What puzzles me is that, for the players, the whole thing (like the owners) should be about growing revenue. Let's assume that the revenue numbers are correct, and the figure is $3.3b. Even in a best case scenario, with nearly 1/4 of the season gone, revenue for this year would be $2.48b (assuming proportional distribution of revenues over the season). It also means that 1/4 of the salary has gone poof (according to Sportsnet.ca, $177.8m and counting).
For the players, wouldn't they have wanted 50% of $3.3b, vs. 52%, 54%, 56% (whatever their final figure) of $2.4b? With the cancellation of the Winter Classic, the loss of the casual fan, the likely loss of corporate sponsorship, what is the likelihood of the revenues in the first post-lockout year hitting $3.3b? I'd say that there are two chances of that happening: slim and none.
From the owners' POV, losing 1/4 of your salary cost is no big deal, especially if you can potentially recover revenues lost in the first 1/4 with a playoff run (when players earn $0 salaries).
It seems to me that the owners stand to gain from a protracted stoppage (aside from the lost potential revenues from disinterested parties, as discussed above), while the players lose, no matter what happens. From their standpoint, it's now a matter of minimizing losses, not making gains.
As businessmen, the owners understand this, and thus are pushing Bettman. The players, on the other hand, are not savvy businessmen, and are basically drinking whatever Kool-Aid that Fehr is feeding them. And since Fehr, in my opinion, is more interested in protecting his carefully crafted reputation as a bargaining genius, he's not willing to back down in the face of Bettman and the owners, despite the harm being done to his constituents.