There was room to manoeuvre in the players' position, Australian Cricketers Association president Greg Dyer said on Thursday, and a mind for a deal by the June 30 deadline. "The players have always had and still do have flexibility," Dyer said. "There is room to move to modernise this partnership. The ACA can discuss new models of revenue sharing and how we can collectively manage the risk."

Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland welcomed Dyer's words, cautiously. "I hope those comments are a good sign," he said. "Certainly CA remains ready, willing and able to negotiate so that the flexibility built into our proposal can finally be explored."

But sensitivities were still apparent when CA later issued a statement doubting the ACA's goodwill. "We question how genuine the ACA is about wanting to conclude an MOU by June 30 when it has refused for months to even begin a negotiation process unless its preconditions are met," it said, "and yet puts out a media release almost daily calling for CA to be flexible."

CA said it had always been flexible. "CA urges the ACA to spend more time at the negotiating table and less time writing press releases in order to begin making progress towards a resolution," the statement said.

These faltering, indeed bumbling steps towards a resumption of talks follow reported back-channel discussions between the two bodies and an olive twig offered by Australian player and ACA board member Moises Henriques overnight in London, where the Australians are preparing for the Champions Trophy. "Maybe CA may have to give a little bit, maybe we have to give a little bit, who knows?" said Henriques. "But the players know we need to get to an agreement.

"Guys want to play international cricket, guys want to play state cricket. The players want it sorted out and I'm sure CA do as well."

The sticking point is still the starting point. Each party thinks the other is being unreasonable about revenue-sharing, the ACA by insisting on it, CA by resisting it. "The ACA has refused to negotiate unless its preconditions are met," said Sutherland. "The central precondition is that the 'gross revenue sharing model' be retained in its present form."

But Dyer says the players already had offered wiggle room in correspondence with CA. That included what counted as shared revenue and what did not, how the adjustment ledger might be improved and a willingness to cop a pay cut if revenue falls. "This is important at a time of uncertainty around CA's major broadcasting and sponsorship deals," he said.

After months of stalemate, this week's developments can almost be described as a flurry. On Tuesday, CA reiterated the details of its offer, accompanied by a video of lead negotiator Kevin Roberts explaining them. The ACA said it contained nothing new. Between the lines, you could read offence that CA was talking down to them, as if the players did not understand.

Henriques said the players were acutely aware of what was on the line and did not need the patronising. "It's their own futures and if they're not across it, it's their own fault," he said. "You've got to be proactive and take on board what the future is going to look like."