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

[Frobby]

Let's just say you've taken a more definitive position on this in the past than "we didn't know." (example, FWIW)

Look at post # 14 in that thread. It was my position both then and now

I can see that point. I can also see the Steinbrenner boys, John Henry, Joe Ricketts not opening that can of worms unless they want to have it opened on their side. Finally, I have said before that it will increase the public pressure on the Orioles to apply the MASN resources to the on-field product as promised almost six years ago....if someone in the local media has the "stugots" to report this, that is.

I've never disagreed with you there.

[Natspride]

http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=9012

Cable industry sources say that MASN's area TV sports rival, Comcast SportsNet, which is owned by the recently combined Comcast-NBCUniversal media giant, would be willing to pay the Nationals close to their requested $110 million per year in rights fees.

Stay tuned.

[clapdiddy]

http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=9012

I thought that part of the Orioles agreement to "give up" the DC Metro area was that the Nats would HAVE to stay with MASN for an extended period of time? Is my memory failing me?

[square634]

http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=9012

Well since CSN has no chance of ever getting the Nationals broadcasting rights, and since it is a rival to MASN, isn't it obvious that CSN would say this?

[Frobby]

http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=9012

A lot of interesting information in that article. Here are some other snippets:

The Nationals want something in the neighborhood of $110 million per year in media rights, considering the top10 size of the Washington, D.C., market.

But MASN officials are arguing for a $35 million-per-year fee, citing the team's low TV ratings. That's a 20 percent hike, compared with the $29 million yearly fee it has been paying the Nationals the past five years.

Also, MASN representatives contend that because the station carries Baltimore Orioles games in the Washington market, it's a shared baseball rights market, and that should further depress the Nationals' media rights fee.

* * *

Many broadcast sources feel the Nationals will be in line to get in the $70 million- to $90 million-per-year range, Williams said.

But what should concern MASN executives is that they have agreed to pay the Orioles whatever the Nationals receive, Williams said.

"Taking the low estimate of $70 million a year -- $140 million annually for both teams -- to pay out in rights fees to the Nationals and Orioles, there's no way the network could make up that money without going back to cable companies and looking for a rate adjustment," Williams said.

Well, there goes Tony and Bruno's theory that the amount of rights fees to be awarded by the panel necessarily takes into account whether MASN has enough profits to pay that amount. Like I've said all along, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't.

I wonder if this will end with the Nats and some other cable network buying out MASN's broadcast rights for the Nats and the Nats' owners selling back their share of MASN. That would allow the Nats to get a market price for their TV rights while allowing Angelos to leave a below-market deal in place for the Orioles' rights. I think one reason this whole thing has taken so long is that the parties are probably looking at solutions like this that are more complicated than simply resetting the Nats' rights fees per the agreement.

[BrunoCherrytown]

A lot of interesting information in that article. Here are some other snippets:

Well, there goes Tony and Bruno's theory that the amount of rights fees to be awarded by the panel necessarily takes into account whether MASN has enough profits to pay that amount. Like I've said all along, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't.

I wonder if this will end with the Nats and some other cable network buying out MASN's broadcast rights for the Nats and the Nats' owners selling back their share of MASN. That would allow the Nats to get a market price for their TV rights while allowing Angelos to leave a below-market deal in place for the Orioles' rights. I think one reason this whole thing has taken so long is that the parties are probably looking at solutions like this that are more complicated than simply resetting the Nats' rights fees per the agreement.

Okay so this article which says MASN can't afford the rights fee increases means all the other ones are invalid? Just wanted to make sure I got the logic by your discounting of my opinion.

I'll just say I'm quite confident MASN can handle the rights fee increases and respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.

[TonySoprano]

Well, there goes Tony and Bruno's theory that the amount of rights fees to be awarded by the panel necessarily takes into account whether MASN has enough profits to pay that amount. Like I've said all along, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't.

This is a writer's speculation, one, that like most everyone not named Angelos, does not have an insight into MASN's books. MLB gave Angelos the money to jump start MASN. Do you think that MLB will now force him to get into a legal fight with multiple cable companies over the cost to carry MASN?

[hoosiers]

The Nats are only asking for a fair market deal and they should be entitled to one.

