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

[Frobby]

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.

[hoosiers]

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.

[weams]

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.

[weams]

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

[brianod]

Cry babys. Wonder how Montreal feels about your rights.

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

[Frobby]

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.

[brianod]

The think that annoys me about Boswell is that he used to be a big O's fan. Since the Nats came to Washington, he acts like the Orioles are public enemy number one. Come on man, where's the old love?

[weams]

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.

[TonySoprano]

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 )

[incubus]

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.

[waroriole]

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?

[TonySoprano]

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

If you follow my link, and maybe you already have, we've been there done that with them. They won't discuss the subject.

[BrunoCherrytown]

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.

[TonySoprano]

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*

[waroriole]

If you follow my link, and maybe you already have, we've been there done that with them. They won't discuss the subject.

Oh, I know. I asked the same thing.