I want them to meet in the middle. I think the players are entitled to 52% when the sides were arguing back in July. Now, the number could be 51.5 because its meeting in the middle and both sides have been stubborn. Its called compromise. Obviously, you are only willing to listen to compromise if it comes from the owners side of things.
As for the final number they should come up with, I have no idea what that number would be. Any logical person could deduce if one side was at 52% and the other side was at 48%, wouldn't 50% be a reasonable place to meet in the middle?
As evidenced by their proposals, they have compromised more than the players.
Considering they have been a major beneficiary to the last deal, I would say it was a big deal, but at the same time, it wasn't.
Your logic is flawed.
50% is only reasonable if you believe 52 and 48 to be equally unreasonable, but you can't determine that unless you already know 50 to be the "right" number.. You're using circular logic here. In essence saying "I know 50% is the fair number because both sides are equally wrong. I know both sides are equally wrong because they are both equally as far from the fair number."
Same goes for who has "compromised more". In order to give equal weight to concessions made on either side, the starting points have to be equally far from an objective standard. By your logic, the worse the starting offer, the better the end result. It's a terrible negotiating strategy. Unfortunately it's what the owners decided to go with. (Though I do recognize, and in certain way appreciate, the symbolism of originally offering the players 43%.)
Of course, there isn't any actual objective standard, and what's fair is basically whatever the players and owners agree is fair. But there is a true market value. And all the evidence we have suggest that it would substantially higher (probably around 10%) than even the 57% the players were getting. That value is destructive to the industry, largely because those setting the market are stupid. But actual logic would say that the correct value of the players would be as little below the market value as is needed to keep the industry stable.
The numbers say 57% meets that criteria, or is maybe a little low (though some owner profit is required as an incentive). So again I say the owners should be grateful that the players are willing to go even lower (and much lower if revenues keep growing so significantly).
I do want both sides to compromise. I just recognize the very sizable concession the players already made to get to 57%. Your starting point for the players should be around ~66%. By that standard, the players have come much further. Pretty much at the mid-point already, maybe even a bit under.