Beetlejuice

Since the value of both teams are tied up with MASN, I still can’t imagine anyone purchasing either team without knowing that value. And another fly in the ointment; the 22-27 revenue period. How can anyone, predict what this will be? With RSNs biting the dust across the league who knows what the landscape will look like one year from now much less five. Manfred could use the “in the best interest of the game” powers and shorten the period so as not to stick MASN with a payment out of line with current market conditions. He could also nix the entire settlement agreement, but I don’t see him doing that while Peter is alive. Having both franchises unsaleable has got to stick in the craw of the owners, many of whom were not pleased with Selig’s arrangement. They probably want to be shut off this whole thing. But at the rate things are going, broadcast rights are trending towards essentially worthless. 67% of zero is zero. Maybe the Angelos boys won’t balk if MLB offers to buy them out and awards them an All-Star game. Or we could see if the Commish’s power is really that absolute.

The odds of this not going to court should be fairly decent. The question is when does the RSDC get involved?

Is it? Because AFAIK the settlement agreement doesn’t guarantee MASN’s profitability. Really the only way to do so is to jigger with the rights fees. But if the RSDC does that, are they truly determining a FMV? I could see an owner with pockets like Steve Cohen challenging such a determination simply because he can. Bud Selig really screwed the pooch.

IIRC the settlement agreement used the phrase 'established methodology' for determining FMV. And there was plenty of speculation what this meant both in motions and rampant speculation here and elsewhere on the interwebs. It’s Boortz! It’s Vortrz! (yes, I saw that in a few places). In hindsight I think it’s obvious the courts didn’t want to wade into this issue, and I’m fairly certain 'established methodology' now means whatever the arbitral body says it is, provided that it is reasonable and readily defensible. To simplify, the FMV is determined by whatever procedure the RSDC says it is, and if they are prepared to “show their math”, then good luck to anyone who tries to challenge them on this. It’s now probably a dead end for any party to challenge the RSDC’s fair market valuation without credible evidence of fraud/corruption. Maybe someone tries it for poops and giggles but they might get a smack on the snoot the first time and sanctioned the next. Furthermore, the RSDC isn’t locked in to using the same procedure every time. As market conditions are constantly changing, they can modify their process accordingly. What’s interesting to me is how the RSDC now calculates the third and fourth five year periods. Each five year period’s FMV was supposed to be calculated before it started. It’s a lot easier to calculate “value” in hindsight, because you have actual data. You can bet each side will want to use that data when it benefits them the most, but that’s not how the contract was written.

And this is the problem with the agreement. Pretend MASN can sublet the rights for each team, and say Comcast and Fox are both willing to pay 100M for the Nats and 10M for the Os. One can say that establishes the FMV for the Nats at 100M and the Os at 10M. Now the Nats will want MASN to pay them 100M, and theoretically MASN should be able to produce a product and sell it so they can pay out that 100M to the Nats. But per the settlement agreement, the Os get what the Nats get, which is 100M. But it’s doubtful MASN can market and sell the Os games for much more than 10M the other Networks think is FMV. So MASN is in a 90m hole. Now the amounts I picked here are wildly apart, but I picked them to point out the absurdity of the agreement. It would be all too easy for MASN to implode.

No, they fought and lost. Now they can take it.

Who knows what they meant or even who is their source? We (well Froby and I) already caused the Post to post a correction because they couldn’t source one of their claims.

And maybe the Nationals/MLB are fine with this. An arbitrator can calculate the net present value of $100M that should have been paid on X at a rate of Y. The AAA has an entire module on Accounting, which should surprise no one. I would hope the arbiter is given the power to sanction parties for bad faith conduct. As you’ve alluded to a couple of times already, if the adults sat down and did the math they could hammer this out in short order. But as you also mentioned, the Os seem to find a way to complicate things, and I expect they will cut every corner possible. It’s in both parties interests to put this issue to bed, because no one will buy either team until it’s settled.

The Nationals and MLB (who has a revenue sharing interest) are not naive. They’ll motion for Judge Marks to include interest.

That’s what I used, but I put a VPN on my network to get around that. It’s easy.

You can get around this if you have some technical chops. You setup a VPN using a cheap credit card sized computer (Raspberry Pi) and install a software VPN. WireGuard is simple to setup and use. Then you simply plug this device into the account holder’s network. This is the same network where the cable box is located. I’ve been doing this for years before I cut the cord. Now I use MLBTV and a commercial VPN to tell it I’m somewhere else. I’ll be glad to show you how to do either.

Like setting up a spreadsheet showing every payment that was made and when. Then add a column for what that payment should have been, and calculate the difference. Keep a running total and calculate compounding interest based on the historical rate. So that $100M becomes $106M, and then calculate interest on that amount from the date of the start of the lawsuit until today. I can see how the Os can argue and nickel & dime over everything from what the interest rates should be used to how interest compounds. Seems to me that the RSDC might have some opinion on the matter because they have to collect similar fees from the clubs, no?

Nice summary. The key point each side was trying to nail home was the degree of the RSDC’s “evident partiality”. Phillips claimed that the entirety of the first RSDC was evident partial. Several of the judges were skeptical and asked why changing council didn’t cure the issue. Phillips claimed Marks said it was more than the Prosker representation but did not elaborate. When the Nationals lawyer Schaffer took his turn one of the judges asked if the RSDC was still impartial despite the Prosker cure. He cited the Marks decision that stated Prosker was the only issue that needed addressing. Phillips however, implied the first and second RSDC is still partial because of Manfred’s prediction the second RSDC’s will be similar to the first, and the fact the amounts were about a 1% from each other as proof. One of the judges was like, so what? He asked if they use a similar methodology should they get similar results? The judge basically stated the position by the National’s attorney was making that Manfred was referring to the process the RSDC uses and not any unfair bias. Phillips summarized that the Mark’s decision said the evident partiality was so entrenched in the RSDC that you couldn’t “unring that bell” so you must use another arbitration venue. Schaffer said the decision specifically singled our Prosker, and since that was cured there is no issue with the second RSDC or their decision. Most of the judges seemed to be skeptical of Phillip’s argument. I believe they acquainted themselves with the previous appeal and took the majority view. However, one judge seemed to ask, “what do we do if the RSDC is impartial. How do we handle this?” He was asking the question seemingly to understand what action they should take **if** the RSDC is impartial. He was playing what if should they overrule. I suspect they’ll be studying the appeal again.

Huh? What are these set-offs?

If they do so in bad faith, will they be sanctioned? Abuse of process shouldn’t be tolerated.