Camden Depot: Two New Developments In MASN Dispute

[olehippi]

And why would I pay to see teams in other markets? The whole point of having it is lost when you can't see the team you want to the most. I guess eventually enough people will drop cable and baseball will be forced to let you buy the rights to see every team.

I suspect a great many MLB-TV subscribers are fans who have relocated to parts of the country away from their favorite team. I have several friends who grew up rooting for west coast teams - baseball and football - and they subscribe to MLB-TV and DirecTV NFL package. If they want to watch them, they have to pay the price.

[geschinger]

The interesting thing to me is the projected revenue growth under any scenario. Under the RSDC case, the Orioles (and Nats) would get $63 mm in rights fees in 2015, but that would grow to $141 mm by 2032.

I think they are being highly optimistic assuming anywhere near that growth. I think we are in the early stages of the decline of cable television as we know it. More and more people are cutting the cord. Some sports are already being made available over the top. The days of every household that wants TV being forced to pay for RSN's whether they care about sports / baseball or not is not going to last forever and when it does end I suspect the revenue situation in baseball is going to look dramatically different than now. In that regard Angelos cashing out of MASN in the near future may be the smart play.

[weams]

I think they are being highly optimistic assuming anywhere near that growth. I think we are in the early stages of the decline of cable television as we know it. More and more people are cutting the cord. Some sports are already being made available over the top. The days of every household that wants TV being forced to pay for RSN's whether they care about sports / baseball or not is not going to last forever and when it does end I suspect the revenue situation in baseball is going to look dramatically different than now. In that regard Angelos cashing out of MASN in the near future may be the smart play.

I agree. Not for a fair deal though. For an astronomically unfair deal. One that compensates for the lose of half their market in perpetuity.

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree. Not for a fair deal though. For an astronomically unfair deal. One that compensates for the lose of half their market in perpetuity.

Of course then we get back to the fairness of a team from Baltimore getting to claim everything from North Carolina up past the PA line as "their market" in perpetuity. The Senators had fair claim over all that territory until '54, then they allowed the O's to come in. The O's only had a monopoly on the area from '72-on, so what... 35 years? Seems strange to me (and I know we disagree) that the O's should get full claim over that entire area forever when they only had it as their own for 30-some years, and that due to the Senators not putting up a stink when the O's came in. I know, I know... they both signed up to this MASN deal. But if you're going to talk "fair" and "unfair" at some point you have to look at Washington baseball fans and say "ok, is it really fair that we get your market forever because of a set of unusual circumstances and a deal from 2004?"

[weams]

Of course then we get back to the fairness of a team from Baltimore getting to claim everything from North Carolina up past the PA line as "their market" in perpetuity. The Senators had fair claim over all that territory until '54, then they allowed the O's to come in. The O's only had a monopoly on the area from '72-on, so what... 35 years? Seems strange to me (and I know we disagree) that the O's should get full claim over that entire area forever when they only had it as their own for 30-some years, and that due to the Senators not putting up a stink when the O's came in. I know, I know... they both signed up to this MASN deal. But if you're going to talk "fair" and "unfair" at some point you have to look at Washington baseball fans and say "ok, is it really fair that we get your market forever because of a set of unusual circumstances and a deal from 2004?"

I respect your opinion. As you know.

[tntoriole]

MLBTV. Roku.

Unless you live in a region that Potter retains the rights, but the cable company does not carry MASN. Then MLBTV and Roku are useless.

[mdbdotcom]

Of course then we get back to the fairness of a team from Baltimore getting to claim everything from North Carolina up past the PA line as "their market" in perpetuity. The Senators had fair claim over all that territory until '54, then they allowed the O's to come in. The O's only had a monopoly on the area from '72-on, so what... 35 years? Seems strange to me (and I know we disagree) that the O's should get full claim over that entire area forever when they only had it as their own for 30-some years, and that due to the Senators not putting up a stink when the O's came in. I know, I know... they both signed up to this MASN deal. But if you're going to talk "fair" and "unfair" at some point you have to look at Washington baseball fans and say "ok, is it really fair that we get your market forever because of a set of unusual circumstances and a deal from 2004?"

These markets were very different in 1954. Neither Baltimore nor Washington had a beltway. They weren't connected by I-95. Their suburbs did not extend far beyond their city boundaries. There was no cable TV, only rabbit ears and roof-mounted antennae, so receiving a TV signal from the other city was not always easy or pretty. At the time, law dictated a broadcaster could own only one radio or TV station within a given market, but broadcasters who owned radio stations in DC could also own one in Rockville because the FCC considered it a separate market. And besides all of these differences, the Browns purchased the right to come to Baltimore by providing a beer sponsor for the Senators.

How can you equate what was fair then to what is fair now? Would it be fair for the Orioles to enable the Gnats to make so much money that they become the dominant franchise in the area by being able to afford to spend like the Red Sox?

