Jump to content

HHP: MASN/Nats/Orioles case (Inside the Courtroom)

Frobby

By Frobby
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Barnfather Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Barnfather

Posted
Posted

As a Brit, I find all this moving of franchises to be a bit alien. Over here, clubs are so intertwined with the locality and the community that people look on the moving of teams with absolute horror. One football club in recent times made a move from London to a city 50 miles north and there was absolute outrage. Even now, years later some fans refuse to go to games there due to the 'way they treated the fans' when moving.

I suppose thats the side effect of not having relegation/promotion in baseball. If you had that, someone wanting to establish a team in a new city would have to start at the bottom (A in this case)of the pyramid and work their way up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
  • Author
Posted
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-15/sports/bs-sp-schmuck-orioles-column-1216-20121215_1_masn-profits-washington-nationals-rights-fees

It appears (at least as of this late 2012 article) that they are in a reset period, but the formula was predetermined from the start. Now the Nationals feel that the formula isn't fair...

I have seen that article before, but since it is only quoting the Orioles' lawyer, Alan Rifkin, I don't assume that his version of what the contract terms say is necessarily complete or fully accurate. Nobody has ever allowed the media to actually see the contract and report what it says, so it's pretty hard to comment on the merits of the dispute. All I can really say is that if the language was really that clear, I don't see any reason why it would have taken 2.5 years to resolve the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Rick Hangout Grand Counsel

Redskins Rick

Posted
Posted
Yeah. Well it is not the way pro sports teams do business. And certainly not the way the Expos got to Washington. It's not the way the leagues have been set up.

The whole thing was setup wrong from the get-go.

Look at it this way.

What if the Ravens were thrown into the Redskins sport's channel, and then the NFL paid "bribe" money to Snyder so he would vote okay to the Ravens coming into "his" territory.

You would be 100% against it.

I think your being an Oriole fan and hating the Nationals have clouded your opinion of this situation.

I am not a Nationals fan, but I have always felt that MLB paid too much to Angelos. That is just an opinion, but it is my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BohKnowsBmore Hangout Grand Counsel

BohKnowsBmore

Posted
Posted

Anyone think that seligs insinuation that the 2016 AS game could be in Baltimore has something to do with this negotiation? Like, of it doesn't happen he'll say peter Angelos was too stubborn and difficult to work with, doesn't want to do what's in the best interest of Baltimore, hates puppies, etc.?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nigel Tufnel Perennial All-Star

Nigel Tufnel

Posted
Posted

Am I wrong in thinking that this is to some extent a temporary problem? Here's what I think I know:

1) Teams have to put 34% of their RSN rights fees into the revenue sharing pool

2) The contract says the O's have to receive the same rights fees as the Nats

3) The rights fees are paid by MASN

4) The Nats own 15% of MASN in 2014, and in 2032 will own 33%

I'm not positive about the 15%, but that's what Kilgore's article says, so I'm going with it (even though it also says that the Nats top out at 30% ownership, which I'm pretty sure is wrong).

Anyway, let's look at 2014. For every $10 million the Nats collect in rights fees, they need to put $3.4 million into revenue sharing, leaving them with $6.6 million. At the same time, for every $10 million MASN pays in rights fees to the Nats, they also have to pay $10 million to the O's. So MASN's revenues are reduced by $20 million, and the Nats have to pay 15% of that, or $3 million. So in 2014, for every $10 million paid to the Nats in rights fees, they actually collect $6.6 million - $3 million = $3.6 million.

But in 2032 and beyond, the Nats will own 33% of MASN. So, assuming everything else in the above example stays the same, the Nats would collect the same $6.6 million in rights fees, but have their revenues reduced by 33% x $20 million = $6.6 million. These two numbers net to $0.

I guess there could be some tax adjustment to MASN's 15% or 33% - maybe it's tax deductible as a business expense or something, but it seems like this problem mostly goes away in the next 15-20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malkusm Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

malkusm

Posted
Posted
I suppose thats the side effect of not having relegation/promotion in baseball. If you had that, someone wanting to establish a team in a new city would have to start at the bottom (A in this case)of the pyramid and work their way up.

