Jump to content

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


Frobby

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It also mentions how the 2 of the 3 arbitrators were owners of the the largest revenue sharing teams and it would be in their best interests to award the Nationals and the Orioles more right fees as their teams would receive more money.

My problem with this argument is that Angelos agreed to this MLB-appointed arbitral body being the decision maker, back when the MASN deal was cut. He is complaining about a procedure being biased even though he agreed to that very procedure. He should have insisted on a procedure using an outside arbitrator back when the deal was cut, if he felt that was necessary to get a fair result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with this argument is that Angelos agreed to this MLB-appointed arbitral body being the decision maker, back when the MASN deal was cut. He is complaining about a procedure being biased even though he agreed to that very procedure. He should have insisted on a procedure using an outside arbitrator back when the deal was cut, if he felt that was necessary to get a fair result.

Well, I can imagine that the issues (in fact potential anti-trust violations) also brought forth are enough to cloud that argument for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can imagine that the issues (in fact potential anti-trust violations) also brought forth are enough to cloud that argument for now.

I guess we will find out. I think the Orioles/MASN are winning in the court of public opinion right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most egregiously, upon information and belief, the RSDC had predetermined the amount of the telecast rights fees that it would award the Nationals and, as a result, the arbitration proceedings and the RSDC's arbitration Award, and the decision purporting to justify the predetermined Award, were all a sham.

I thought it might be helpful if I explained the term "upon information and belief.". When a lawyer signs a document containing factual allegations, he/she is certifying that there is evidence supporting those allegations. However, if the phrase "upon information and belief" is used, that means the lawyer does not have evidence supporting that allegation, but believes in good faith that the allegation is true and that supporting evidence can be obtained through the discovery process (for example, by examination of documents in the possession of the opposing lawyer that the lawyer making the allegation has not yet seen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we will find out. I think the Orioles/MASN are winning in the court of public opinion right now.
but not in Bud's NY office. ;) If Bud takes the nuclear option, opinion won't be kind to the O's. I really doubt think he will. Peter probably knows where "all the bodies are buried."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with this argument is that Angelos agreed to this MLB-appointed arbitral body being the decision maker, back when the MASN deal was cut. He is complaining about a procedure being biased even though he agreed to that very procedure. He should have insisted on a procedure using an outside arbitrator back when the deal was cut, if he felt that was necessary to get a fair result.

Now from what I read, they claim to have agreed to a Colorado firm's formula. Was that 'after' they had agreed to MLB arbitrating their grievance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with this argument is that Angelos agreed to this MLB-appointed arbitral body being the decision maker, back when the MASN deal was cut. He is complaining about a procedure being biased even though he agreed to that very procedure. He should have insisted on a procedure using an outside arbitrator back when the deal was cut, if he felt that was necessary to get a fair result.

This is my first thought. PA is complaining both about the process and the decision, but he signed up for the process.

I am a bit surprised at how this has gone down from the Lerner's POV. Did they due their due diligence into "fair market value"? To realize they would be subject to an arcane calculation that would keep their TV rights below actual FMV for decades? Or did that have assurances from MLB about getting to FMV? Or did someone in their legal group drop the ball here? Or did they understand all this when purchasing the franchise, but assumed they could litigate their way out of this?

Also kind of crazy for MLB to understand how this formula worked and to provide $ to the Nats to make up for the under-valuation of their local TV rights.

It is really difficult to believe that PA could keep the Nats TV rights fees undervalued by $50M or more for a long, long time or perhaps forever.

I am really indifferent about this case. I want what is best for the Os and, frankly, I don't have an interest in hampering the competitiveness of the Nats (which is clearly the case here). However, based on round figures of the profitability of the Os and MASN, it does not appear that MASN profits are filtered down to the Os in terms of higher payroll, so if the ultimate resolution is to break up MASN, I think the Os very well could be better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my first thought. PA is complaining both about the process and the decision, but he signed up for the process.

I am a bit surprised at how this has gone down from the Lerner's POV. Did they due their due diligence into "fair market value"? To realize they would be subject to an arcane calculation that would keep their TV rights below actual FMV for decades? Or did that have assurances from MLB about getting to FMV? Or did someone in their legal group drop the ball here? Or did they understand all this when purchasing the franchise, but assumed they could litigate their way out of this?

Also kind of crazy for MLB to understand how this formula worked and to provide $ to the Nats to make up for the under-valuation of their local TV rights.

It is really difficult to believe that PA could keep the Nats TV rights fees undervalued by $50M or more for a long, long time or perhaps forever.

I am really indifferent about this case. I want what is best for the Os and, frankly, I don't have an interest in hampering the competitiveness of the Nats (which is clearly the case here). However, based on round figures of the profitability of the Os and MASN, it does not appear that MASN profits are filtered down to the Os in terms of higher payroll, so if the ultimate resolution is to break up MASN, I think the Os very well could be better off.

Having half the market with no lump sum dispersement for the negotiated equity will never make the Orioles "better off." They abide by the deal or find a different market. This does not hamper the Nationals. The Nationals don't exist with out these exact terms. Sorry they are ungrateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24v1poi.jpg

This all goes back to the sour deal that let the Marlins (Jeffrey Loria) exist and John Henry rule the Red Sox. Even back to the contraction effort that was going to pay Bud an enormousness windfall. There are no good guys here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure the National fans will agree with you.

I don't think there can be a real winner in this, bottom line, this is a mess for sure.

The mess is MLB's collusion with the Nationals. They thought Mr Angelos would be gone by now. And they never thought he would have a good team. And don't be shocked, there is a track record of collusion among these old boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...