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

[Natspride]

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.

Imo, it doesn't hurt the area at all...unless by "area" you mean Baltimore. Let's be honest, D.C and Bmore are separate markets....you know it and I know it.

As long as the O's put a winning product out there, they'll be fine.

[Trackmaster]

Not exactly, it's pretty divided in the suburbs in between. You'd be surprised how many Redskins fans you get in what's pretty close to Baltimore. Nationals are a different story though. I'm surprised at how many Orioles fans I see even getting pretty close to Washington.

But that being said, there is an argument for the National's presence helping Oriole's fans. If PA wanted to, he could just pocket all the revenue if he saw that there was no competitor, and people would come out whether they won or lost. If he sees that futility will make his fan base dissapear, he needs to spend more to stay competitive. And, the Nationals have pushed us into the welfare bracket of the MLB. No way we'd be getting the revenue sharing dollars with the VA, DC, and MD markets. But that being said, I'd rather us stand on our own two feet if we could. Nobody likes surviving on welfare.

[Frobby]

According to Boswell, the decision has been delayed until July 1. Sounds like Angelos might be dusting off the negotiation tactics that worked so well with Mussina and Palmeiro.

Well, July 1 has come and gone now. Still waiting for the MLB committee to render its opinion on the Nats' rights fees. Zzzzzz......

[weams]

Well, July 1 has come and gone now. Still waiting for the MLB committee to render its opinion on the Nats' rights fees. Zzzzzz......

[Nigel Tufnel]

Here's an update from the Sun. I hadn't heard that the contract called for the fees to be set based on a specific formula developed by a single consulting firm.

The Nationals received $29 million in rights fees in 2011, plus more than $6 million for their equity stake in MASN. Washington holds 13 percent of MASN, and its share will climb by one percent a year up to 33 percent.

The Nationals are seeking a rights fees increase up to a reported $120 million annually.

MASN says Washington's amount should increase by far less — to more than $34 million in the first year.

MASN points to language in the 2005 agreement under which the former Montreal Expos relocated to Washington. The agreement says the rights fees — which are to be equal for both clubs — should be reset every five years using a formula developed by Bortz Media & Sports Group, a Colorado consulting firm. The formula takes into account network revenues, expenses, ratings and other considerations.

Even though the Nationals arrived in 2005, it was not until 2007 that MASN had rights for all Nationals and Orioles games except for those televised nationally. That's why 2012 — five years later — became the first year to "reset" the rights fees.

Using Bortz's formula, the Nationals would get a rights fee in excess of $34 million in the first year, plus more than $7 million in equity distributions, according to a source familiar with the figures. The source, who declined to be named while the matter is pending, said the rights fee would gradually increase to about $46 million — plus almost $12 million in profits distributions — in the fifth year.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bs-sp-orioles-masn-0714-20120713,0,7131842.story

[Can_of_corn]

If 13% is worth 6 million then 87% is worth $40,153,846. That is the equity stake only, who knows what chicanery is going on with the broadcast fees.

[Frobby]

Here's an update from the Sun. I hadn't heard that the contract called for the fees to be set based on a specific formula developed by a single consulting firm.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bs-sp-orioles-masn-0714-20120713,0,7131842.story

Very interesting. I suspect the applicabity of this formula is not as cut and dried as the Orioles are saying, or this process wouldn't be taking so long.

In addition to the revelation about this formula, I find it interesting that the Nats' 13% stake yields them about $6mm in equity profits. Doesn't that imply that the Orioles' share of equity profits is around $40mm? That is a lot, but not nearly as huge as some people were inferring from the rights fees demands that the Nats were making. (By the way, it is really the two teams' owners, not the teams themselves, that have the equity stakes in MASN.)

[Frobby]

If 13% is worth 6 million then 87% is worth $40,153,846. That is the equity stake only, who knows what chicanery is going on with the broadcast fees.

I have been thinking about this some more since writing my post similar to yours. Although the article refers to an "equity stake" of $6 mm, elsewhere it says that the Nats would get an "equity distribution" of $7 mm next year and that "profits distributions" eventually would go to $12 mm. I assume that "equity stake" and "equity distribution" and "profit distribution" are all being used synonymously here, and that they are talking about the share of the profits that is actually paid out by MASN to its owners. I'd just note that corporations often distribute only a portion of their profits, and retain the rest to finance expansion plans, etc . So, it would appear the Orioles owners received a distribution of $40 mm last year and the. Nats' owners received $6 mm, but that does not necessarily imply that MASN's profits were only $46 mm, as MASN may have retained some additional profit.

[TonySoprano]

If the Orioles' share was $40 million or more, where is the additional investment in the team that Angelos promised nearly six years ago? What will it take for someone in the media to ask him that damn question?

[Frobby]

If the Orioles' share was $40 million or more, where is the additional investment in the team that Angelos promised nearly six years ago? What will it take for someone in the media to ask him that damn question?

Well, he'd actually have to speak to the press for that to happen.

[TradeAngelos]

If the Orioles' share was $40 million or more, where is the additional investment in the team that Angelos promised nearly six years ago? What will it take for someone in the media to ask him that damn question?

It is funny a certain media person most of this board looks at as "the devil" pegged the number at about $50 million a year, a loooong time ago before any of these numbers started coming out. Looks like he was pretty darn close, much to the chagrin of the apologists.

Looks like Angelos has made himself a cool 1/4 BILLION richer while the team pinched pennies the last 6 years "struggling" to compete financially in the AL East.

[Nigel Tufnel]

It is funny a certain media person most of this board looks at as "the devil" pegged the number at about $50 million a year, a loooong time ago before any of these numbers started coming out. Looks like he was pretty darn close, much to the chagrin of the apologists.

Looks like Angelos has made himself a cool 1/4 BILLION richer while the team pinched pennies the last 6 years "struggling" to compete financially in the AL East.

There are no apologists.

[Fan4Life]

It is funny a certain media person most of this board looks at as "the devil" pegged the number at about $50 million a year, a loooong time ago before any of these numbers started coming out. Looks like he was pretty darn close, much to the chagrin of the apologists.

Looks like Angelos has made himself a cool 1/4 BILLION richer while the team pinched pennies the last 6 years "struggling" to compete financially in the AL East.

And yet the list of players we passed and we thought we should have signed is likely less than 3 and I can only think of one. The issue the last 3 years is under performance by players which has little to do with PA. Before AM came onboard, I'll grant you all the PA bashing you want.

[Can_of_corn]

And yet the list of players we passed and we thought we should have signed is likely less than 3 and I can only think of one. The issue the last 3 years is under performance by players which has little to do with PA. Before AM came onboard, I'll grant you all the PA bashing you want.

There has been a number of international talents that this board was in favor of signing that did not happen. I have been pushing for more money to be allocated toward international talent and the draft instead of FA players and I am not the only one.

[TradeAngelos]

And yet the list of players we passed and we thought we should have signed is likely less than 3 and I can only think of one. The issue the last 3 years is under performance by players which has little to do with PA. Before AM came onboard, I'll grant you all the PA bashing you want.

And how many good players would it take to make this a legitimate contending team? Probably those 2 or 3 depending who they were, and considering whothey were.....well you get the point. There could be a contender on the field, right now, if the owner wasn't lining his pockets instead. Those extra couple pieces go a long way, especially when you have a young growing team that just needs that push in a few spots.