IMO, it was always going to come to where we are today since the Nats TV rights has greater value than the Os.

The core idea was that PA would profit from the Nats TV deal to protect the value of the Os and it appears he has already profited massively from MASN the past few years.

Somehow, PA needs to figure out a way to continue to earn $ for the Os (or himself) from the Nats TV deal.

[Frobby]

Okay so this article which says MASN can't afford the rights fee increases means all the other ones are invalid? Just wanted to make sure I got the logic by your discounting of my opinion.

I'll just say I'm quite confident MASN can handle the rights fee increases and respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.

I'm not saying this article has it right. But where are the articles that say MASN's profits are relevant? Your premise (and/or Tony's) has been that the Nats wouldn't be asking for a sum that would render MASN unprofitable because they'd know they wouldn't get it, hence their demand was "proof" of how profitable MASN was. My position is that the Nats' demands aren't "proof" of anything except that they want to get the most they can out of this and are making a very high demand. I don't know how profitable MASN is, I don't know if MASN's profitability is even relevant to the contractual issue that is being arbitrated, and I have no idea what the contractual criteria for setting the rights fees are. And I've never suggested that I did.

[TonySoprano]

I'm not saying this article has it right. But where are the articles that say MASN's profits are relevant? Your premise (and/or Tony's) has been that the Nats wouldn't be asking for a sum that would render MASN unprofitable because they'd know they wouldn't get it, hence their demand was "proof" of how profitable MASN was. My position is that the Nats' demands aren't "proof" of anything except that they want to get the most they can out of this and are making a very high demand. I don't know how profitable MASN is, I don't know if MASN's profitability is even relevant to the contractual issue that is being arbitrated, and I have no idea what the contractual criteria for setting the rights fees are. And I've never suggested that I did.

My position has nothing to do with the Nats' demands; it has to do with what they will actually be awarded.

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 )

[DrungoHazewood]

The Nats are only asking for a fair market deal and they should be entitled to one.

I think it's fair that they get a deal somewhere in the neighborhood of market value. But they're not entitled to anything. Their very existence was dependent on the internal backroom dealings of a government sanctioned monopoly. The free market has little to do with Major League Baseball.

[Frobby]

The Nats are only asking for a fair market deal and they should be entitled to one.

IMO, it was always going to come to where we are today since the Nats TV rights has greater value than the Os.

The core idea was that PA would profit from the Nats TV deal to protect the value of the Os and it appears he has already profited massively from MASN the past few years.

Somehow, PA needs to figure out a way to continue to earn $ for the Os (or himself) from the Nats TV deal.

I think it's fair that they get a deal somewhere in the neighborhood of market value. But they're not entitled to anything. Their very existence was dependent on the internal backroom dealings of a government sanctioned monopoly. The free market has little to do with Major League Baseball.

To me, the Nats are "entitled" to whatever their contract says they are entitled to. No more, no less. And of course, we don't know exactly what their contract says.

[Trackmaster]

This entire situation is messed up. The Nats coming here screwed the Orioles over, and instead of PA making sure that the Orioles were compensated and protected, PA just made sure that PA was compensated and protected. I just wish that he would have gone the nuclear option, and kept their TV rights and never let them go. They would have had to leave eventually, or just decide not to come.

[Natspride]

This entire situation is messed up. The Nats coming here screwed the Orioles over, and instead of PA making sure that the Orioles were compensated and protected, PA just made sure that PA was compensated and protected. I just wish that he would have gone the nuclear option, and kept their TV rights and never let them go. They would have had to leave eventually, or just decide not to come.

Personally, I don't think the situation is "messed up" at all. But then again, as a Nats fan I don't think Angelos is entitled to the D.C. market.....or our broadcasting rights.

[Trackmaster]

Well, he already had the TV rights, and he bought the team them as part of the purchase price. I think that with the financial nature of the game, and having to compete in the AL East, it was a bad move for the area. Taking a big market team, and making one small and one medium market team. Doesn't make any sense. Plus, Washington already had 3 major league sports teams (well not sure if you can call the Redskins and Wizards major league teams), all that we have is the Ravens and Orioles.