[SuperMatt18]

I think the big thing comes down to should the owners be willing to eat a bit more of the short term losses for a long term benefit.

In the end the owners valuation on a lot of these teams has skyrocketed, and they are in line to get a new TV deal in the U.S. that should be a lot bigger after next season.

I don't question that lots of teams will probably take a loss this season if they don't get salaries reduced from the current MOU, the NHL is historically more reliant on the gate than other leagues, but I think the question is should some of these owners be willing to eat that loss this year to help drive the better long term outcomes that they will get from not losing a full season and being able to get to the new TV deal faster.

In many of these cases not playing with fans probably puts the "Franchise" in the red potentially, but for the owners taking the loss in-year might still be the right call long term from an overall long term view of it.

And honestly it's the same thing for the players. Big picture they agreed to 50/50...sure the MOU had some estimates as part of it but in the end based on the revenue forecast that would put them above a 50/50 revenue split. In the end for the players they would still be better off getting 60% of their salary to play a 50 game season than they would with no season. Plus getting to the new TV deal helps them too because it increases the size of that 50/50 revenue pool sooner if they play this year.

Both sides are better off long term if they can figure our something that is fair and works for both parties long term.