More importantly, the rest of the network would reject those invalid blocks.
I think his point was that a "syndicate" of pool ops could form a majority of the network and go rogue, forcing everyone else to either accept the changed rules or risk breaking the network due to having much less hashing power to secure it. Right? (not that I think this is likely to happen.)
Miner majority has no power in that case.
If MtGox accepts tx from 25 BTC blocks and merchants accept tx from 25 BTC blocks and FastCash4Bitcoins only pays out on tx from 25 BTC blocks, and most wallet providers only show users 25 BTC blocks and full nodes reject everything but 25 BTC blocks, then the 100 BTC blocks won't have any value.
Now what would suddenly be very profitable would be the miners who broke from the "alliance" and continued to mine 25 BTC blocks. There is significant economic value for them and with most of the miners gone the value per MH suddenly quadrupled.