No winners in Kelly's sacking

On the surface, the NHL Players' Association's decision last week to fire executive director Paul Kelly - who was in the job for less than two years - is another step backwards for the beleaguered union. No official reasons have been offered. Several NHLers, both active and retired, have spoken up in defence of Kelly. The public-relations hit for the union has been overwhelmingly negative but, then again, that is nothing new for a group that has historically had problems presenting a united front.

Some of the suggested factors in Kelly's firing were his willingness to compromise with the NHL and less-than-stellar working relationships with some of the players. While these problems probably would not result in an overly healthy working environment, they also do not seem like cause for a premature dismissal. After all, the NHLPA have already had a boss who did not make nice with league commissioner Gary Bettman, and look what the union did to Bob Goodenow when he took too much of a hardline stance.

(In case you are playing catch-up, the NHLPA and Goodenow parted ways after the 2004-05 lockout, in part because the players were not willing to go along with Goodenow's all-or-nothing stance against the salary cap... which is now firmly in place.) A few days after Kelly's firing, a more realistic reason arose. The latest speculation suggests that Kelly was ousted for allegedly reading a transcript of a private meeting between the player executive and the union's advisory board. The meeting was to discuss Kelly's leadership but during the gathering the group also voted to give general counsel Ian Penny a five-year contract extension. It has been reported that Kelly perceived the process by which the extension was awarded to be a breach of the NHLPA constitution, so he eventually obtained a transcript of the meeting ... and the next thing he knew, he was out of a job.

Given that the previous union boss, Ted Saskin, was deposed after accessing players' private emails, a breach of confidence such as reading a confidential transcript could be a fatal mistake. There are, however, a few differences this time around. For starters, Kelly was apparently concerned that the union's constitution had been by-passed; in Saskin's case, it was allegedly about reading players' emails without their permission. Is it possible, even likely, that Kelly accessed the transcript in the hopes that he would see what the players and advisory board were saying about him? Sure. But also remember that Kelly is a very astute lawyer, and he is also the man who prosecuted Alan Eagleson - the original and ultimately disgraced union boss - for crimes against the NHLPA and its constituents.

It is hard to believe that Kelly would be stupid enough to put himself in jeopardy. And the fact that Penny has taken over as the NHLPA's interim director, and that former Canadian Auto Workers union boss Buzz Hargrove - an NHLPA adviser and alleged Kelly opponent - and Eric Lindros, who was fired as the union's ombudsman last year, are reportedly among the group that forced the issue, it is difficult to shake the notion that Kelly was forced out.

All the facts have not been heard. A couple of credible NHL player reps have publicly stated that there is a method to the union's madness. Then again, several other NHLers have stepped up and testified to Kelly's quality and credibility. Ted Lindsay, who tried to create a players' union 50 years ago, is one of several retired players who have taken umbrage with the decision. Whatever the case, Kelly has lost the power struggle. But once again, the NHLPA seems to be on the losing side, too.

@Email:[e-mail]