• Print

Campbell's Cuts: Firing Kelly the wrong direction for NHLPA

Paul Kelly has been on the job for nearly two years, but might lose his position Sunday or Monday. (Getty Images)

Zoom Image

Paul Kelly has been on the job for nearly two years, but might lose his position Sunday or Monday. (Getty Images)

Paul Kelly lost his job early Monday morning for reasons that are so preposterous it risks making the NHL Players’ Association the laughingstock of the sports world.

The executive director of the NHLPA was on the job and had yet to negotiate a single collective bargaining agreement for his constituents, yet was fired because he hadn’t turned every single issue with the league into a turf war.

He didn't steal millions of dollars and get convicted of his crimes the way Alan Eagleson did. He didn’t get the job under false pretenses and spy on members’ emails the way Ted Saskin did.

No, the reason why Kelly was fired is that he’s not Bob Goodenow, the guy the players dumped when they found he was taking too hard a line against their employers and wouldn’t deliver them what he thought was a namby-pamby CBA during the lockout.

If the players think the payout they had to make to Saskin was a lot of money, they’ll be staggered by the amount they’ll have to give Kelly to go away.

And that’s because Kelly might have one of the all-time cases for wrongful dismissal. The uprising against Kelly was led by former ombudsman Eric Lindros, advisory board head Ron Pink and interim ombudsman Buzz Hargrove, along with some others within the current ranks of the NHLPA.

So think about it. The ringleaders in Kelly’s dismissal are a former player who has run up against the establishment at every turn and resigned from the PA because he couldn’t work with Kelly (Lindros); the man who didn’t get the job when the PA decided Kelly would be a better choice (Pink); and one of the most confrontational labor leaders of our generation (Hargrove).

They represent the old guard of the association whose philosophy was to oppose the league on every single issue and make a confrontation out of everything possible. All of which is fine, if that’s the way the union wants to do business it certainly has the right to conduct itself in that manner.

But the question is, if that’s what it wanted, why was Goodenow shown the door in the first place and why was he replaced by Kelly, who had made it clear from the start that he was going to conduct the association’s business in a less confrontational way?

Goodenow was deemed to be expendable when the players looked at the possibility of missing two years of paychecks and promptly soiled their pants. One season had already been wasted and even though Goodenow told players long before the lockout to prepare to sit out for as long as two seasons, when push came to shove, the players opted to get back to playing hockey and making money.

Related Links

And despite the so-called salary cap, the players are doing better than they ever have before. Big money for stars hasn’t gone away and the uncertainty surrounding the cap has given many of them the luxury of job security they never had under the old deal. The players are continuing to fight for the NHL to be involved in the Olympics against the league’s instincts and continue to work with the league on what was supposed to be a new era of partnership.

And it’s not as though Kelly had been sitting there twiddling his thumbs. Under Kelly’s stewardship, the CBA had already been changed to allow teams to offer contract extensions to entry-level players a year before their contracts are set to expire and Kelly had also made valuable gains for the players when it came to the way money for international events is paid out.

He did that by being conciliatory and firm, not confrontational and obnoxious. That’s his style and the players should have known exactly what they were getting when they hired him. Shame on them for changing gears two years into Kelly's mandate.

It appears Kelly’s body of work was not enough to satisfy a few disgruntled militants in the association’s ranks. Normally, the tendency would be to dismiss the radical faction, but this is the NHLPA we’re talking about and the movement to get rid of Saskin was started by a very small grassroots group as well.

The NHLPA rids itself of Kelly at its own peril. And until the membership decides what it wants to be and what kind of relationship it wants with the NHL, the revolving door in the executive director’s office will remain firmly in place.

