Jump to content
JohnD

MASN dispute update

Recommended Posts

Damn!  You required us to go back on topic and since then we've gone nearly 45 minutes without any posts.  What was the topic again?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

Damn!  You required us to go back on topic and since then we've gone nearly 45 minutes without any posts.  What was the topic again?

The MASN dispute update. And to my knowledge, there were no new developments. It just became a thread polluted with personal attacks and defenses previously. It's probably best that is rest until a new development occurs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Damn!  You required us to go back on topic and since then we've gone nearly 45 minutes without any posts.  What was the topic again?

The MASN dispute.   Here’s something relevant: last week MASN filed a brief seeking to clarify a small point about how to calculate the overdue sum on which interest is now due.     In the course of making the argument, MASN disclosed that it paid the Nats $41.8 mm in profit distributions during 2012-16.     It went on to say that it couldn’t have made these payments if rights fees were set at the levels awarded by the panel.    

This figure is interesting because the Nats only owned 13-17% of MASN from 2012-16, so this implies that the Orioles share of the profits (if the O’s had won the arbitration) would have been about  $236.9 mm, in addition to the $197.6 mm in rights fees they received.    So, a total of $434.5 mm over 5 years.    Instead, they’ll receive $296.8 mm in rights fees (equal to the Nats) and about $68.3 mm in profits, for a total of about $365.1 mm.    Still a nice chunk of change from their TV network.    

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The MASN dispute.   Here’s something relevant: last week MASN filed a brief seeking to clarify a small point about how to calculate the overdue sum on which interest is now due.     In the course of making the argument, MASN disclosed that it paid the Nats $41.8 mm in profit distributions during 2012-16.     It went on to say that it couldn’t have made these payments if rights fees were set at the levels awarded by the panel.    

This figure is interesting because the Nats only owned 13-17% of MASN from 2012-16, so this implies that the Orioles share of the profits (if the O’s had won the arbitration) would have been about  $236.9 mm, in addition to the $197.6 mm in rights fees they received.    So, a total of $434.5 mm over 5 years.    Instead, they’ll receive $296.8 mm in rights fees (equal to the Nats) and about $68.3 mm in profits, for a total of about $365.1 mm.    Still a nice chunk of change from their TV network.    

My friend who has some knowledge of the situation, once told me the Orioles are more profitable with the Nationals and the MASN deal then they would be if the Nationals were not here I thought he was kidding but not that sure now. Based on the Orioles basically getting mist of the profits from a major market team TV revenue. I guess as the percentage the Orioles own of MASN goes down ,perhaps not as much.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

My friend who has some knowledge of the situation, once told me the Orioles are more profitable with the Nationals and the MASN deal then they would be if the Nationals were not here I thought he was kidding but not that sure now. Based on the Orioles basically getting mist of the profits from a major market team TV revenue. I guess as the percentage the Orioles own of MASN goes down ,perhaps not as much.

I believe the lowest the O's ownership of MASN will ever go is 67%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TGO said:

I believe the lowest the O's ownership of MASN will ever go is 67%.

Correct.   They own 80% this year and it reduces 1% a year until it hits 67% in 2032, then stays flat from there.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Correct.   They own 80% this year and it reduces 1% a year until it hits 67% in 2032, then stays flat from there.   

And some said the deal was stupid and not negotiated well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Frobby for the math but I believe years ago Frobby also determined that the Orioles MLB franchise and the MASN operation were owned or at least managed by separate Partnerships, each owned largely by the Angelos family. The Orioles, if my memory is correct, do not own MASN and MASN profits do not accrue to the Orioles. PA would have to agree to spend those profits on the Orioles MLB franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnythingO's said:

Thanks to Frobby for the math but I believe years ago Frobby also determined that the Orioles MLB franchise and the MASN operation were owned or at least managed by separate Partnerships, each owned largely by the Angelos family. The Orioles, if my memory is correct, do not own MASN and MASN profits do not accrue to the Orioles. PA would have to agree to spend those profits on the Orioles MLB franchise.

I think that if the Orioles owned MASN that all profits would be subject to revenue sharing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that if the Orioles owned MASN that all profits would be subject to revenue sharing.

Oh no doubt considerations like that went into the Partnership setup, that is assuming my memory of Frobby,s research is accurate. I just wanted to dispel the idea that MASN profits go directly to the Orioles. If I remembered correctly, it's PA's decision either way as he would be majority owner in both Partnerships. But PA would have to choose to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

Oh no doubt considerations like that went into the Partnership setup, that is assuming my memory of Frobby,s research is accurate. I just wanted to dispel the idea that MASN profits go directly to the Orioles. If I remembered correctly, it's PA's decision either way as he would be majority owner in both Partnerships. But PA would have to choose to rob Peter to pay Paul.

On at least one occasion he lent the team money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I think that if the Orioles owned MASN that all profits would be subject to revenue sharing.

As a general matter, a regional sports network's revenues are not subject to revenue  sharing. However, MLB recognizes that where a team controls the RSN, the amount of the cable rights fees paid by that RSN to the team are not determined by arm's-length bargaining, and that the amount may be set so low that a large portion of the value of the team's cable rights (which ordinarily would lead to revenues subject to sharing) are parked in the RSN, whose revenues are not subject to sharing. 

