Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
The owners' position is that they will lose more money every game played with no fans in attendance if they pay the players a prorated salary than if they simply don't play any games. If this is true, then no, it doesn't make sense to grab more negative cash.

I'm going to assume Scherzer is right, and the owners are not being truthful about how much they stand to lose/gain in each scenario. This explains why the owners won't be transparent with these accounting numbers. So again, it's a scenario where the billionaires are being greedy scum, and labor isn't going to allow it.

There is a real risk now that this doesn't settle because the owners gave the players false revenue information, and they won't be willing to admit to that fact by settling with the union.
How do you know the revenue information is "false"? Couldn't that make it fraud?