Ken Campbell, author of the book Habs Heroes, is a senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog will appear regularly in the off-season and Fridays and his column, Campbell's Cuts, appears Mondays.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

COMMENTS (11)

Sort: Oldest | Newest    Filter: All | Videos


dommer Posted
(2009-09-01 12:21:04)

profile picture


Right on the mark Ken. I was really looking forward to the upcoming season, but this takes the wind out of my sails. Lindros & Buzz Hargrove hijacking the NHLPA = Lockout or Strike during next CBA. What a "Buzz"kill.
    0



janb55 Posted
(2009-08-31 16:12:40)

profile picture


is there another lockout coming in 2011??
    0



matthew_sawtell Posted
(2009-08-31 13:48:21)



So... the fisaco in Phoneix + the fisaco with Mr. Kelly = Consolidation of the league in less than five years? Seriously, it didn't take too long for the folks at SI to dump the NHL tab on their website with the last strike - so the idea of a reduction of teams does not surprise me. Only question will be if the clawback will extend from 6 to 14 teams.
    0



singollo Posted
(2009-08-31 11:36:37)

profile picture


I just don't get this decision, even by the NHLPA's admittedly wacky standards. Firing a union head prior to any substantive negotiations with the employer is somewhat akin to ousting a head coach mid-way through training camp, because you didn't like how he ran practices. Unless the NHLPA has a secret agenda of trying to get rid of the cap during the next round of labor talks, I can't understand tossing Kelly. Under the current CBA, his tone and style were profoundly better for the players than someone in Goodenow's mold. With a cap linked to revenues, cooperation between the players and the league should be the name of the game. If the league does well, the players get more money. Simple as that.
    0



markopolo Posted
(2009-08-31 10:48:45)



The PA doesn't even care about their own players well being (head shots, visors) so why would an intellegent decision to keep Kelly around. And as an Avalanche fan, I have nothing but respect and praise for Eric Lindros and all he did for the Nordiques/Avalanche and their fans for the past decade and more. But he is a douche... that is true.
    0



baybye Posted
(2009-08-31 08:55:32)

profile picture


why is Lindros involved anyway...he is done, finished...can't play no more..' the NHLPA should be run by active players not dead beats. And Kelly's should never have gotten cozy with Bettman or Daly..that was asking for trouble....as then they could manipulate him....they do not care for the players or hockey north of the USA....we need to get rid of Bettman and Daly.....
    -1



seattlemetropolitans Posted
(2009-08-31 07:25:09)



Paul Kelly is most definitely not Alan Eagleson, but unfortunately therein lies part of the problem. I think the damage Eagleson caused during his tenure as NHLPA president is still being felt to this day. After Eagleson shamelessly took advantage of the players whose best interests he was supposed to protect, players are still having a difficult time entrusting their livelihoods and well being to another lawyer. I think a little fear-mongering within the PA goes a long way in creating panic and knee-jerk reactions.
    0



zapster Posted
(2009-08-31 02:36:30)

profile picture


Eric Lindros was a spoiled, whiny brat when he entered the NHL and at age 36 he is still a spoiled, whiny brat. It's fitting he never won a Cup because frankly a selfish guy like him didn't deserve it. Now he wants to oust one of the better leaders the NHLPH has had and for what? It sounds like he has a personal vendetta against Kelly. Lindros doesn't have the best interests of the NHLPA in mind. Spoiled whiny brat wants things his way or he'll throw a tantrum.
    1



cosmoman Posted
(2009-08-30 21:34:25)

profile picture


The players finally have a man of integrity so i dont think they are dumb enough to get rid of him. I would like him to me more vocal though against the league having revenue sucking teams operate instead of adding teams that will work like Hamilton, afterall they are partners with the league and the more revenue goes right into the players pocket and they can avoid that 15% escrow.
    1



jcharris99 Posted
(2009-08-30 19:18:44)

profile picture


I don't know much, but I think that if Eric Lindros suggested that I choose, say, option a), I would immediately look into b), c) or d). I bet Carl is still whispering in his ear...
    3




ADD YOUR COMMENT

Register or Login to submit a comment
This Week - Subscribe Now

What do you think of the two-year deal worth $2.75 million per season Chris Stewart signed with Colorado?





"I think we'll be a real nice surprise this year. Some people, you know, are hard on us...as far as the end of the year and not being happy at how things went. It's a fun time of year. You read all the different things - what some people like or are excited for. Some people pick certain teams to win. But none of that really matters. It's all proving it on the ice. Other years, we've been picked to do this and that. That's part of the fun at this time of the year, but I can't wait to get back playing."

- Flames captain Jarome Iginla on The Hockey News' prediction they will finish 8th in the Western Conference this season.

Our Partners