Jump to content

Boswell: MLB Committee will issue a valuation of Nat's MASN rights fees on June 1


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Some solid information here from Tom Boswell. A few excerpts:

The Nationals argue that their "reset" fee for the next five years, based on comparable markets that have signed vast new deals, should be almost $110 million a year, according to three reliable sources with knowledge of the discussions.

MASN didn't agree, so a three-team MLB committee on revenue-fairness issues has heard arguments from the two sides for months. This internal MLB group is due to give its opinion on a fair market price for the Nats' regional television rights June 1.

That date, just two weeks away, should be circled in red with stars and exclamation points all around it. What those MLB representatives (from the Rays, Pirates and Mets) endorse -- whether it is $60 million or $100 million or likely a number in between -- should be the figure that carries the day.

* * *

Will the June 1 date for a "fairness" valuation actually precipitate a resolution? "In cases like this, I never hold people to a specific date," said Selig, famous for flexible, infuriating but generally functional timetables.

* * *

What's the right price? Recent average annual rights fees for regional sports networks have ranged from more than $60 million for the Houston Astros and $75 million for the Texas Rangers -- in metro areas usually used as rough comparables to the Washington area -- to $150 million for the Angels. The Astros and Rangers fees skew high because they are based on multi-decade deals that grow over time -- an argument that favors MASN. Conversely, every new RSN deal blows away the previous one. The Astros and Rangers comparables are already, to a degree, obsolete.

Most likely, the Nats' deal will fall in the $70 million-$90 million range, though all such MLB debates are state secrets. One hidden factor is key: The interests of almost everyone in baseball (except MASN and Angelos) are aligned with the Nats' getting a rational price. Why? Each new monster regional sports network deal (some contracts now top $1.5 billion) set "comparable" prices for the next team's negotiation with its TV providers.

If the Nats got shafted, many owners would scream. What's the point of having a legal monopoly if you don't band together to drive up prices for your product?

This entire MASN-Nats tussle is about "when" and "how much," not "if." A deal has to get finished to set 2013's MASN price. But you can bet that Angelos and MASN want to string out the Nats as long as possible in hopes of extracting a better deal. The Lerners tend to be phobic about imprecise budget projections, and uncertainty could set them dithering about whether or not to make a July 31 deadline trade that would increase payroll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/washington-nationals-are-due-a-bigger-check-from-masn-for-tv-rights/2012/05/18/gIQA6wbOZU_story_1.html

The rest of the column is devoted to complaining about Angelos and explaining why the resolution of this issue is so important to the Nats. But this is the first solid information we've had about this process in months. It sounds as if the MLB committee's June 1 valuation is not necessarily binding, and that this could drag on for a while. But it will still be very interesting to learn what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I agree with the "when, not if". The Nats will get theirs. My guess is that the Nats will get something near $65MM-$75MM for the next five years, with the expectation that the Nats will get more than the Rangers over the next 20 years.

I do find the last line a bit difficult to believe. The Nats are about to see a $25MM-$40+MM increase in fees - not sure why there would be uncertainty to cause the Lerners to "dither" about a trade deadline payroll increase.

FWIW, I also disagree with the general tone of the article. The whole point of the exercise is to get the Nats (and Os) fair value for their rights fees. No one should begrudge either team that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some solid information here from Tom Boswell. A few excerpts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/washington-nationals-are-due-a-bigger-check-from-masn-for-tv-rights/2012/05/18/gIQA6wbOZU_story_1.html

The rest of the column is devoted to complaining about Angelos and explaining why the resolution of this issue is so important to the Nats. But this is the first solid information we've had about this process in months. It sounds as if the MLB committee's June 1 valuation is not necessarily binding, and that this could drag on for a while. But it will still be very interesting to learn what it is.

Sure. Well, they might be in fourth place by then. Will that make a difference? I can't imagine the viewership of Washington MASN broadcast is very high. I mean, I could see going to the park and enjoying a game. But watching them on TV? Especially now that Trout is so much better than Harper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cry babys. Wonder how Montreal feels about your rights.

This sounds like a legit anti-trust case to me. Think the Nats ought take this to the Fed Court if Baseball can't do the right thing. Angelos though the owner of MASN, cannot unfairly control the market rights of the Nats, The Nats should also sue baseball as well for brokering an unfair deal with Angelos in the first place
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low blow. The O's moved from St. Louis in 54 and the Ravens moved from Cleveland.

Agreed. Let's face it, Angelos negotiated a very good deal when the Nats came to town. But it won't be nearly as good once the Nats' rights fees are reset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Let's face it, Angelos negotiated a very good deal when the Nats came to town. But it won't be nearly as good once the Nats' rights fees are reset.

