How tough can union dare become under new boss?

When the NHL players association confirms Paul Kelly as its new boss sometime next week, the union will presumably regain the independence its most militant members contend was detrimentally lost in the aftermath of the lockout.

The bigger issue will be what to do with it.

Some players were not particularly pleased with the operating ways of former boss Ted Saskin. (Getty Images)

No doubt Red Wings defenseman Chris Chelios, Oilers goalie Dwayne Roloson and free agent Eric Lindros, who led the group of dissidents that forced the ouster of Ted Saskin over operational transgressions, believe it's necessary for the union to take a big step back from the partnership created with the league after losing a season of play. And it would be hard to convincingly argue that at least an arms-length relationship isn't necessary for any union to properly represent its members when dealing with their bosses.

Clearly, the PA didn't have that with the controversial Saskin at the helm. The dissidents suspected he was too close to the other side and used their argument to grow their numbers from the time Saskin was installed for a $2 million annual salary in a backroom deal that pushed aside predecessor Bob Goodenow. Those suspicions were effectively confirmed last week when the Toronto Star disclosed a series of embarrassing e-mails between Saskin, NHL senior official Bill Daly and commissioner Gary Bettman that showed their unusually chummy relationship. That said, as the NHL struggles slowly and painfully to regain its footing on the mainstream American sports scene, the advisability of returning to the days of an adversarial and often confrontational relationship that was the hallmark of Goodenow's tenure is debatable. Especially since the union has the option of re-opening the collective bargaining agreement, scheduled to expire in 2011, after next season.

While vocal members like Chelios call the deal negotiated after the lockout the "worst" in professional sports, the majority of players, save for some expensive older veterans or fringe types, are doing as well if not better financially than they were before the 2004-05 season was lost.

But more important, the NHL is in tenuous state and still suffering the aftershocks of the last shutdown, the third in less than two decades. Attendance remains weak in most U.S. cities, national television ratings are negligible and several franchises are still losing money hand over fist. Another work stoppage could spell the end of many teams and the jobs they provide.

As big a concern for the players should be the many small-market owners who believe the current deal doesn't go far enough because the salary cap has risen in every season, making lucrative free-agent deals and $10 million annual salaries increasingly common. And the mandated salary floor still makes it difficult for them to compete profitably even with revenue sharing. Those hard-line owners would love nothing more than a chance to get back to the bargaining table in an attempt to win even more concessions.

That's not to say that Kelly will necessarily head down that road. For one thing, his background with the game -- as a former U.S assistant attorney who was instrumental in sending former NHLPA boss Alan Eagleson to jail for his fraudulent union activities in the early 1990s and as the lawyer representing former Boston Bruins player Marty McSorley when he was charged with assault for hitting Donald Brashear in the head with a stick during a game in 2000 -- suggests that he is not coming into his new role unaware of the industry's situation.

Kelly, whose appointment is now being voted on secretly by player reps from all 30 teams acting on a recommendation from the executive board search committee, brings impeccable credentials. He is a partner in the Boston law firm of Kelly, Libby & Hoopes and specialized in white-collar crime, public corruption cases and labor racketeering. But he is taking over a union that was fractured by its perceived capitulation to a salary cap in the lockout and, even more than before, now seems largely indifferent to its internal affairs as long as the paychecks keep coming. The players who are paying attention are the ones that have been making the noise all along, and Kelly will have to strike a balance between satisfying their desire for a new, perhaps more militant approach, and not further harming a business that could not handle any more difficulty.

That's not an easy task given the realities of the league and its work force. It's obvious the union leaders believe they have found someone who won't be anybody's lap dog, but Kelly won't serve anyone's best interests by taking a guns-blazing approach to his new job.

His biggest challenge will be to get more of the membership involved in the union's internal matters to build the kind of solidarity it needs when it comes to critical matters. That will create an independent approach for the union, but one that has no illusions about where the league is now and where it's headed.