As an American, I have ALWAYS wanted a league here to adopt the promotion/relegation system. Definitely keeps the season interesting for teams that are not as strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nigel Tufnel Perennial All-Star

Nigel Tufnel

Posted
Posted
The whole thing was setup wrong from the get-go.

Look at it this way.

What if the Ravens were thrown into the Redskins sport's channel, and then the NFL paid "bribe" money to Snyder so he would vote okay to the Ravens coming into "his" territory.

You would be 100% against it.

I think your being an Oriole fan and hating the Nationals have clouded your opinion of this situation.

I am not a Nationals fan, but I have always felt that MLB paid too much to Angelos. That is just an opinion, but it is my opinion.

Apples and oranges, since there's no local TV money in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Am I wrong in thinking that this is to some extent a temporary problem? Here's what I think I know:

1) Teams have to put 34% of their RSN rights fees into the revenue sharing pool

2) The contract says the O's have to receive the same rights fees as the Nats

3) The rights fees are paid by MASN

4) The Nats own 15% of MASN in 2014, and in 2032 will own 33%

I'm not positive about the 15%, but that's what Kilgore's article says, so I'm going with it (even though it also says that the Nats top out at 30% ownership, which I'm pretty sure is wrong).

Anyway, let's look at 2014. For every $10 million the Nats collect in rights fees, they need to put $3.4 million into revenue sharing, leaving them with $6.6 million. At the same time, for every $10 million MASN pays in rights fees to the Nats, they also have to pay $10 million to the O's. So MASN's revenues are reduced by $20 million, and the Nats have to pay 15% of that, or $3 million. So in 2014, for every $10 million paid to the Nats in rights fees, they actually collect $6.6 million - $3 million = $3.6 million.

But in 2032 and beyond, the Nats will own 33% of MASN. So, assuming everything else in the above example stays the same, the Nats would collect the same $6.6 million in rights fees, but have their revenues reduced by 33% x $20 million = $6.6 million. These two numbers net to $0.

I guess there could be some tax adjustment to MASN's 15% or 33% - maybe it's tax deductible as a business expense or something, but it seems like this problem mostly goes away in the next 15-20 years.

1. I agree that Kilgore's numbers probably aren't quite right. The cap on Nats' ownership is 33%, not 30%, and since it started at 10% and increases by 1% each year, it is a few points higher than 15% right now, I believe.

2. I don't think the rights fees payments can ever be a wash. At the end of the day, the Orioles will always own more of MASN, but each team gets equal rights fees, so the rights fees always will come more out of the pockets of the Orioles than the Nats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
You are true about TV Money.

But, I was trying to point out, his opinion of this is being clouded by his fandom of the team.

Actually not. I have strong feelings on this. Absolute not based in fairness and love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nigel Tufnel Perennial All-Star

Nigel Tufnel

Posted
Posted
2. I don't think the rights fees payments can ever be a wash. At the end of the day, the Orioles will always own more of MASN, but each team gets equal rights fees, so the rights fees always will come more out of the pockets of the Orioles than the Nats.

Right, the Nats will always collect more in rights fees than what their share of MASN will need to pay to the O's and Nats for those rights. But they also need to pay 34% of what they collect in rights fees to MLB for revenue sharing (at least that's what I've seen reported). So I think this more or less nets to $0 once the Nats are at 33%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Bemorewins
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Bemorewins · Posted

      I agree with the part about Elias. He needs to operate with a little more humility (regarding his bullpen approach) and pivot in the offense regarding how he puts a pen together. He needs to get away from the arrogant thinking in believing that we are always "the smartest guys in the room" and can fix other teams junk/unwanted parts. That is fine to do some time (regardless of how much you spend). But you can't construct an entire pen made of castoffs and almost no guys with elite/power/strikeout stuff. Yes it worked great with Felix, Perez/Lopez in 22', Cano in 23'. But the problem is that we are in '24. And some of those lightening in the bottle guys have reverted back to what their talent says that they are - mediocre. We have a pen full of decent/league average/mediocre arms. That's not what you really want heading into October.
    • e16bball
      DH - O'Hearn v. Kjerstad

