The Trade: Gretzky was offered 25% ownership of the Canucks

[troutman]

Originally Posted by timun

Burkie was the Canucks' president of hockey operations beginning in '87. He was essentially an assistant GM to Pat Quinn, who at the time was suspended by the NHL after walking away from his previous contract with the Kings.

Burke also subbed for Quinn at our sports law course at UBC.

[Gallick]

If you haven't seen these Hey Burkie animations, they're all on YouTube and they're really great. I wish it was a regular intermission segment.

[Sainters7]

How great is it that Gretzky got offered that, and not only did he not accept, but he never really even seemed to consider it LOOOL

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Messier was signed after missing out on Wayne. McCaw wanted a big name. It was and still is the darkest times for the Canucks.


Thankfully at this time I was still a Flames fan and didn't have to deal with it.

Damn. You were brainwashed.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

How would that even work. I mean logistically if a player owned part of a team, they couldn't be traded or sign with another team due to a massive conflict of interest. The closest that hockey has ever come would have to be Mario but that is still a world of difference.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

How would that even work. I mean logistically if a player owned part of a team, they couldn't be traded or sign with another team due to a massive conflict of interest. The closest that hockey has ever come would have to be Mario but that is still a world of difference.

Well, lots of players can’t be traded now due to contracts. I think the bigger issue would be being the boss of teammates, including at contract time.

Also, it couldn’t happen in a cap world that a player was given an ownership stake basically for playing for the team. That would have to be considered part of the salary and would be way offside the CBA. If they paid market value for shares in cash, no, but that wasn’t the deal.

[Bubba17]

What would have been funny to see was if the team lost $40M in a year and the team had a cash call would be a player putting up $10M to cover the losses. Probably the smartest thing he did was not accept the offer.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Damn. You were brainwashed.

I was. Broke out if it around 16, thankfully.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

How would that even work. I mean logistically if a player owned part of a team, they couldn't be traded or sign with another team due to a massive conflict of interest. The closest that hockey has ever come would have to be Mario but that is still a world of difference.

Mark Messier owned a piece of the Canucks. He took them to arbitration over it in 2012 and was awarded $6m US.

https://theprovince.com/sports/hocke...nucks-contract