Quinn Given Season Ban; Teams Fined : Coach, Canucks and Kings Censured in NHL Ruling

NEW YORK â€”  The National Hockey League ended weeks of speculation Friday and took strong action against all the principals involved in the Pat Quinn conflict-of-interest case.

The league suspended the former King coach from coaching the Kings the remainder of this season and from coaching the Vancouver Canucks until the start of the 1990-91 season. In addition, the league fined the Canucks $310,000 and the Kings $130,000--the maximum fine allowed.

Quinn, who is in the third year of a three-year contract with the Kings, signed on Dec. 24 to become Vancouver’s president and general manager effective June 1. Ziegler expelled Quinn Jan. 9 pending an investigation.

On Friday, NHL President John Ziegler termed the actions of all parties “dishonorable, prejudicial to and against the welfare of the league and the game of hockey.�

In the 21-page ruling, Ziegler said: “Although all parties believed . . . (what they did) was correct, legal and proper, it is clear that at some point everyone forgot the essential and crucial element of the professional sports business--to wit--the integrity of the competition.�

In his written decision, Ziegler underlined the last four words and added exclamation points.

Because of the hour and day of the Ziegler’s decision--after the NHL’s office had closed Friday--no further comment or clarification was available from the league.

After the ruling, the Kings announced that assistant Mike Murphy, 35, has been named head coach for the remainder of the season. The team said it will begin negotiations with Murphy for a longer contract. Murphy’s contract with the Kings expires at the end of this season. He becomes the 14th head coach in the Kings’ 20-year history.

No decision was made as to whether Murphy’s assistant coach position would be filled.

It was not the worst that could happen to Quinn or the Canucks, but neither party was at all happy.

Quinn has contended that he was free to sign a contract with any team he chose. Ziegler did not dispute the legalities in the case, but said the question of conflict of interest was the key issue.

“Based on what was read to me, I disagree with the factual findings and the results in total,� Quinn said from his Laguna Hills home. “We fully intend to pursue all legal remedies open to us. I acted within what I felt were my rights and under full legal counsel.

“Based on what was stated (in the ruling) there appears to be an error in fact. It was a conclusion reached (by Ziegler).�

The damage to Quinn is tempered by the stipulation that he may not coach for the Canucks--apparently opening the possibility that he may coach for another team. At any rate, Quinn had indicated he no longer wants to coach, but prefers a front-office position.

In Montreal, where the Kings will play the Canadiens tonight, Murphy was met by Rogie Vachon, King general manager, as soon as he arrived at the team’s hotel. Murphy called a team meeting to inform the players.

“I don’t think we are too concerned at this point,� Murphy said. “We have a lot of emotion for Coach Quinn. The guys on this team have approached this very professionally. Our careers as players are very brief, we can’t brood. We’ll let what happens, happen.�

Quinn will not be allowed to return to the Kings in any capacity and may not “have any negotiations and/or transactions with any member clubs, players, draft choices, coaches, assistant coaches or scouts,� until the conclusion of the league’s annual Board of Governors meetings in June.

Addressing the issue of integrity of the competition, Ziegler said: “Can any of us really believe that the NFL would not have been the laughing stock of professional sports had it permitted Super Bowl XXI to go forward with the existing coaches if the Denver coach had months before agreed to become the president and general manager of the Giants and had accepted $100,000 in consideration therefore?�

The Canucks were fined $10,000 for each day the Kings were coached by Quinn, between the date he reached his agreement in principle (Dec. 11) and the date of his expulsion (Jan. 9).

In addition, the Canucks were fined $10,000 each for contact they had with Quinn on Dec. 15 and Dec. 23, and for paying Quinn a $100,000 signing bonus on Jan. 2.

In his decision, Ziegler termed the Kings “a victim of circumstances.�

However, Ziegler found that because the Kings did not inform the league of Quinn’s contract with Vancouver, each game Quinn coached for the Kings after signing with the Canucks constituted a “serious threat to the integrity of each game played.�

The Kings were fined $10,000 for every day Quinn coached after they learned of the signing.

Under Ziegler’s order, $115,000 of the Kings’ fine and $250,000 of the Vancouver fine will not be payable until June 11.

Each team has at least two options. First, they have 10 days to bring the matter before the Board of Governors, who will meet in two weeks at the NHL All-Star game at Quebec City. At that meeting, the board has the option to compensate either team if they believe there is a legitimate grievance.

Secondly, either team may request a rehearing from the league after the end of its season but no sooner than June 9.

Ziegler said he would consider a written application for a rehearing for both Quinn and the Canucks provided it has been endorsed by the Kings prior to June 9.

The Canucks’ application will not be considered unless it has been endorsed by the Kings. However, the Kings’ may request a rehearing without the Canucks’ endorsement.

In a prepared statement, Kings’ majority owner Dr. Jerry Buss said: “It is my desire to impart two thoughts to the fans who support our team, to our players, coaches and everyone within our organization.

“First, I am extremely disappointed and I plan to appeal this decision immediately. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that an innocent bystander has been fined for the actions of others. I am confident that the fine to the Los Angeles Kings will be dismissed.

“Second, I have confidence in the NHL’s procedures for a fair hearing of our appeal and redress of grievances. Because of this, I feel that any further discussion or comment on this matter is inappropriate.