New Summary of Os Nats MASN TV Rights

[hoosiers]

I learned from this thread. That is why. I suspect the books are honest. Other than that, I have no idea.

I have to believe the books are honest too.

But $146M in revenue is really tough to wrap one's head around. This is a network that appears to have operating costs of $59M, should be paying out $150M in rights fees and is set up to generate healthy profits. Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture.

[weams]

I have to believe the books are honest too.

But $146M in revenue is really tough to wrap one's head around. This is a network that appears to have operating costs of $59M, should be paying out $150M in rights fees and is set up to generate healthy profits. Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture.

Let me know when you figure it out. I can't.

[Can_of_corn]

I have to believe the books are honest too.

But $146M in revenue is really tough to wrap one's head around. This is a network that appears to have operating costs of $59M, should be paying out $150M in rights fees and is set up to generate healthy profits. Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture.

Can someone with knowledge of the business chime in on the operating costs?

59 million annually for a network that has very little programing other then airing baseball games seems high to me.

[weams]

Can someone with knowledge of the business chime in on the operating costs?

59 million annually for a network that has very little programing other then airing baseball games seems high to me.

Well until last season only MASN, Kidspeace, and Luna had any advertising on the network.

[Can_of_corn]

Well until last season only MASN, Kisdspeace, and Luna had any advertising on the network.

Advertising has nothing to do with operating costs. Unless you think the lack of advertisers forced MASN to shoot more commercials to up the variety.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Can someone with knowledge of the business chime in on the operating costs?

59 million annually for a network that has very little programing other then airing baseball games seems high to me.

They probably have to pay for any programming that they don't produce, although you wouldn't think it would be all that expensive. I guess there's payroll, which is inflated by having to produce two games, equipment, their electric bill is probably staggering... still, $59 million seems high.

[BrunoCherrytown]

Can someone with knowledge of the business chime in on the operating costs?

59 million annually for a network that has very little programing other then airing baseball games seems high to me.

Rick Dempsey has a $35 million a year salary.

[mdbdotcom]

Here is a pretty interesting debate on the subject between one guy taking the Baltimore side and another taking the Washington side.

The stakes are very high for both teams, and it's clear the Nationals want to make the deal unworkable for the O's, while Angelos wants it to stay the same. MLB is supposed to be arbitrate, but they aren't really a neutral party because they get 34% of all local TV rights fees, but nothing from profits. They want the deal to go away, which is why they tried to bring in Fox or someone else to buy the rights. But Angelos wouldn't go for it. He negotiated a deal that is way better than fair, and that's what he expects to make.

The most fascinating part of the argument for me was when the DC guy pointed out that the $2.28 per home that MASN gets from each carrier is about average for each MLB team, but with MASN it's for two teams. The O's screwed themselves (but not as much as they're screwing the Nationals).

[weams]

Advertising has nothing to do with operating costs. Unless you think the lack of advertisers forced MASN to shoot more commercials to up the variety.

Or maybe there was a Brad Bergesen settlement that we are unaware of.

[weams]

Rick Dempsey has a $35 million a year salary.

I knew you would know.

[weams]

Here is a pretty interesting debate on the subject between one guy taking the Baltimore side and another taking the Washington side.

The stakes are very high for both teams, and it's clear the Nationals want to make the deal unworkable for the O's, while Angelos wants it to stay the same. MLB is supposed to be arbitrate, but they aren't really a neutral party because they get 34% of all local TV rights fees, but nothing from profits. They want the deal to go away, which is why they tried to bring in Fox or someone else to buy the rights. But Angelos wouldn't go for it. He negotiated a deal that is way better than fair, and that's what he expects to make.

The most fascinating part of the argument for me was when the DC guy pointed out that the $2.28 per home that MASN gets from each carrier is about average for each MLB team, but with MASN it's for two teams. The O's screwed themselves (but not as much as they're screwing the Nationals).

Yeah. Well the guys certainly each have their agenda there. I would like to see the debate redone with each party taking the opposing side.

[hoosiers]

The most fascinating part of the argument for me was when the DC guy pointed out that the $2.28 per home that MASN gets from each carrier is about average for each MLB team, but with MASN it's for two teams. The O's screwed themselves (but not as much as they're screwing the Nationals).

If true, this would explain the crux of the problem. MASN may have grossly under-priced its product. This hurts everyone involved - MASN, Os, Nats, but is a benefit to DC/Bmore area TV consumers. If the product were priced competitively, then the network would indeed have been making silly $ for the past few years - probably well above my estimate in the OP.

Certainly, if MASN has mis-priced the product, the Lerners would have a legitimate gripe (it's not their fault MASN is offered too cheap and their rights fees are kept low as a result).

[Can_of_corn]

If true, this would explain the crux of the problem. MASN may have grossly under-priced its product. This hurts everyone involved - MASN, Os, Nats, but is a benefit to DC/Bmore area TV consumers. If the product were priced competitively, then the network would indeed have been making silly $ for the past few years - probably well above my estimate in the OP.

Certainly, if MASN has mis-priced the product, the Lerners would have a legitimate gripe (it's not their fault MASN is offered too cheap and their rights fees are kept low as a result).

Considering the fact that consumers are forced to buy MASN I wonder how much they could get away bleeding them? If I wasn't a baseball fan I would be mildly annoyed at 2.28 a month. If it were to suddenly jump to 4-5 bucks a month I would be on the phone calling folks and raising a ruckus.

[eddie83]

Considering the fact that consumers are forced to buy MASN I wonder how much they could get away bleeding them? If I wasn't a baseball fan I would be mildly annoyed at 2.28 a month. If it were to suddenly jump to 4-5 bucks a month I would be on the phone calling folks and raising a ruckus.

That is why MASN wants to be on a basic package, so everyone pays for it. You wouldn't know how much of your bill goes towards an individual channel.

I don't know how these contracts work. How long is MASN locked in at the current price for. Considering the ratings for both teams now, they certainly have the leverage to increase the price to the providers.

[mdbdotcom]

Considering the fact that consumers are forced to buy MASN I wonder how much they could get away bleeding them? If I wasn't a baseball fan I would be mildly annoyed at 2.28 a month. If it were to suddenly jump to 4-5 bucks a month I would be on the phone calling folks and raising a ruckus.

In major markets with two teams (New York, Chicago, LA), the two teams are on different networks. MASN does not provide two networks, just two teams on one network that uses other channels for their second feed on an availability basis.