Jump to content

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


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Aren't you glad that the Orioles have become grand again.

Hell, more than, glad, the past three seasons has me jumping for joy.

Just not on my bed! :)

This is one case, where I am very very glad to be wrong and happy to admit I was wrong.

I think DD is a better GM than Andy, but Andy has to be given credit for the changes in Peter's ownership/management style and allowing DD to come in and do the job throughout the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

The fact that Angelos agreed to the arbitration procedure is irrelevant if the arbitration panel ignored the formula that was supposed to be used to determine the rights fees. Agreeing to an arbitration procedure does not allow the arbitrator to behave arbitrarily.

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.

I think he would and is arguing that the process is not following the stipulated framework, though, or at least that the arbitrator is not acting in an impartial manner and is ignoring key facts within the agreement. I can happily agree to have a contractual dispute go through the courts, especially if I believe/know I am in the right, but I am not going to be happy if the court simply ignores a clearly stated article of the contract.

EDIT - I think that Three Run Homer hit on what I was trying to say pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bieber is a clown! :)

Some of our posters are down on our announcers, but they only have to look at Carpenter/Santangelo to see how bad the rest of their peers are.

No he's a punk heh but yeah those two are just bad. I like our announcers. Gary is fun, Palmer funny and insightful, Bordick is still learning but he offers a good pov, not a huge Hunter guy but he's far from the worst either. Have you followed the Sporting News year round report of broadcasters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he's a punk heh but yeah those two are just bad. I like our announcers. Gary is fun, Palmer funny and insightful, Bordick is still learning but he offers a good pov, not a huge Hunter guy but he's far from the worst either. Have you followed the Sporting News year round report of broadcasters?

No, can't say I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read. I always liked watching other teams broadcasts when we were off as a kid so i saw Caray, Harrelson, and the Atlanta guys a bit since WGN and TBS had their games.

Best of the Best was and still is Jon Miller and when he was paired with Joe Angels, they were the best duo.

Of course, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best of the Best was and still is Jon Miller and when he was paired with Joe Angels, they were the best duo.

Of course, IMO.

Never heard Angel with Jon but have heard enough of em separately to wish that was still our radio team. Those two are great in so many ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never heard Angel with Jon but have heard enough of em separately to wish that was still our radio team. Those two are great in so many ways.

The best times were rain delays and the radio guys had to entertain us.

Miller can do spot on imitations of just about every broadcaster in the business.

The stories he could tell, was sometimes better than the actual game. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Why won't the Os be better off? Can you please show how the MASN $ has filtered down to the Os in terms of increased payroll? If you can't, then I have to assume the Os would be better off with a bigger, local TV rights fees deal where the check goes straight to the Os and not through Os ownership. All indications provide circumstantial evidence that PA is making an obscene amount of $ on the Orioles (higher attendance, ticket increases, higher national TV fees) and more MASN (profits estimated at $45M-$50M) without anywhere near the corresponding increase in payroll, draft investment or international scouting investments.

How you can post that the current deal "does not hamper the Nationals" when their local TV rights fees are probably in the $100M-$110+M area while they receive less than half of that from MASN is beyond rational explanation?

Also as previously posted, MASN appears mis-managed, that is entirely on PA, and that also impacts/hampers the Os and Nats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why won't the Os be better off? Can you please show how the MASN $ has filtered down to the Os in terms of increased payroll? If you can't, then I have to assume the Os would be better off with a bigger, local TV rights fees deal where the check goes straight to the Os and not through Os ownership. All indications provide circumstantial evidence that PA is making an obscene amount of $ on the Orioles (higher attendance, ticket increases, higher national TV fees) and more MASN (profits estimated at $45M-$50M) without anywhere near the corresponding increase in payroll, draft investment or international scouting investments.

How you can post that the current deal "does not hamper the Nationals" when their local TV rights fees are probably in the $100M-$110+M area while they receive less than half of that from MASN is beyond rational explanation?

Also as previously posted, MASN appears mis-managed, that is entirely on PA, and that also impacts/hampers the Os and Nats.

The fans will lose out, if MASN separates, most cable subscribers will be forced into one package, and maybe not the one they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...