Bullshyt, and even the players association agreed to this. You boxed yourself there. Nobody debated whether owners lost money. They debated how many of them did. The players took the low end number whereas owners were claiming it was damn near 2/3rds of the league. That's where the disconnect was. Otherwise renegotiating a labor agreement, like in MLB for example, would have taken mere days.
If everyone made money, owning a team would not only be foolproof, nobody would ever sell.
Naw bruh, hes right. Aint nobody really losing money...perhaps one or two owners maybe, but it certainly wasnt some widespread epidemic attributable to out of control salaries like the narrative they painted.
You have to understand this --- accounting practices for sports ownership is extremely complex. I studied the sht, and I'll admit a lot the details and fine print is out of my depth, but I will give you an overarching idea. There are billion tricks to ownership taxation/accounting, which is called "aggressive accounting" --- basically lying, cheating, and gaming the system for the rich.
Ownership can house all assets and depreciations and collect them under the team asset --- meaning, side business that are losing money can be conflated with the team asset for taxation purposes...contracts can be amortized, and considered "depreciating assets", same with luxury suites, arena lease agreements, etc.
What does all this mean? Basically owners can cook the books to give off the impression that their franchises are losing money, when they are profitable. This is done for a variety of reasons, the least of which ammo during collective bargaining negotiations.
The owners were financially capable of sitting out the entire year --- that should tell you what their financial standing is as a collective. They also knew that they had public opinion on their side, as ESPN and talk radio would paint players as "greedy nikkers", and pressure their side alone in striking a deal.