Kelly's firing suggests labor battle on horizon
The NHL Players Association's firing earlier this week of executive director Paul Kelly stunned the hockey world and left most observers pondering the rationale behind the move.
Kelly had been hired in 2007 to replace the ousted Ted Saskin as the PA director and received praise for his low-key, conciliatory approach, especially in his dealings with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman.
PA critics believed Kelly's style was just what was needed to perhaps prevent another work stoppage when the current collective bargaining agreement expired.
The PA has been tight-lipped over the reasons behind Kelly's dismissal but most pundits and bloggers offered scathing criticism of the move, suggesting he was forced out by a group of hard-liners within the Association who felt he was getting too close with Bettman.
Kelly's firing is seen as further proof of the NHLPA's disarray since the lockout ended in 2005, lending credence to claims their agenda has been controlled by a small group of players while the majority have little or no input or interest in Association business.
Rumors abounded former NHL player and PA ombudsman Eric Lindros was behind the move and there were reports some players and agents were very upset over the decision to remove Kelly.
Boston Bruins player rep Andrew Ference denied the rumors, telling the Boston Herald a lot of the information coming out in the press about Kelly's firing was "completely false".
Whatever the true reasons behind the ouster the concern now is over who takes over for Kelly — counsel Ian Penny was made interim director while the PA seeks a replacement — and what approach they'll take in future labor negotiations with the NHL.
The concern now among the PA's critics is the hard-liners are back in control and could attempt to hire someone along the lines of former NHLPA director Bob Goodenow, whose tough stance against the league had previously won the players significant gains in a 1992 strike and the 1994-95 lockout but ultimately was unable to prevent the implementation of a salary cap in 2005.
The critics believe bringing in another hard-line leader could result in yet another work stoppage either via lockout or players' strike.
