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

[AdamK]

Series of tweets from someone (MLB/Digital Media/Technology writer for SportsBusiness Journal) following the situation:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>MASN has successfully petitioned to NYS Supreme Court to get a temp restraining order against MLB arbitration award for Nats in TV dispute</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="

">August 7, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>MLB arbitration panel had ruled in favor of Nats in MASN TV dispute. MASN has obtained restraining order against lg, Selig pending hearing</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="

">August 7, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>A hearing on MASN's bid for permanent injunction against MLB award for Nats will be heard in NYS Supreme Court later this month</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="

">August 7, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The petitioning party for the injunction in the MASN dispute is TCR Sports Broadcasting aka MASN. But functionally, it's Angelos/O's</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="

">August 7, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>But MASN/Angelos obviously feel the Arb award & how it was derived were grievous wrongs & thus far, judge is agreeing</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="

">August 7, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Affidavit from managing dir of Bortz, creator of formula to be used in MASN dispute: award for Nats "completely corrupts" industry norms</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="

">August 7, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

[TonySoprano]

Go get him! Make Bud squirm! I love it.

My guess is that'll be one of the questions in the interviews for the new commish this week, "how would you handle this?"

[Nigel Tufnel]

I'm not in the market so I have some questions for you guys there:

The blogger writes in his update:

How does that affect the Os?

I get that they may lose money in the original agreement (maybe that is accurate?) but if the Nats go their own way with their own broadcaster does that negatively affect the area?

Is it like the White Sox / Cubs where both have their own networks?

It completely screws the O's over, I think. The money in a RSN is in the rights fees - Comcast pays MASN a monthly fee for every subscriber with a cable package that includes MASN. If the Nats split off to their own network, MASN's rights fees would crater, as Comcast would drop MASN in DC and Virginia. This is pretty much the entire reason why the Nats were bound to MASN in the first place.

[Can_of_corn]

It completely screws the O's over, I think. The money in a RSN is in the rights fees - Comcast pays MASN a monthly fee for every subscriber with a cable package that includes MASN. If the Nats split off to their own network, MASN's rights fees would crater, as Comcast would drop MASN in DC and Virginia. This is pretty much the entire reason why the Nats were bound to MASN in the first place.

Angelos should have sold out to Fox a couple years ago. Then he would have a whole second BPOC to roll around in.

[Redskins Rick]

My guess is that'll be one of the questions in the interviews for the new commish this week, "how would you handle this?"

The new commish also gets to deal with the aftermath of the Biogenesis crap too.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Angelos should have sold out to Fox a couple years ago. Then he would have a whole second BPOC to roll around in.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was more interested in the long-term prospects for baseball in Baltimore, but it could have just been a miscalculation.

[Redskins Rick]

It completely screws the O's over, I think. The money in a RSN is in the rights fees - Comcast pays MASN a monthly fee for every subscriber with a cable package that includes MASN. If the Nats split off to their own network, MASN's rights fees would crater, as Comcast would drop MASN in DC and Virginia. This is pretty much the entire reason why the Nats were bound to MASN in the first place.

Good point and the losers will be the fans all over the area.

[Redskins Rick]

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was more interested in the long-term prospects for baseball in Baltimore, but it could have just been a miscalculation.

I suspect Peter is way too savvy a business man and lawyer to make a miscalculation like this.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I suspect Peter is way too savvy a business man and lawyer to make a miscalculation like this.

Well, if he loses this case or the O's get whatever those extreme MLB sanctions turn out to be (both of which seem possible), then it would be hard to say he didn't miscalculate.

That being said, I've seen what is supposedly the O's / Nats MASN agreement, and assuming it wasn't fake, I think the O's are interpreting the contract correctly (although I'm not a lawyer).

[Can_of_corn]

I suspect Peter is way too savvy a business man and lawyer to make a miscalculation like this.

He had no idea of the potential of a RSN before he was briefed on the subject. I think he is a much better lawyer then a business man.

With folks unbundling from cable entities at a decent clip it is possible that a RSN won't be the cash cow going forward that it has been.

[Can_of_corn]

Bud: I will level the most severe sanctions against you!

O's:

It is possible that the agreement that was reached could in fact bankrupt MASN at some point.

One thing is for sure, the reached agreement is highly profitable for the rest of MLB since the higher rights fees are subject to revenue sharing.

[Nigel Tufnel]

One thing is for sure, the reached agreement is highly profitable for the rest of MLB since the higher rights fees are subject to revenue sharing.

If my math is right, any extra rights fees paid to the Nats end up with MLB getting 2/3 for them for revenue sharing and the Nats seeing 1/3. The O's pay all of it.

[Can_of_corn]

If my math is right, any extra rights fees paid to the Nats end up with MLB getting 2/3 for them for revenue sharing and the Nats seeing 1/3. The O's pay all of it.

Which would tell me that the arbitrating panel had financial motivation to find as they did.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Which would tell me that the arbitrating panel had financial motivation to find as they did.

Yeah, who knows. Each individual team would only get a 1/28th share of MLB's portion, so it's not a huge amount of money. But, yeah, the panel wasn't completely impartial (although the contract says to use the panel).

[Can_of_corn]

Yeah, who knows. Each individual team would only get a 1/28th share of MLB's portion, so it's not a huge amount of money. But, yeah, the panel wasn't completely impartial (although the contract says to use the panel).

Don't forget MLB gave the Nats 25 million the year before. If the Nats had lost the arbitration would MLB get that money back?