Jump to content

Beetlejuice

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Rookie

About Beetlejuice

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I thought it was implied that everyone knows the RSDC makes sure owners aren’t keeping all the cream for themselves. MLB has to be involved in RSN deals, if only to make sure teams are paying their fair share of “tax” to the revenue pool. Would you trust a guy like Angelos to voluntarily pay what he owes? Hell, would you trust any of them? Is that a fact? It was my understanding that MLB provide the RSDC with resources to do exactly that. In Real Estate parlance, they give them the “comps”. Theoretically a different arbitration venue should arrive at a similar number usin
  2. And that should be an indication that the RSDC functioned as expected. They came up with roughly the same amounts. Maybe people forget that the RSDC doesn’t exist primarily to be a thorn in the side of Angelos. Their #1 function is to make sure that individual clubs don’t get taken advantage of by Comcast, FoxSports, etc. when it comes to inking their own RSN deals. And right behind that is to make sure sophisticated clubs like the Yankees and Dodgers can’t cheat MLB out of revenue.
  3. Do you believe in karma? Poor Petey already had to see the Nats make a dog pile in Minute Maid Park. Now you could make a fortune in selling tickets for an opportunity to play their hand at being Lucy.
  4. That was solely due to evident partiality, which is the sin of an appearance of a conflict-of-interest. Besides that, nothing from that or the subsequent RSDC decision were cited as examples of being unfair, let alone corrupt. If the Nationals had obtained new attorneys back when the Orioles raised the issue, the original RSDC decision would have stood. If there was something else from the process that Angelos thinks was unfair, he’s had more than enough time to raise them by now.
  5. Well, therein lies the rub (if I remember my Shakespeare correctly). Industries often specify arbitration forums to conflict of interest entities precisely because they have the expertise to hear such disputes. Inside baseball is an apt term in this case. Who knows more about baseball RSN than do baseball ownership? The majority opinion’s decision states this and is concerned about how this will effect other industries where contracts require disputes to be settled by industry experts. The real question is not whether fairness can be had in such an arbitration, but whether a parti
  6. The majority however, makes fun of the dissent: While the dissent waxes poetic about the purity of the game of baseball, MLB is first and foremost a business, governed by its constitution and innumerable agreements and contracts. Because arbitration is a matter of contract, "the parties to an arbitration can ask for no more impartiality than inheres in the method they have chosen" and the FAA permits parties to select arguably partial arbitrators, if doing so serves their interests and from elsewhere in the majority (emphasis added) Contrary to the view of the dissent, there has
  7. That and even if this appeal is denied, MASN already saved a couple million on the second RSDC decision. I can’t see the court is going to pull the trigger on rewriting the agreement without knowing how they will rewrite the agreement. Then again, if all the appellate court has to do is decide “yes we can”, then maybe they’d be willing to toss this poop sandwich back to their colleagues.
  8. I’m also surprised they accepted the appeal. Maybe it was accepted based on some formula per what @spiritof66said, but generally appeals are supposed to be based on errors made by the lower court. Ordinarily I’d say “wait for the filing” to see what Angelos argument is going to be, but we all know it’s going to be more of the same we’ve already seen. Throw everything at the wall and hope something will stick. I still can't see a court essentially throwing out a portion of a settlement agreement willingly entered into to by both parties (the RSDC as the sole arbiter) and replace it with
  9. Get a raspberry Pi for $30 and you can install a VPN on that, stick it in your parents network, and connect. Then you’re watching Tankelos baseball
  10. I’m friends with a guy who lives nearby in a rehab center whose clientele are very poor. I created a Comcast email from my master account and he can use it to access every channel I subscribe too, including HBO, etc. The only exceptions were certain channels like MASN which require you to be connected to the cable modem. I could get around that by hosting my own VPN, but now he can probably get away with using the app/email. He’ll be psyched to follow baseball all season now.
  11. I seriously doubt Forbes has access to any information not publicly available, unless the O’s or Nat’s wanted “it” to leak. If we’re to assume that the Angelos are trying to trim the fat pending any sale, I don’t see any of the cost cutting measures addressing one of the biggest impediments, namely what will become of MASN. Personally, I don’t see the owners allowing the current situation being pawned off onto new ownership. It’s not in the league’s best interest having two teams tethered together in such a fashion. The biggest problem is not the 2/3 vs 1/3 ownership in MASN. That can be
  12. Therein lies the rub (Thanks Shakespeare!) The entire purpose of forming an RSN is to have the anchor properties keep revenue flowing in so the RSN can acquire new programming which in turn makes the RSN more valuable to cable and other TV providers. And the revenue that is exempt from MLB revenue sharing is a major incentive for ownership to form a RSN. Creating a RSN is not an easy thing to do — a special sort of expertise is required. It’s a headache to be sure, which is why a lot of owners don’t even bother and instead sell their TV rights outright.
  13. You think? MLB owners cry poor and act like they are bathed in red while they are basically printing money. And this is why they are desperate to keep their balance sheets private. Prying eyes don’t help get cities to pay for shiny new ballparks, nor make the MLBPA more malleable in their negotiations. You can be sure that whatever city whose team is looking them to pony up half a billion for their new digs is going to use this information for their due diligence. And this is precisely the sort of information Selig and Manfred didn’t want to see the light of day. They warned and threaten
  14. I gave my friend a Comcast email address for my account, and a VPN login. Free for him. If Sling included baseball, I’d think about it.
  15. And cable subscribers would love to not pay a sports package fee for sports they don’t watch. If you like local sports, cord cutting isn’t really an option now. As I’ve opined elsewhere, what annoys me is that if I am paying that cable fee, I should be able to watch anywhere and not have to pony up extra for the privilege. Yeah, I have a great workaround for MASN, but it sucks to have to use it. BTW, if you get a raspberry Pi and use the GUI installer to install OpenVPN and have some sort of DynDNS service you can bypass the “out of home network” message you get when trying to stream
×
×
  • Create New...