      By e16bball · Posted

      Also, since there’s another interesting discussion going on here, I think it’s time for Hyde to have an uncomfortable conversation with Adley. I hate everything I’m about to say, because Adley is my favorite Oriole. But we have to acknowledge where we are.  Over the last few months, the only sensible approach with Adley — other than the IL, which apparently he hasn’t been eligible for — has been to keep penciling him into the lineup almost everyday and hoping he figures it out. He has a track record of consistent lifelong excellence, so it’s felt like just a matter of time before he busts the slump and rights the ship.  But he hasn’t. Adley’s line over the last 3 months, almost half a season now, is so bad that it requires a double check to be sure it’s right: .186 / .274 / .278 / .552. A 61 wRC+. And -0.2 fWAR. He has been a below replacement player for 3 months now. He has been the 3rd-worst qualified hitter in baseball over that span, and the 7th-worst overall qualified player. The “qualified” part does make it a little misleading — most of the guys who’ve been this bad have long since been benched. I think you have to consider McCann, at least in Burnes’s starts. He’s been hitting a bit (114 wRC+ since the ASB), and even if he wasn’t on a bit of a heater, his normal baseline is still better than a .552 OPS. If you do continue to play him full-time, you just can’t treat him like he’s *Adley* anymore. You have to treat him like the bad backup catcher he’s been. He has to hit at the bottom of the order. The very bottom. There’s really no reasoned basis upon which you could want to have him get more ABs than guys like Mullins or Urias right now. And you have to PH for him liberally — whichever of Kjerstad/O’Hearn doesn’t start should be looking at Adley’s slot as their most likely opportunity.  As I said, I love Adley. It’s been brutal watching him. But there are 25 other guys on the team who deserve the best shot to win a ring. And that means you can’t just keep stubbornly handing all the ABs to a guy who is desperately lost, on the blind hope that he’ll suddenly find it. 
    • Fiver6565
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Fiver6565 · Posted

      I didn’t post it in the game thread no, but I’m also not looking for credit. I thought it was a bad move at the time to remove Burnes in the first place, and choosing Cano at that point after he’d been bombed by those exact hitters, felt odd and off to me. The only real defense I could come up with was who if not Cano?  But taking Burnes out is essentially admitting that winning that night wasnt your top priority anyway, so why not also rest Cano, who you absolutely need in the playoffs and has pitched a lot?  I just didn’t get it in real time, and I still don’t. 
    • Tony-OH
      9/26: A Weak Effort In New York

      By Tony-OH · Posted

      I was at a meeting and came out to the Orioles down 1-0. I looked away for what seemed like a minute and it was 5-0, then 7-0. Do we know why Burnes was lifted after just 69 pitches after 5 innings? Was he hurt? Do we know why Cano was brought into the game in the 6th (Have to imagine his adrenaline may not have been as flowing at that stage of the game)?  Obviously the bullpen was pretty horrific last night, but could some of this be because Hyde was using guys who typically are late in game relievers in the 6th inning?  
    • cboemmeljr
      9/26: A Weak Effort In New York

      By cboemmeljr · Posted

      GAME RECAP
    • OriolesUpAndDowns
      Is there a 5th O's #1 Prospect?

      By OriolesUpAndDowns · Posted

      Good point on the age.  I think it would have to be someone like Nate George from this year's draft just blowing up next year. The story would be how everyone missed on him because he played in a cold weather state.    
    • Moshagge3
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Moshagge3 · Posted

      First, Schmidt is having a better year than Cole. Second, the O's teed off Ragans and Lugo last time they faced them.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...