mod and didn't change their designs for anyone, until the Smith / Turco breaks came along on the P2's. So I've no doubt that CCM pushed them to open up and introduce the bits like modern velcro strapping, D30, weight reductions etc to the Premier line to make them more saleable to the younger market. Trying to pull apart who owns what design-wise out of all that is going to be a mess; I'm sure the Lefevre case would be that their original design hasn't altered much and the CCM updates are just 'add ons' to their original design.

E-flex could be even messier - that model was most likely conceived by the CCM team (can anyone confirm for definite?), but is also essentially the original Lefevre core design modified for flex. So who technically owns that? CCM would have a strong case that a Lefevre-style flexible core marketed as a modern hybrid pad is ultimately their idea, which is why they can continue to sell it without Lefevre being involved. 

[bunnyman666]

It depends on who has the bigger appetite (and deepest) pockets for a long and protracted legal battle. Knowing people who have been in these, legal fights are exhausting for all involved, and can take a toll on one’s health. In the bike business, I am glad I was always able to have agreements that defined beginnings, middles, and ends in the time table; however- if I would have been in a long-term agreement, especially had it started with one person in charge and ended with different leadership at the helm, something like this could have happened had I stayed independent but in a partnership. I did contract work, and then sold everything including my right to compete and my brand name. I never knew that the Lefebvres were actually independent of CCM. I was under the assumption that the name and intellectual property was owned by CCM. 

Of course many partnerships were started on bar mats and cocktail napkins. Nobody ever maps out how a partnership is going to end. And if it were friendly in the beginning, hurt feelings could fuel bitterness in the dissolution of a partnership. I will never forget when I left a firm I had worked at for ten years as they had changed terms of employment; the owner tried to sue me under the terms that she had changed from! I ignored all of her oveurtures from the post office (certified letters, et.al.) as I knew she did not have a leg to stand on; she successfully scared people into doing what she wanted! It was definitely personal on her end!

This could get ugly! 

[Teezle]

It seems like Lefebvre's issue is stemming from the most recently produced CCM  EF4 pads for the WJC (and maybe other pros?), that have the Lefebvre lacing on the inner calf (not present on the current retail CCM EF4) without the "powered by Lefevre" logo on the outer gusset. If Lefebvre's design and way of construction for that portion of the pad is proprietary to them, and CCM used it without attribution, they may have a case, but...

[bunnyman666]

12 minutes ago, Teezle said:

It seems like Lefebvre's issue is stemming from the most recently produced CCM  EF4 pads for the WJC (and maybe other pros?), that have the Lefebvre lacing on the inner calf (not present on the current retail CCM EF4) without the "powered by Lefevre" logo on the outer gusset. If Lefebvre's design and way of construction for that portion of the pad is proprietary to them, and CCM used it without attribution, they may have a case, but...

Exactly; however- I could see CCM countersuing, ESPECIALLY if they can bankrupt (or threaten to bankrupt)  the Lefebvres out of the resources to push ahead with their claims.

[Teezle]

6 minutes ago, bunnyman666 said:

Exactly; however- I could see CCM countersuing, ESPECIALLY if they can bankrupt (or threaten to bankrupt)  the Lefebvres out of the resources to push ahead with their claims.

That seems like it would generate a lot of ill-will among the pro goalies who have worn Lefebvre-made gear for years, especially the French-Canadian ones. Would it be worth it if some of your biggest names (in terms of getting your product in front of consumers' eyes) start jumping ship because you're so intent on countersuing your former partner? It's a bold move, Cotton...but I don't work for CCM's accounting office, so maybe they have already gone down this line of thinking.

[bunnyman666]

1 minute ago, Teezle said:

That seems like it would generate a lot of ill-will among the pro goalies who have worn Lefebvre-made gear for years, especially the French-Canadian ones. Would it be worth it if some of your biggest names (in terms of getting your product in front of consumers' eyes) start jumping ship because you're so intent on countersuing your former partner? It's a bold move, Cotton...but I don't work for CCM's accounting office, so maybe they have already gone down this line of thinking.

People have cut off their nose to spite their face for centuries. Tactically, it is usually a move rife with casualties; but I have seen things like this many a time. Not that it’s right.

[ZeroGravitas]

Michel Lefebvre and Patrick Lefebvre invented the pad core and CCM patented that pad core in 2006/2007 - https://www.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2595779/summary.html?query=lefebvre%2C+michel&type=basic_search

I wonder how similar it is to the current pad cores. The pics look pretty similar, but the boot looks a little different from the boots we see in the CCM customizer PDFs.

Interestingly enough, it looks like CCM (Sport Maska Inc) owns the patent and not the Lefebvres. According to the news article, an agreement was signed in 2009 which states:

Quote

"[e] ll secrets and manufacturing processes, and all discoveries, ideas, inventions, creations designed, developed or emanating from one of the parties or its employees will be the absolute and exclusive property of said party ”

So if CCM owns the patent for the core, which was patented by CCM before the above agreement, it appears the Lefebvres have less of a legal leg to stand on...

[dualshowman]

13 hours ago, ZeroGravitas said:

Michel Lefebvre and Patrick Lefebvre invented the pad core and CCM patented that pad core in 2006/2007 - https://www.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2595779/summary.html?query=lefebvre%2C+michel&type=basic_search

I wonder how similar it is to the current pad cores. The pics look pretty similar, but the boot looks a little different from the boots we see in the CCM customizer PDFs.

Interestingly enough, it looks like CCM (Sport Maska Inc) owns the patent and not the Lefebvres. According to the news article, an agreement was signed in 2009 which states:

So if CCM owns the patent for the core, which was patented by CCM before the above agreement, it appears the Lefebvres have less of a legal leg to stand on...

The "Admin Status" of this record shows that is had been abandoned due to failure to pay the maintenance fee. 

[TheGoalNet]

On 1/13/2020 at 4:25 AM, raucebyalien said:

Thought this might be a bit more complicated than it first looked - especially with CCM still producing the Eflex line which is based off of a Lefevre design.

A constant theme from the GSBB days (circa the original Premier series) was how Lefevre didn't mod and didn't change their designs for anyone, until the Smith / Turco breaks came along on the P2's. So I've no doubt that CCM pushed them to open up and introduce the bits like modern velcro strapping, D30, weight reductions etc to the Premier line to make them more saleable to the younger market. Trying to pull apart who owns what design-wise out of all that is going to be a mess; I'm sure the Lefevre case would be that their original design hasn't altered much and the CCM updates are just 'add ons' to their original design.

E-flex could be even messier - that model was most likely conceived by the CCM team (can anyone confirm for definite?), but is also essentially the original Lefevre core design modified for flex. So who technically owns that? CCM would have a strong case that a Lefevre-style flexible core marketed as a modern hybrid pad is ultimately their idea, which is why they can continue to sell it without Lefevre being involved. 

You are correct. to my knowledge, it was CCM's push towards offering customization is what opened up the custom options. Without that, we still might see Premier pads with leather straps. I do believe though the "new" Lefevre understands the new markets and won't shy away from evolution moving forward. they have teased the 20 line will have rebounds than the 4 line and there were will be their take a speed sliding material (which is sorta ironic).

And yes, you concept of EFlex is correct. CCM concept to offer a softer pad at retail and work better with Price. As I have heard the story, it took a lot of saying "no" by CCM to get the EFlex to where it is and not just being a 580 with a solid core.

The reality is that it's almost impossible to protect IP in hockey. Think about many Velocity cones hit the market 15 years ago and there was never any lawsuits. If both companies want to make an EFlex style pad, I would imagine that is happens.