Originally Posted by LX
Someone else owns it and paid for it, but without players has nothing.
When does it become not in good faith? When the owners decide they are not going to negotiate but merely make demands. The players showed they understood monetary losses, real or not, that the owners wanted to make up for. They were working within that framework and trying to get to where games could be played again. The owners have no intention of playing games or working within any framework as necessary partners that need to work together. They are saying take it or leave it and trust me, after two years of signalling they were ready to make a power play.
I'm not going to try to portray the players as faultless, and there is simply no way to make them worthy of sympathy. But this is a clusterfuck that goes way beyond blaming the players for being greedy.
I agree that the owners never meant for a full season to happen, but you can't say that the owners saying they won't go above 50% is much worse than the players outright rejecting concepts like a hard or flex cap. The difference is, when the players said that a hard cap is a blood issue and that they wouldn't negotiate with that on the table, the owners took it off the table and kept negotiating. When the owners said that they couldn't negotiate if the players wouldn't agree to 50-50, the players walked away. The value of the BRI spit to the players is comparable to the value a hard cap would have to the owners, so only the status quo, which was flawed from the start, makes the two scenarios different.