A few things

First of all, welcome viewer from Qatar!

Next, there has been some posting on Network54 regarding OMHA player movement.  I really liked this quote - so here it is:

"This whole residency controversy is a classic case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch.

Residency places a lot of power in the hands of an organization. If you don't play for your home centre, and they don't agree to let you go, you don't play hockey, or you play at a level or two below what you should, get bored and leave the game.
This power of "ownership", where the children are considered the property of the organizations can result in a culture of nepotism, back-room deals and fear. "Don't complain about anything or your kid can kiss the NHL goodbye".
The closer to being good enough to make the NHL the kid is, the more leverage the organization has over him and his parents.
Certainly all of us have tolerated behaviours from coaches and other association personnel that we would not tolerate in the work place, or at our children's schools. We do it out of fear of being blacklisted if we speak up.
Even the victims of that Jr. coach out west didn't dare speak up about it until their hockey days were over.
Those that have abused this power are the reason that others are trying to remove residency.
There will be freedom to escape bad situations, and the worst organizations will learn to be better, or they will perish due to lack of players.
On the flip side, as an earlier poster pointed out, this GTHL-like model creates a whole new slate of problems, not the least of which is that rep-hockey becomes "all star" hockey instead of having anything to do with representing one's home town. The name on the front no longer matters.
The question is, will the freedom to choose teams benefit more kids than the added travel, costs and individualism will hurt?"

Forgive me for pasting the whole thing - but it was really on the mark.  There was a followup:

"If minor hockey's residency rules are so vital and good and just, why has no other sports organization I know of seen fit to adopt/copy them? There's been lots of time to do so -- residency restrictions for amateur hockey date back to 1886, and even the OMHA copied them in its first published manual of operations in 1935, taken verbatim from the Ontario Hockey Assciation (OHA) already existing rule.

Again, nobody has copied them. Nobody. If these residency restrictions are somehow a "best practice," the rest of the Canadian minor sporting world has missed this for over 100 years.
Now, step back for a moment fom the "hockey" scenario and honestly deal with the following question: why won't any minor basketball associations put residency rules in place? What do you think would happen if they tried to? Be honest.
Now justify minor hockey's residency rules. If you started with "umm, ummm, ummm," rest assured that you just finished the strongest section of your argumemt." "

It's true.  My boys play hometown hockey because they have to.  But they play soccer/basketball/baseball in surrounding larger towns because there are better programs.  It's not because I want them to go to the FIFA/NBA/Major Leagues, (whatever).  It's because they love sports and want to learn in competitive situations.  If there's a silly (not really the word I'm thinking of) coach in our town - we don't need to spend any time with him.  Next.......

The above threads are at http://www.network54.com/Forum/672275/thread/1300624553/last-1305586093/New+residency+rules+for+2011-2012