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

[UpstateNYfan]

I could be way off here and maybe not even to the point. DC had two modern teams that moved (failed). Congress allows MLB exemption from anti-trust laws (but some law makers want DC to have a team). So, MLB smooths the water and allows the Expos to move in. They may have given Angelos a sweetheart deal (and possibly gave the Nats owners a wink, sign now we'll work out the details in 5 years wink, wink).

[Redskins Rick]

I could be way off here and maybe not even to the point. DC had two modern teams that moved (failed). Congress allows MLB exemption from anti-trust laws (but some law makers want DC to have a team). So, MLB smooths the water and allows the Expos to move in. They may have given Angelos a sweetheart deal (and possibly gave the Nats owners a wink, sign now we'll work out the details in 5 years wink, wink).

Two modern teams that failed.

Not quite true.

They had a racist and bigoted owner that wanted out of DC and went to Minnesota.

Then, they had a very cheapskate and thin pocket owner that was only in it for the money.

Texas offered a ton of money and a sweetheart deal, after he traded away his whole starting infield for an aged over the hill drugged out pitcher.

Would you said Baltimore had an NFL and failed? No, they had an owner that slipped away in the middle of the night to a more lucrative location.

[UpstateNYfan]

I said moved (failed). Whatever the reason, racism, cheapness. Did the LA Rams fail or did Rosenbloom produce lousy teams to get approved for the move to St. Louis (like Davis)? My only point (question) is did lawmakers influence the moving a team to DC or insinuate the anti-trust laws would be looked into? If so, was the agreement signed to get that done and they would further discuss the apparent imbalanced monetary agreement in 5 years (with a wink to the Nats owners)?

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

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.

I know it's mostly a matter of happenstance, but it's always seemed ironic to me that European soccer has a very American structure, while North American sports leagues have a very European system.

We tend to think of America as the place where openness, freedom, enterprise, and up-by-your-bootstraps rule. But Europe is the place where a guy can, at least in theory, start a soccer team with a bunch of his buddies and through hard work and perserverence end up competing with the top teams in the world. While in the US you have to have a ton of cash and talk your way into an old-boys network (what is Bud Selig if not a seedy monarch?), paying off people and lining up government subsidies to succeed.

It'll never change, there's far too much history there. But it is funny.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and I think that for every $10M by which the Nats rights fees increase in 2014, the Nats collect $3.6M, MLB collects $6.8M, and the O's lose $10.4M. So you can see where Angelos has a problem with it.

You can also see how MLB giving the Nats an extra $7M in revenue sharing is actually a decent temporary solution - it's equivalent to the Nats getting an additional $20M or so in rights fees and doesn't hurt the O's / Angelos.

[TonySoprano]

I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and I think that for every $10M by which the Nats rights fees increase in 2014, the Nats collect $3.6M, MLB collects $6.8M, and the O's lose $10.4M. So you can see where Angelos has a problem with it.

You can also see how MLB giving the Nats an extra $7M in revenue sharing is actually a decent temporary solution - it's equivalent to the Nats getting an additional $20M or so in rights fees and doesn't hurt the O's / Angelos.

Every $10M that the Nats get, the Orioles would also get. What this does is lower MASN profits which would impact the O's more but also hit the Nats. I don't know what went into your "envelope" numbers, and help me understand why MLB gets a cut from this.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Every $10M that the Nats get, the Orioles would also get. What this does is lower MASN profits which would impact the O's more but also hit the Nats. I don't know what went into your "envelope" numbers, and help me understand why MLB gets a cut from this.

MLB gets 34% of each team's TV rights fees. 1/30 of the total amount is then shared among each team. That's one of the reasons why I'm calling these numbers back-of-the-envelope - I ignored the increased 1/30 share the O's would get back. So maybe they'd only lose $10.2M.

[TonySoprano]

MLB gets 34% of each team's TV rights fees. 1/30 of the total amount is then shared among each team. That's one of the reasons why I'm calling these numbers back-of-the-envelope - I ignored the increased 1/30 share the O's would get back. So maybe they'd only lose $10.2M.

I wasn't aware that MLB was getting a substantial kickback.

[hoosiers]

I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and I think that for every $10M by which the Nats rights fees increase in 2014, the Nats collect $3.6M, MLB collects $6.8M, and the O's lose $10.4M. So you can see where Angelos has a problem with it.

You can also see how MLB giving the Nats an extra $7M in revenue sharing is actually a decent temporary solution - it's equivalent to the Nats getting an additional $20M or so in rights fees and doesn't hurt the O's / Angelos.