Part of that deal was a ownership of a RSN that gave the Nationals a piece of it over a period of time after they "earned" it. Because they were set down in his area of influence. They did not need to come to Washington. The Orioles would have been fine without them. I do not think that the Nationals will get as big a reset as Boswell thinks they will. I think some inequity was always part of the deal to get a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nats' fees could go from $29 million to $60 million (low-end estimate). Gee, how can MASN afford this? Could it be that MASN has been much more profitable than assumed? Given that, where is the additional investment in the Orioles that Angelos told us in 2006 would be possible via MASN? (Yes, I'm still asking this question ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cry babys. Wonder how Montreal feels about your rights.

I really don't feel Angelos is to blame at all, MLB gave him (what could now be seen as an unfair deal for) the tv rights for the team encroaching into the O's media market.

I think the Nats should be allowed to get their fair share, but that is MLB's burden, not the Orioles or MASN.

If the MLB takesthe money from Angelos, he has grounds for a huge lawsuit himself against MLB.

you can't promise someone something, and then take it away a few years later and expect no repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nats' fees could go from $29 million to $60 million (low-end estimate). Gee, how can MASN afford this? Could it be that MASN has been much more profitable than assumed? Given that, where is the additional investment in the Orioles that Angelos told us in 2006 would be possible via MASN? (Yes, I'm still asking this question ;) )

You should "Ask the Orioles." I'm sure they'd love to give us an answer now. Right guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nats' fees could go from $29 million to $60 million (low-end estimate). Gee, how can MASN afford this? Could it be that MASN has been much more profitable than assumed? Given that, where is the additional investment in the Orioles that Angelos told us in 2006 would be possible via MASN? (Yes, I'm still asking this question ;) )

It'll also be interesting once this deal forces the O's to get a matching fee to what the Nats get. And then what the excuses will be when we don't sign top free agents with it.

And what will be the excuses when MASN doesn't go out of business after these rate hikes or replace Jim Palmer with Harry Palmser because they can't afford the extra costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll also be interesting once this deal forces the O's to get a matching fee to what the Nats get. And then what the excuses will be when we don't sign top free agents with it.
They'll be the same excuses they would give now, except no one in the media is publicly asking them. *crickets* *pin drop*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2022 Top 75 Prospects

Statistics

2022 Orioles Stats

2022 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats



  • Posts

    • I guess he has recovered from his illness! Good news. 
    • They were off today, and yesterday they dropped Bobby Witt (234/268/417) down to 5th in the batting order for the first time all year, but on the good side for them Nick Pratto is doing a lot better in his 2nd year, and has been hot enough to take the leadoff role.     The .294 team OBP remains MLB-worst, not that that stopped them from getting a bunch of runs off Orioles pitching the first time. ESPN has no one listed for Sunday, and earlier this week they used Carlos Hernandez as an opener followed by another middle reliever.     We have a maybe Austin Voth, maybe not scenario for Saturday, so the pitching matchups are as cloudy as the air this week except Wells v. Lynch tomorrow. Lynch and Singer to open the series have some talent - it will be just Lynch's 3rd game of the year (13 K in first 10 innings) after a March shoulder strain put him out two months.     Brady Singer was a 2022 star and Team USA top dog who got off to a terrible start, but has been better lately.       They are coming in cold, having dropped a series at home to "road Colorado Rockies" and been swept in Miami. Ryan Mountcastle's 0-for-4 today took him to 227/264/421 to holy cow hit the exacta on matching Bobby Witt's OPS entering the series. Rosenthal reported earlier this week KCR have let it be known they wouldn't mind sending $$$ away with Aroldis, and high paid players on their Club are Greinke and Lyles at $8.5mm, assuming franchise icon Sal Perez is staying put.     Otherwise only the closer, Scott Barlow, and an injured SP are at even $5mm+.         
    • Due my life schedule I (regretfully) do not get as much time as I wish for the Orioles . But before I went to take care of some things this afternoon I checked in on the O's score in the 6th inning and saw they where losing 3-0 . I checked on the Final Score around 9PM and was actually SURPRISED to see that they won the Game ! Now my family and friends have ....for decades ...Nicknamed me " Mr. Pessimist"( and rightfully so). That being said I AM Starting to believe that this team IS CAPABLE of winning 90+ games this season ..... So LETS GO O's !!!!!!!!!!
    • Was just pinch hit for late in the game. Really hope not for injury. And even the "easing him back in" theory doesnt really stand up. Been back for almost a week, would think he would have clearance to play a whole game especially since it was the 8th inning.. saving him for one inning????
    • I’m super encouraged by them avoiding the split today for whatever the reason. If it was clear that he didn’t have command of it in the pen as Cakes speculated, then so be it. I’d much rather take his predictable 101 than a hang-to-bang split, no matter how good it can be sometimes. Really excited by his ninth today. 
    • Thanks. It definitely "feels" low
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...