The current situation may not be ideal, but any agreement must help level the playing field for the Orioles. They can't afford to be swallowed up by the potential behemoth down the road, so they must fight to be protected, in perpetuity if necessary.

[tntoriole]

What needs to happen is the FCC needs to require any cable or telecommunications company to allow consumer choice of channels without blackout.

[SeaBird]

Then fix the ridiculous blackout rules.

Yeah, and in the meantime, just steal what you want. That'll teach them.

[Hallas]

Yeah, and in the meantime, just steal what you want. That'll teach them.

It's not illegal to watch stolen programming. It's only illegal to download it, reproduce it, or to serve it.

[DrungoHazewood]

How can you equate what was fair then to what is fair now?

The current situation may not be ideal, but any agreement must help level the playing field for the Orioles. They can't afford to be swallowed up by the potential behemoth down the road, so they must fight to be protected, in perpetuity if necessary.

How can you equate what's fair now to what's fair in 2025 or 2050? When you say "in perpetuity" you're saying that the O's should own a majority stake in the Nats' TV rights in 2050 because the Senators left in 1971 and the O's claimed everything that was left behind.

Why don't the Mets have to pay the Yanks for stealing their territory? Should the Braves be subsidized by the Marlins and Rays for stealing what was theirs?

It's all probably irrelevant in the long term, anyway, when TV goes a la carte, the cable bubble bursts, and RSNs see their model (we get $4 a month from people who don't know 2nd base from the 50 yard line!) collapses.

[hoosiers]

How can you equate what was fair then to what is fair now? Would it be fair for the Orioles to enable the Gnats to make so much money that they become the dominant franchise in the area by being able to afford to spend like the Red Sox?

The current situation may not be ideal, but any agreement must help level the playing field for the Orioles. They can't afford to be swallowed up by the potential behemoth down the road, so they must fight to be protected, in perpetuity if necessary.

What do you think is "fair"? The concern when the Nats moved to town was that they would ruin our competitiveness by sapping fans and siphoning off revenues to make the franchise a bottom five revenue franchise.

None of that has happened. Orioles ownership, through their ownership stake in MASN, actually now owns a majority stake in a network worth nearly $1B! The value of the Orioles has increased (I believe Forbes said the Os were the second most profitable MLB franchise within the past two years). The $ being given to the Os by MLB through the national TV contract and through revenue sharing has increased dramatically (and will step up another $15M next year), and the $ that should be sent to the Os by MASN should be tens of millions of $s higher than 10 years ago.

Yet, through all of this, our ownership waited until 2012-2013 to take payroll over $100M while by most accounts our ownership is pocketing between $50M-$80M pre-tax from profits from the Orioles and MASN. If our ownership were struggling to make profits while investing appropriately in the team, the draft and the international prospect pipeline, I would understand these repeated calls for geographic protection .... but instead our ownership has not invested appropriately in the franchise relative to other owners while reaping enormous profits. What additional protection does our ownership need in your mind?

[Frobby]

What do you think is "fair"? The concern when the Nats moved to town was that they would ruin our competitiveness by sapping fans and siphoning off revenues to make the franchise a bottom five revenue franchise.

None of that has happened. Orioles ownership, through their ownership stake in MASN, actually now owns a majority stake in a network worth nearly $1B! The value of the Orioles has increased (I believe Forbes said the Os were the second most profitable MLB franchise within the past two years). The $ being given to the Os by MLB through the national TV contract and through revenue sharing has increased dramatically (and will step up another $15M next year), and the $ that should be sent to the Os by MASN should be tens of millions of $s higher than 10 years ago.

Yet, through all of this, our ownership waited until 2012-2013 to take payroll over $100M while by most accounts our ownership is pocketing between $50M-$80M pre-tax from profits from the Orioles and MASN. If our ownership were struggling to make profits while investing appropriately in the team, the draft and the international prospect pipeline, I would understand these repeated calls for geographic protection .... but instead our ownership has not invested appropriately in the franchise relative to other owners while reaping enormous profits. What additional protection does our ownership need in your mind?

I'm not necessarily defending the Orioles, but there are times to spend and times not to spend. The Cubs and Mets are examples of teams not spending at capacity now because they needed to rebuild first. I expect the Cubs to ramp up quickly now that they've developed a core.

The O's took a long time to build a core worth augmenting. There were many years there where adding a couple of big free agents wouldn't have made us contenders

[MurphDogg]

It's not illegal to watch stolen programming. It's only illegal to download it, reproduce it, or to serve it.

Citation needed.

[Redskins Rick]

Citation needed.

I agree, and that's why the cable companies send guys into our neighborhood and somehow they can walk down the sidewalk with a meter in their hand, look at the gauge and move to the next house.