Jimmy Hill has one word for the prospect of a players' strike. "Awful," he says. "It would be awful from all points of view. The sooner they get the story off the television and out of the papers and do a business deal the better. And that applies to both sides." The man responsible for the abolition of the maximum footballers' wage in 1961 and who later became chairman of Coventry City has never been a fence-sitter on any issue, but on this one subject he prefers to maintain his own counsel as to which quarter he believes right resides.

But one thing is for certain, the current posturing which belongs more in pantomime (except it is difficult to decide who merits the boos more, the PFA's "Baron Hardup" Gordon Taylor or the Premier League's "Bad Prince Richard" Scudamore) would have been handled with far more wisdom had Hill been still involved – on either side.

Though it is felt likely that the issue will be resolved before the ultimate sanction is taken by the players – refusal to take part in games where cameras are present (isn't that just about all of them in the Premiership or Football League these days?) – the fact that the parties are still so far apart and that it has become so personalised reflects poorly on both the chief protagonists, the Premier League chief executive and his PFA counterpart.

The sides meet again tomorrow when it is hoped those with sense and a desire for compromise will prevail. Though the 99 per cent vote appears to give Taylor the stronger hand, the chairmen's unofficial vote is just as unanimous in their rejection of the old formula which stated that the PFA should take five per cent of TV money for good works (education, hardship and paying for medical treatment for former players).

The Premier League were quick to defend their chief executive, Scudamore, from suggestions that he was about to be dropped from their negotiating team after he had been picked out as a target by scapegoat hunters seeking a reason for the impasse.

The Premier chairman, Dave Richards, stressed in a statement that Scudamore retained the League's full confidence, and in a snipe at what were clearly consider unhelpful observations, their statement also said: "We have always wanted to keep negotiations away from the media spotlight and reiterate our willingness to reach a negotiated settlement for the good of the game."

The Leeds chairman, Peter Ridsdale, also voiced his support, but his comments indicated that premature reports of Scudamore's demise had touched a nerve. "I am somewhat surprised to read suggestions that a Premier League chairman has been critical of Richard Scudamore's role in the current dispute," Ridsdale said. "To the best of my knowledge, Richard retains the backing of the Premier League chairmen and I know he will continue to play a significant part in the ongoing talks. It is important that we resolve this issue and Richard has a part to play in that."

Resolution is a simple matter, apparently, if you follow the David Dein approach. As far as the Arsenal vice-chairman is concerned the League should stick to their guns and then will emerge triumphant. "I don't believe the Premier League will succumb to the threat of the PFA," he said. "It will harm the players as much as the clubs."

He put the League's case forcibly yesterday, and was not afraid to use emotive language, as the two camps used two rival radio stations to broadcast their campaign themes. Saying he was not surprised by the backing that Taylor's strike call had received, Dein had a warning for the players. "They must understand the consequences which will be spelled out to them in due course – then they may think twice," Dein said on Radio Five Live.

"They would be in breach of contract, and the ripple effects from there on would be very serious. It could be very damaging to the whole sport. It is in nobody's interest, and that is why negotiations will continue. But it does come to a limit when you say, 'That is it, that is our best shot and it may not be on the table tomorrow'."

Dein said a further breakdown in relations with the players' union could lead to an unworkable situation if players do refuse to take part in televised matches, because all League clubs are committed to broadcasts – at least highlights – for almost every game. "There is not a Premiership game which is not covered on TV in some shape or form," Dein added. "If all this falls apart it will be a bloodbath."

Taylor, speaking on TalkSport radio, claimed the PFA were winning over public opinion. "The Premier League has got very powerful, but I do feel we have managed to convince the general public," he said. "We are about wanting football to be seen in as many towns and cities as possible and we want to see a better distribution of the money coming in."

Therein lies the rub. Taylor has talked in percentages, and would be well advised to stick to that. If the League can hammer him down to a reduced share in this round, he might find roles reversed next time. If, as seems likely, football's income from television has peaked for the moment, matching a smaller percentage figure in future might appeal to the Premier League.