The purpose of the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (the rotating committee of three MLB owners or owner-designates that arbitrated the MASN-Nats dispute) is to review the cable rights fees in those related-party transactions to determine -- as I would put it -- the extent to which teams that control RSNs will be permitted to set rights fees in a way that diverts some of the value of those fees to their RSNs and reduces revenues subject to sharing. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

Oh no doubt considerations like that went into the Partnership setup, that is assuming my memory of Frobby,s research is accurate. I just wanted to dispel the idea that MASN profits go directly to the Orioles. If I remembered correctly, it's PA's decision either way as he would be majority owner in both Partnerships. But PA would have to choose to rob Peter to pay Paul.

The Orioles, as the controlling partner in MASN, get to decide what to do with MASN's profits. They can distribute those profits to the partners; if they do that, the distribution is in the ratio of the partnership interests (currently 80 percent Orioles, 20 percent Nats). Or the Orioles can leave some or all of the profits in MASN for MASN's use. As controlling partner, the Orioles have an obligation to protect MASN's interests and to treat the Nats fairly by permitting MASN to retain enough of its profits to meet its ongoing needs and by not leaving the profits in MASN just because, hypothetically, the Nats need the money and the Orioles don't. There may be further limitations or requirements about distributing profits in the portions of the 2005 MASN agreement that have been blacked out.

But basically the Orioles call the shots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Frobby said:

The MASN dispute.   Here’s something relevant: last week MASN filed a brief seeking to clarify a small point about how to calculate the overdue sum on which interest is now due.     In the course of making the argument, MASN disclosed that it paid the Nats $41.8 mm in profit distributions during 2012-16.     It went on to say that it couldn’t have made these payments if rights fees were set at the levels awarded by the panel.    

This figure is interesting because the Nats only owned 13-17% of MASN from 2012-16, so this implies that the Orioles share of the profits (if the O’s had won the arbitration) would have been about  $236.9 mm, in addition to the $197.6 mm in rights fees they received.    So, a total of $434.5 mm over 5 years.    Instead, they’ll receive $296.8 mm in rights fees (equal to the Nats) and about $68.3 mm in profits, for a total of about $365.1 mm.    Still a nice chunk of change from their TV network.    

Yeah I would say this is interesting, especially for all the people that have said the MASN makes no money and isn't profitable. They make and insane amount of money every year off MASN and always have. Just remember that when they tell you they are a "small market team" who can't afford guys like Manny Machado because it would "cripple" their business. Thank you for posting this, might have about 47 threads to bump now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Frobby said:

The MASN dispute.   Here’s something relevant: last week MASN filed a brief seeking to clarify a small point about how to calculate the overdue sum on which interest is now due.     In the course of making the argument, MASN disclosed that it paid the Nats $41.8 mm in profit distributions during 2012-16.     It went on to say that it couldn’t have made these payments if rights fees were set at the levels awarded by the panel.    

This figure is interesting because the Nats only owned 13-17% of MASN from 2012-16, so this implies that the Orioles share of the profits (if the O’s had won the arbitration) would have been about  $236.9 mm, in addition to the $197.6 mm in rights fees they received.    So, a total of $434.5 mm over 5 years.    Instead, they’ll receive $296.8 mm in rights fees (equal to the Nats) and about $68.3 mm in profits, for a total of about $365.1 mm.    Still a nice chunk of change from their TV network.    

Wow. Enough to pay a Scherzer.  Only. Good pick up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • That draft was loaded with impact MLB players.  Heck, Aaron Nola went in the 22nd round of that draft (#679 overall).  Everybody missed out on that one.
    • Uhhh okay so reminding a guy he's married to one of the most famous and desirable women on the planet is suppose to make him feel bad? On top of beating their team to go to the World Series? Yep Wank fans are as dumb as they are annoying.
    • Not saying it isn't, but AAA will be the first year we assume he will be using the MLB ball if AAA in 2020 will still be using the same balls. I'm glad Wells continues to beat expectations at every level but being a soft tosser still concerns me and probably always will. Wonder how many innings they give him with the big league club next year in spring training before they option him out to minor league camp?
    • I don't think Preston is giving enough of an adjustment because of weather conditions.  MVP candidate Russell Wilson played worse, against a statistically worse pass defense.
    • I agree. But it's been interesting to me to meet Y fans who found him so annoying that they're glad to be rid of him. They usually cite the fact that he made so many pitching changes and slowed the game down so much it became boring to them.
    • Something similar happened to me and another O's fan visiting from Vegas at the first 2012 playoff game at Yankee Stadium (the one in which Flaherty and Manny hit homers, Adam misplayed Jeter's fly into a RBI-triple, and Ibanez hit the game-tying and -winning homers in the 9th and 12th innings off of Jim Johnson and Matusz after Miguel Gonzalez had pitched his typically Yankee-killer gem). Beer wasn't thrown on us (we were in the bleachers and those fans wd never waste their Bud Light mead)--just the empty blue plastic bottles. We needed a two-officer escort from the water fountain all the way down the ramps. They also mocked my race. The other fan was a young white man and had flown in to bet on the game, and lost. There was a nice Canadian woman behind us who said she was rooting for the Y's, but hated Yankee fans.... I have some some cool photos. Nonetheless, I loved that season and series.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...