Two reasons why the NHLPA narrative published by CBC Sports Elliotte Friedman this weekend rises above the usual backroom scuttlebutt: It doesn't simply parrot defenses of overthrown executive director Paul Kelly and it explains, perhaps better than ever, the confusion and the stakes for the players in their fractured association.

It's a lengthy, grab-the-coffee-and-settle-in read, but worth your time if you're into the politics of hockey or if your lockout scars still ache. The single biggest issue dividing the players is escrow, and according to Friedman the players are going to have to sacrifice something significant in the next CBA negotiation (long-term contracts?) to rectify it.

Among Friedman's suggestions, in what he said is "the NHLPA's last chance to get it right":

Chelios must go. The former Detroit Red Wings defenseman has scorched the earth under association management, and Friedman suggests that he's too tied to old fights and is too divisive to remain a leader in a reconstructed NHLPA.

Get younger. Friedman writes that there's a generational shift in the association, helped along by the influx of younger, cheaper and faster players after the lockout. He's right, but good luck convincing players that have never had to fight for financial equality -- and have no respect for labor movements of the past -- to step up and lead. If you thought the lockout revealed how quickly the players would fold, they'll be spineless in a strike.

Find a leadership structure that works. As Friedman writes:

Right now, the constitution is crippling. The executive director reports to the 30 player reps. There is also an ombudsman, an advisory board and one retired player liaison for each of the six NHL divisions. I understand checks and balances, not wanting anyone to get too drunk with power, but this is too much.

[...]

There are so many possible structures. Maybe a hockey guy surrounded by lawyers. Maybe a labour lawyer surrounded by businessmen (that was the Goodenow model). Maybe a businessman surrounded by lawyers or hockey people.

So are agents "lawyers" or "hockey people"? Friedman's section on the influence of agents on the NHLPA is eye-opening, given word that they're very much involved in its resurrection.

One gets the feeling Friedman doesn't see them as a positive influence on the players' association, but their influence will be difficult to diminish; how many players are simply advocates on behalf of their representation, as was suspected when Sidney Crosby spoke out?

(Speaking of agents: Evidently they're not allowed to be public advocates for their clients or have freedom of expression in the eyes of the media. This Allan Walsh/Montreal media flap screams "new media jitters." We love it.)

So the NHLPA is given good advice that it will no doubt ignore. As Red Fisher wrote in the Gazette today:

The NHLPA has disintegrated into an embarrassing and scary case of fratricidal warfare. Embarrassing, because what you have now is one union brother against another. Laughable, because the players have made it abundantly clear their only strength is on the ice. Off it, they can't make a decent, three-foot pass. When a union is split into factions, it's little more than putty in the owners' hands.

And the clock is ticking.

Related: Detroit Red Wings