NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has had enough of the Philadelphia Flyers "Broad Street Bullies Redux".

Bettman warned Flyers GM Paul Holmgren that the next on-ice incident involving a Flyers player would result in hefty fines for the organization.

League disciplinarian Colin Campbell handed down a three-game suspension to Flyers goon Riley Cote for his head shot elbowing of Dallas Stars defenseman Matt Niskanen during Saturday's Flyers-Stars game.

Holmgren acknowledged that as of now his club is "under watch", and for good reason. This was the fifth incident involving a Flyers player dating back to late September.

As per TSN:

So far this season, the Flyers have had five players suspended for on-ice acts of violence: Steve Downie got 20 games for a head shot on Ottawa's Dean McAmmond; Jesse Boulerice got 25 games for a crosscheck to the head of Vancouver Ryan Kesler; Randy Jones got two games for a hit from behind on Boston's Patrice Bergeron; Scott Hartnell got two games for hitting Boston's Andrew Alberts' head into the boards when the player was on his knees and defenceless; and now Cote's high head-shot on Niskanen netted a three game suspension.

The latest incident was obviously the last straw for Bettman, and is something I and others have been suggesting for some time.

While the Jones incident was in my opinion an accident, the rest were deliberate attempts to injure. That many incidents over such a short period of time couldn't be ignored and had to be addressed by the league.

Various reports since Sunday claim the NHL Players Association’s selection committee is expected to unanimously recommend the hiring of lawyer Paul Kelly as their new Executive Director.

As reported by TSN.ca:

“Kelly is the former U.S. assistant district attorney who tried to have NHLPA founder Alan Eagleson extradited to the United States to face charges of fraud and embezzlement.”

If Kelly is hired as expected, what does it mean for the PA, the NHL and future labor negotiations between the two sides?

The first consequence is the end of over two years of infighting and disarray in the NHLPA. His hiring won’t be under the questionable circumstances as that of his predecessor, Ted Saskin, meaning there shouldn’t be any divisions within the PA ranks over it.

Second, forget about any cozy relationship between Kelly and league headquarters that continues to dog Saskin since his dismissal as well as NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly. Kelly’s being hired to represent the players, and given his resume that’s exactly what he’ll do.

Now it remains to be seen if he’ll become “a Bob Goodenow clone” which some observers are likely to paint him, but given his work in corporate law he’s expected to be a tough negotiator.

How well this sits with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy Daly (who did the heavy lifting on the league’s behalf during the last lockout) remains to be seen. If they don’t know what to expect in Kelly will be rest assured they’ll begin the feeling-out process soon.

Third, despite the dire warnings from some pundits we can likely expect over this both now and in the future, Kelly’s hiring doesn’t mean the PA will re-open labor talks with the league in 2009 as they’re allowed to do under the current collective bargaining agreement.

For one thing, Kelly has to get settled into his new role and gauge the lay of the land before plunging ahead into any serious negotiations or plans. He’s first got to meet with the PA membership, heal the rifts within its ranks, encourage the younger members to engage more actively in association business and determine the direction the membership wants to take in the coming years.

Some pundits have painted Chris Chelios, Dwayne Roloson and the other dissidents who led the charge in ousting Saskin as power brokers within the PA ranks, who’ll try to maneuver Kelly into cashiering the current CBA and re-opening labor talks with the league in 2009.

As George James Malik observed this summer:

“Chelios never intended to run the NHLPA--first, and foremost, he’s very busy both managing two successful restaurants and playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, which he plans on doing so for at least a few more years. Moreover, he never wanted to stage another lock-out--Chelios wanted to get Saskin’s butt kicked out of office, and he wants the NHLPA to act and operate as an honest, open, and accountable union. That’s all.

Chelios has his beefs with the collective bargaining agreement, there’s no doubt…but undoing the salary cap is not a fight Chelios or anyone else can win at this point.”

Assuming for a moment that Kelly is Goodenow incarnate or is actually a front man for Chelios and his hordes who supposedly want to undo this cap, they’d first have to convince the PA membership that this is a fight worth having.

That’s not an easy sell. For one thing, players salaries are now as high or higher than they were in 2003-04, the final year of the last CBA. It’s awfully hard to rile up the membership when they’re doing as well as they ever have and could be poised to earn more.

But the biggest hurdle is convincing a currently fractured PA membership weary of the internal politics and possibly apathetic regarding association business that it’s worthwhile to return to the labor war trenches.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the majority of the members of the NHLPA lack the stomach for another fight with the league only four years after the last lockout ended.

Not because they’re cowards, but because right now they’d rather play hockey than risk possibly losing another season or part of one to a potentially contentious work stoppage.

With salaries consistently rising, escrow payments as yet having no serious consequences and the cap adversely affecting only past-their-prime veterans and marginal players who’d otherwise be career minor-leaguers if not for bloated NHL rosters, there’s really not an impetus there for a return to the bargaining table in 2009. To convince the players otherwise would take a sell job for the ages on Kelly’s part.

The earliest to expect labor talks again is 2011, when the current CBA is due to expire, or 2012 if the PA votes to extend it by another season.

Things could be different by then and perhaps the players will want a new deal, but considering how it’s been the league and the team owners who’ve brought about the last two work stoppages by locking out the players trying to get a deal they want, that doesn’t seem likely.

If there’s another lockout within the next five years, it’ll be the league and the owners doing, not the players.

