Another point to consider was that in 1969, Montreal was still considered Canada’s foremost city both economically and culturally. That’s why Expo 67 and the 1976 Olympics were held there instead of Toronto. (In contrast, Canada’s recent bids to get Summer Olympics are based out of Toronto.) In the ‘70s, there began a large exodus of English speakers from Montreal–both residents and businesses. That would end up deeply hurting the fan base.
In a 1990 article in Sports Illustrated about the Expos’ woes, it noted only three players (none marquee signings) had signed as free agents with the Expos. It quoted several players as complaining that Montreal was almost bereft of Expos’ signage in bars and the like. They also didn’t like the fact that they could be in first place for several weeks and still only see 10-15 thousand in the stands.
The joke being that the Expos moved to Washington, D.C. in 2005.
Sorry.
I always thought it was depressing that Tony Gwynn got hit #3,000 in front of a measly 13,000 people. I’d like to think that even Candlestick would have drawn 20K, even though we sucked that year.
As opposed to owners already making hundreds of millions of dollars who were asking for more, unilaterally sought to impose new work conditions on the players, wrecking the season. Behavior which was later ruled against by the NLRB and federal courts.
But of course, it was the players’ fault.
I was at the game when Pete Rose (during his brief stint with the Expos before returning to the Reds to end his playing career) made his 4,000th: April 13, 1984. I dunno what the attendance was, though.
I don’t think the OP’s going to bother to return. I know I wouldn’t if my thread premise was shown to have seven or eight blatant misconceptions in it, but I have a sense of shame.
The players stopped playing.
At the time of the strike, baseball was operating without a CBA. The players could have rejected the owners’ proposal (which would have instituted a salary cap, horror of horrors, and also, by the way, allocated record amounts for pension and benefits) and continued to play through the World Series, then gone on strike after the season.
They opted to strike during the season because it gave them more leverage. Which is fine, and their right in a free market.
But it was the Player’s Association that made that decision, and they bear the responsibility for it.
The players stopped playing. Nobody locked the doors.
Does Mr. eggs have any follow up questions?
This is mitigated in MLB because of the antitrust exemption, which allows baseball to require that three-fourths of the owners approve franchise sale or relocation. As a result, MLB has seen fewer of the sudden, “whimsical” franchise moves than have other sports.
The practical effect has been that owners have to go back to the politicians once, twice, three times before the other owners will allow the abandonment of a large market. And given the American political culture, the politicians eventually pony up. Were owners allowed to move in the aftermath of a first rejection, Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco (among others) would have lost their teams.
As you say, the Canadian political culture is different, and it was pretty clear that Quebec wasn’t going to subsidize a new stadium if MLB waited until Doomsday. Ergo, the move.
Getting way off the OP, but since it was trainwreck anyway.
I’m sure if the owners were willing to play temporarily using the players associations conditions, the players would have willing taken the field. Also, a salary cap, depending on how it was implemented, could have cost the players hundreds of millions of dollars. This wasn’t a minor issue. Saying record amounts doesn’t mean much as revenue is (mostly) always going up. You would expect each new deal to offer record amounts. It is more a question of how large a portion of the pie the players would get. Striking was the only leverage the players had. You can’t expect them to not use, and hope that the owners are feeling more generous when the season ends. Both sides share responsibility in this.
I don’t think he thinks like that.
Probably, if you’re interested in this discussion, it should be held in a different thread. There’s not a prayer of having a nuanced conversation about the '94 strike in this one. But I think you’ll find me a firm anti-Players Union man, and not because I have any particular love for the billionaires, either.
Exactly. You listen to some and the poor hardpressed (billionaire) owners were victims.
Yeah, only because it was the Expo’s home opener, a double header. If it had been July, 15,000 would have been the number.
I clicked some dates at random over at baseball-reference. It looks like they were drawing between 25,000 to 28,000 in July 84. So there. 
Now, you’re correct. Sorry I was low on my guess. They were certainly drawing many more than the Cleveland Indians that year.