http://www.faceoff.com/hockey/columnist ... nists.atomQuote:
Steve Ellman, a real estate developer, bought the Phoenix Coyotes in 2001 with a plan to build a new arena as the anchor for a housing development. It wasn't about hockey. It was a real estate play. The money-losing team was not a sound investment, but in order to persuade local politicians to put up the cash for the new arena and to attract other investors, Ellman needed a winning front man.
"Enter Gretzky, once again playing the role of flashy bauble for a rich hustler, an unbroken line that extended all the way back to Nelson Skalbania," writes Brunt. That seems harsh, no? About Gretzky, the boy from Brantford who represents all that is good about Canadian hockey?
But Brunt connects the dots and tells us that what happened in 1988 and 2001 was not something altogether new. The selling of the game had begun earlier, and while there are plenty of villains in the Canadian mind, Gretzky does not escape without blame.
Quote:
"Of all the things I've done in my life, the Gretzky deal is what I'm certainly most proud of - not just the Gretzky deal itself, but the whole momentum-shifting of hockey into the twenty-first century," says Bruce McNall. "I'm disappointed that there was no follow-up. The Gretzky deal was a start. It wasn't a finish."
McNall himself didn't make it to the 21st century as an owner. He was in prison and sold the Kings less than 10 years after he bought Gretzky. But there was follow-up aplenty. Teams were put all over the American south. The NHL owners, chasing the money, made McNall the chairman of their board of governors. He in turn hired Gary Bettman, the man who has caused more tears than any other for Canadian hockey fans. McNall was right. The Gretzky deal was a beginning.