By that time, the league should expect to face a more unified NHLPA, with a more involved membership, led by an executive director who could prove to be one tough, savvy negotiator.

Bettman recently said he believes in a strong NHLPA, and he might’ve received his wish, possibly to his regret.

As for the NHLPA, another chapter in their history has closed and another soon to begin, one they hope will have a better ending than the previous chapters.

The recent news of the NHL's Nashville Predators being sold to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie and possibly relocating to Southern Ontario has generated considerable news of late on the possibility of the NHL moving to new markets.

The talk, however, isn't about relocating franchises, but rather expanding the current number of NHL teams from 30 to 32.

The talk centers around three locations: Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Winnipeg.

Kansas City is the obvious choice, given that city has a shiny new arena but no NHL or NBA franchise to put into it. Winnipeg, a former NHL town, has itself a new venue suitable for a franchise.

Las Vegas lacks an arena but also lacks a big league franchise of any kind, and in a city that fancies itself as one giant adult amusement park would undoubtedly love to have one, even an NHL franchise. It also has mega-rich blockbuster film producer Jerry Bruckheimer - a big hockey fan - interested in helping to bring the NHL to Sin City.

I can understand the desire to tap into those markets. It remains to be seen what kind of hockey town Kansas City might become but those who built that arena are obviously willing to find out.

And who'll operate the building? The Anschutz Entertainment Group, who invested in the arena's construction. And their significance? They also own the Los Angeles Kings, and can obviously influence the league's decision to put a franchise in KC.

Apparently there's no conflict of interest involved in this, although for the life of me I can't understand how the owner of one team would be allowed to have any stake in a rival club. Perhaps one of you readers out there can enlighten me because I've yet to find anything on the internet regarding this.

Winnipeg, according to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, is an "intriguing idea", and to most hockey fans, makes the most sense. It's got an NHL-capacity arena and before the Jets became the Phoenix Coyotes had one of the most devoted fanbases in the league, one that'll likely roar back to life if the Jets were resurrected.

Unfortunately, there's no owner(s) of yet willing to step up to spend the big bucks to bring back the Jets. And no, the city and the province won't do it. It has to be private ownership. There's been some suggestion of Balsillie moving the Predators there, but Balsillie's interest lies in Southern Ontario, not in Manitoba.

As for Vegas, yes I know, another Sun Belt franchise that won't have a chance, right? Not so fast. Las Vegas is all about entertainment, and while the NBA and NFL are the big attention getters the NHL would probably be a good sell there, particularly to visiting Canadian tourists or expats. Folks laughed when Bugsy Siegel dreamed of turning a dusty Nevada town into a gambling mecca, and as Vegas loves to tout, dreams can come true there.

So yes, I get the idea why those three cities would be of interest to the NHL.

But not through expansion.

Relocation makes far more sense. There are franchises that are struggling to make a go of it in this league. The Panthers claimed they were doing just fine before Leipold announced his intention to sell, citing among other things a lack of corporate sponsership and the inability of the Preds to reach 14,000 in season ticket sales.

The Preds averaged 89.2 percent attendance capacity this season, yet they're likely on the move in the next couple of years.

That doesn't bode well for teams like the Phoenix Coyotes (85.6) or Atlanta Thrashers (87.5). The former is a franchise in disarray on the ice and in the front office, whilst the moves made at this year's trade deadline by the latter had more than a whiff of desperation about them, such was their urgency to make the playoffs.

Ah, it's so easy to pick on the new kids on the block, the younger franchises, but what about supposedly more established ones like the Islanders, Capitals and Blues, all of which had attendance averages well below the league norm.

What about the Bruins and Blackhawks, two original six franchises that have been run into the ground by their respective owners to the point where they barely register in the minds of Boston and Chicago sports fans.

 Both clubs have faced declining attendance for years, so don't give me the argument about riots in those two cities if those teams moved. The protests would be feeble at best.

The league has enough potential relocation candidates to choose from, so why bloat the league further and spread the talent pool even thinner by adding two more teams?

Expansion fees.

It was the prime incentive behind the seemingly mindless expansion of the 1990s, where cities with people willing to pay the big bucks could step right up and buy themselves an NHL franchise, even in what is called "non-traditional hockey markets".

Ten years ago, the going rate for an NHL franchise was $80 million. Today, it's estimated at $150 million.

Those monies are spread amongst the existing franchises, and since they don't count as revenue, go directly into the pockets of the owners.

In other words, it has nothing to do with "growing the NHL product", with improving the NHL.

It's a cash grab, plain and simple. Good ol' fashioned greed.

And if those franchise can actually work out in their new cities, great. If not, well, they'll just cross that bridge when they come to it. Always put off until tomorrow the disaster you could've prevented today. That's the NHL's motto.

And yes, I'm against expansion even if it meant a franchise in Winnipeg, or Quebec City, or Saskatoon, or Halifax. I don't want to see the already watered-down NHL becoming even more diluted.

Earlier this year I wrote a blog posted entitled, "Just Say NO to Expansion", where I laid out my hopes that the NHL would avoid this ruinous, embarrassing path. I'll finish this article with the words I used to finish that one:

"The NHL doesn't need any more teams. What it needs to do is nurture those clubs that are struggling to establish themselves in the current non-traditional hockey markets, or failing that, relocate them to markets that will."