Fangraphs piece with every local TV deal listed

[Can_of_corn]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/

Great list of all the deals. MASN pays the O's/Nats less then half what the other RSNs pay.

The O's are behind teams like the Reds and Diamondbacks in yearly payments.

Shocked the Cardinals don't have a better TV deal.

[CA-ORIOLE]

So the Nats may get 100 mil and we'll stay at 29?

[CA-ORIOLE]

You should put this in the O's section. Clearly O's related and this shouldn't be missed.

[Can_of_corn]

So the Nats may get 100 mil and we'll stay at 29?

If I recall correctly MASN has to match any increase given to one team. If the Nats get 100 mil the O's should get 100 Mil.

You should put this in the O's section. Clearly O's related and this shouldn't be missed.

But then I can't get all sanctimonious when someone else puts stuff in the wrong forum.

I figure anyone really interested in the numbers looks in more then just the Orioles talk forum.

[srock]

We don't know how accurate these numbers are. It says right in the article they are just piecing together public information. I'm not putting much stock in $29 million a year. It could be anything. The Orioles own 87%, so if they want more money, they can get it. $29 million might just be the amount they wanted thus far.

It's kind of like moving money from your saving to your checking account, more complicated yes, but the accounting in this situation obfuscates the truth.

[Can_of_corn]

We don't know how accurate these numbers are. It says right in the article they are just piecing together public information. I'm not putting much stock in $29 million a year. It could be anything. The Orioles own 87%, so if they want more money, they can get it. $29 million might just be the amount they wanted thus far.

It's kind of like moving money from your saving to your checking account, more complicated yes, but the accounting in this situation obfuscates the truth.

I think it is more correct to say the ownership of the Orioles owns 87%.

[Frobby]

I think it is more correct to say the ownership of the Orioles owns 87%.

I believe this to be correct. You see a lot of articles that report that "the Orioles" or "Angelos" own 87% of MASN. In reality, I believe the same group of people who own the Orioles (not just Angelos) also own the majority interest in MASN. I got this from reading an FCC Opinion that related to MASN's broadcast rights, and the Opinion was quoting an affidavit submitted from MASN. So, that's more reliable than a newspaper account.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I believe this to be correct. You see a lot of articles that report that "the Orioles" or "Angelos" own 87% of MASN. In reality, I believe the same group of people who own the Orioles (not just Angelos) also own the majority interest in MASN. I got this from reading an FCC Opinion that related to MASN's broadcast rights, and the Opinion was quoting an affidavit submitted from MASN. So, that's more reliable than a newspaper account.

Do you know what percentage of ownership interest PA has in the Orioles and in MASN? (i.e. his share of the 87% which will eventually become 67% I guess).

[skanar]

Yeah, it's apples-to-oranges to compare the O's payments from MASN to the standard team TV contract. Angelos & co. are negotiating with themselves, literally, over that payment.

[sangar]

We don't know how accurate these numbers are. It says right in the article they are just piecing together public information.

I believe this to be correct. You see a lot of articles that report that "the Orioles" or "Angelos" own 87% of MASN. In reality, I believe the same group of people who own the Orioles (not just Angelos) also own the majority interest in MASN. I got this from reading an FCC Opinion that related to MASN's broadcast rights, and the Opinion was quoting an affidavit submitted from MASN. So, that's more reliable than a newspaper account.

This has been my understanding for some time. If this obvious oversight is an example of their research then I think the list in general must be taken with a grain of salt.

[TradeAngelos]

Sounds like from the Wash Post article the Nats for some crazy reason think Pete has been shortchanging them in a huge way, and will continue to do so. Like he is claiming with some creative accounting that MASN is far less profitable that it really is, and using that to try to lowball them. I for one am shocked. It all sounds so familiar.

What happens if the panel agrees with them and it is shown that MASN has been raking in money hand over fist and Pete has making tons of money from this thing for the past 5 years, with an average payroll of only $76 million?

I know that is an outlandish notion, but what if?

[Can_of_corn]

Sounds like from the Wash Post article the Nats for some crazy reason think Pete has been shortchanging them in a huge way, and will continue to do so. Like he is claiming with some creative accounting that MASN is far less profitable that it really is, and using that to try to lowball them. I for one am shocked. It all sounds so familiar.

What happens if the panel agrees with them and it is shown that MASN has been raking in money hand over fist and Pete has making tons of money from this thing for the past 5 years, with an average payroll of only $76 million?

I know that is an outlandish notion, but what if?

The Nats and by extension the O's, get a larger annual payment from MASN.

Of course there is no mechanism in place to insure those increased monies lead to increased expenditures.

[Frobby]

Sounds like from the Wash Post article the Nats for some crazy reason think Pete has been shortchanging them in a huge way, and will continue to do so. Like he is claiming with some creative accounting that MASN is far less profitable that it really is, and using that to try to lowball them. I for one am shocked. It all sounds so familiar.

What happens if the panel agrees with them and it is shown that MASN has been raking in money hand over fist and Pete has making tons of money from this thing for the past 5 years, with an average payroll of only $76 million?

I know that is an outlandish notion, but what if?

The rights fees for the first five years were written into the MASN deal. And they were pretty reasonable compared to other teams back in 2007, but the market has changed a lot since then. I think there is very little doubt that the Orioles' owners (including but not limited to Angelos) made a lot of money at the Nats' expense in the last few years. Now, by the terms of the contract, the Nats are entitled to "reset" the rights fees for the next five years, and there's no doubt that this won't be as profitable for the Orioles' owners in the next five years.

[srock]

I think it is more correct to say the ownership of the Orioles owns 87%.

Fair enough.

Point still applies, someone is able to move money between MASN and the Orioles and there own checking accounts in amounts they see fit and I doubt they have to report any of this information.

I would point out the actual TV deals in the article do give a nice idea of how much money the Orioles should have available if they wanted to spend.

[Can_of_corn]

Fair enough.

Point still applies, someone is able to move money between MASN and the Orioles and there own checking accounts in amounts they see fit and I doubt they have to report any of this information.

I would point out the actual TV deals in the article do give a nice idea of how much money the Orioles should have available if they wanted to spend.

As does the fact that the Nationals are asking for 100 million annually.