Wasn't the issue on pay during a partial season? THe players claim the owners agreed to pay them a pro-rated part of their salary (depending on the number of games), and that was that. The owners concede that. What they are arguing now is that the agreement was made on the assumption that fans would be in the stadiums. Players deny that. I don't know. I wasn't there. But the owners aren't stupid, and in March, I distinctly remember discussions about sports with no fans. It is inconceivable to me that owners (and players too, for that matter) did not realize this was a possibility, when it was being talked about quite openly. And it's hard to believe that the owners and players just kicked the can down the road ("Of course, if there are no fans in the stadiums, all this will be renegotiated."). Until the owners can produce the signed statement that specifically and explicitly addresses this issue (which should be easy to do if in fact that was the basis of negotiation in March), I believe the players. (Again, the owners aren't stupid ... well, let me restate that: the LAWYERS for the owners aren't stupid. There is no way they wouldn't insist that such crucial assumptions in negotiations be made explicit.)