Not sure your back-of-envelope calculations are spelled out enough for everyone, but they appear directionally correct. If MASN rights fees to the Os and Nats increased by $10M each, MASN profits would be $20M less and Os ownership would get approx. $17M (85%) less in MASN profits and the Nats ownership $3M less. Each team would then see its revenues increase by $10M, but $3.4M of each team's increased TV rights fees would be shared with MLB.

I will point out that both teams are the beneficiaries of massive increases in TV rights fees as shared by other teams with MLB - especially the new deals in Seattle, LA and Philly. I understand an owner looking to protect his $, but it appears a bit greedy to artificially keep one's TV rights fees lower to profit on the MASN side while enjoying the increases earned by other teams from their market-based rights fees.

PA hinted that MASN would be used to keep the Os competitive, but it appears this network is creating profits for himself (used interchangeably with Os ownership) in the tens of millions while our rights fees (and those of the Nats) are kept well-below market value.

[Guest]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The Nats/O's MASN mess, a MAJOR issue for MLB, just got worse: <a href="http://t.co/A8P7mi7JfC">http://t.co/A8P7mi7JfC</a> (Me on MASN in Feb: <a href="http://t.co/M9SZk6Y8W6">http://t.co/M9SZk6Y8W6</a>)</p>— Jonah Keri (@jonahkeri) <a href="

">July 29, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/major-league-baseball-embroiled-explosive-721927?utm_source=twitter

Good luck wow at some of this stuff.

[Guest]

But what the settlement agreement had to say for the years beginning in 2012 is what's now got professional baseball in open court.

Per the terms of the settlement, MASN had to begin paying the Nationals "fair market value." The TV station balked. And so, an arbitration hearing commenced in April before a panel comprised of the chief operating officer of the New York Mets, the president of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the owner of the Tampa Bay Rays. Some of this has been previously reported. The Nationals reportedly got $29 million per year under the old TV contract and wanted it bumped up to somewhere between $100-120 million per year.

[TonySoprano]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The Nats/O's MASN mess, a MAJOR issue for MLB, just got worse: <a href="http://t.co/A8P7mi7JfC">http://t.co/A8P7mi7JfC</a> (Me on MASN in Feb: <a href="http://t.co/M9SZk6Y8W6">http://t.co/M9SZk6Y8W6</a>)</p>— Jonah Keri (@jonahkeri) <a href="

">July 29, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/major-league-baseball-embroiled-explosive-721927?utm_source=twitter

Good luck wow at some of this stuff.

Wow, indeed.

What's been untold until now is that on June 30, the MLB committee adjudicating the dispute issued its decision. The award favored the Nationals. That prompted attorneys for the parties to swing into high gear and Commissioner Selig to attempt to get out in front of the situation.

"I am deeply saddened by the fact that you have not been able to resolve amicably the pending broadcast rights dispute," wrote Selig in a letter to Angelos and Nationals owner Ted Lerner

"Both the Orioles and the Nationals have at various times made threats to institute litigation in connection with this dispute, despite my office's extended, good-faith efforts to have this matter resolved by agreement. On a personal note, I owned a Club for decades and I can honestly say that under no circumstances would I have threatened, let alone commenced, litigation against Baseball. Please be advised that nothing in the Agreement authorizes the parties to file any lawsuit... I want there to be no doubt that, if any party initiates any lawsuit, or fails to act in strict compliance with the procedures set forth in the Agreement concerning the [Revenue Sharing

Definitions Committee of Major League Baseball]'s decision, I will not hesitate to impose the strongest sanctions available to me under the Major League Constitution."

[Can_of_corn]

So the O's lost the dispute on June 30th.

The following day, Thomas Hall, another attorney at Chadbourne & Park representing MASN (and by extension, the Orioles), responded in letter by describing the petition as "nothing more than to further the illicit arrangements and misconduct undertaken by the Nationals, Major League Baseball and the Commissioner to wrest from MASN and [the Baltimore Orioles] the compensation guaranteed to them."

Hall then accused Selig and MLB of improper financial motives. "Not only does Baseball have approximately a 34 percent financial interest in every dollar steered toward telecast rights fees and away from MASN's profits under the Revenue Sharing Plan, but also, in 2013, ... the Commissioner privately paid $25 million to the Nationals, entering into an agreement with the Club, through which Baseball would recoup those funds from the monies to be paid under the RSDC award at issue here."

This letter challenged Selig's jurisdiction and impartiality and despite Selig's threats of sanctions, spoke about being "entitled to obtain the impartial review afforded by the courts."

Good stuff.

[jabba72]

Sounds like the Nat's (and O's) will be getting paid soon by MASN. Unless Angelos still tries to hide how much the Orioles receive from MASN. Which is probably what he'll do.

[DrungoHazewood]

Hmmm... threats! Lawsuits! Intrigue! The possbility of Czar Bud removing Angleos and/or Lerner!

Who needs the excitement of a pennant race?