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

[weams]

Couldn't they just invite another network to broadcast their games and deny MASN entry? I mean if it really came to it.

Yes Angelos and MASN could sue, but if the court costs vs the benefits of selling their product on TV came out on the plus side of it, it could be worth it to them to do it. At least that's my ad hoc Coasian analysis of it.

These things are why I wish the Expos still existed...

They would have an injunction to block broadcast for a season or two.

[weams]

The problem is, I understand this agreement exists in perpetuity. As long as a team plays in the MLB, in D.C. The Angelos family owns rights and there heirs own rights to retain this 70/30 split of all Nationals broadcast revenue. Forever is a long time. Why o you think Bud tried to do his buddies a solid and force the sale of those right breaking the perpetual status of this deal.

Bud knows he screwed up.

[Nigel Tufnel]

they would have an injunction to block broadcast for a season or two.

Yeah, can you imagine... the MASN trucks roll up to Nats Park, and armed guards turn them away. Meanwhile, Angelos turns on CSN to check in on the Wizards offseason and they're showing the Nats game. I guess there's a small chance that he would consider going to court.

[blid]

Is there anywhere to post moderation suggestions?

My comment is this: You're merging way too many threads and have been doing so for awhile. I don't understand why a thread reporting the news of a MASN lawsuit gets moved into a 10 page thread titled "Selig: 'Good Chance' That MASN Dispute Will Be Resolved Before He Retires in January." Anyone who didn't see that new thread in the time before it was merged won't know there is new news. Even people who do know there is new news will have no idea how many pages back the discussion on the news starts. At a certain point, old thread titles and old threads are outdated.

Other examples include, for instance, trade talk about certain players; someone makes a thread announcing the trade has actually happened, but then that thread disappears, merged into a massive 50 page thread. The topic title might be amended to say UPDATE: Trade Complete but you'll have to dig through 50 pages to find where the talk on the completed trade starts. More and more up-to-date threads is a better policy than these long-term megathreads.

Thanks for taking my call. I'll hang up now and listen.

[weams]

Is there anywhere to post moderation suggestions?

My comment is this: You're merging way too many threads and have been doing so for awhile. I don't understand why a thread reporting the news of a MASN lawsuit gets moved into a 10 page thread titled "Selig: 'Good Chance' That MASN Dispute Will Be Resolved Before He Retires in January." Anyone who didn't see that new thread in the time before it was merged won't know there is new news. Even people who do know there is new news will have no idea how many pages back the discussion on the news starts. At a certain point, old thread titles and old threads are outdated.

Other examples include, for instance, trade talk about certain players; someone makes a thread announcing the trade has actually happened, but then that thread disappears, merged into a massive 50 page thread. The topic title might be amended to say UPDATE: Trade Complete but you'll have to dig through 50 pages to find where the talk on the completed trade starts. More and more up-to-date threads is a better policy than these long-term megathreads.

Thanks for taking my call. I'll hang up now and listen.

We will consider your request. The constant splinter threads rehashing the same thing have gotten equal criticism from the gallery.

[blid]

Or someone will make a thread, like, "Anyone notice how good Tillman has been in his last 10 starts?" and lay out a bunch of statistics and so on, and then it gets moved into the season-long 1000 post thread called "Chris Tillman Today." That's a hypothetical example but I've seen things like that happen as well...

edit: Thanks, weams! Your guys's call to make, just sharing my thoughts. Perhaps the answer is a little bit of both. New news or effort threads remain, while threads that are basically redundant can be merged.

[McNulty]

All the money should be split evenly between the teams that can spell their names correctly, 100% of the time.

In this case, the Os are Sue Ellen Mischke, the Natinals are Kramer/Jerry, Nats fans are Elaine, Angelos is Jackie Chiles, but who is going to be Stan the Caddy?

[furryburres]

Is there anywhere to post moderation suggestions?

My comment is this: You're merging way too many threads and have been doing so for awhile. I don't understand why a thread reporting the news of a MASN lawsuit gets moved into a 10 page thread titled "Selig: 'Good Chance' That MASN Dispute Will Be Resolved Before He Retires in January." Anyone who didn't see that new thread in the time before it was merged won't know there is new news. Even people who do know there is new news will have no idea how many pages back the discussion on the news starts. At a certain point, old thread titles and old threads are outdated.

Other examples include, for instance, trade talk about certain players; someone makes a thread announcing the trade has actually happened, but then that thread disappears, merged into a massive 50 page thread. The topic title might be amended to say UPDATE: Trade Complete but you'll have to dig through 50 pages to find where the talk on the completed trade starts. More and more up-to-date threads is a better policy than these long-term megathreads.

Thanks for taking my call. I'll hang up now and listen.

I second this.

[Phantom]

I'll add my two cents. As someone that doesn't get to come to the forum as much, less merges would be beneficial for me, because it is so difficult to jump into 10+ page threads.

[Redskins Rick]

I second this.

I'll add my two cents. As someone that doesn't get to come to the forum as much, less merges would be beneficial for me, because it is so difficult to jump into 10+ page threads.

This forum:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/6-OH-Information-Feedback-and-Help

[hoosiers]

Let's face it, the Nationals don't really have any television rights to sell. Their rights are owned by MASN. And if they don't like that, they can grow their brand without a television presence. Simple.

I can see one has to start with the simple with you.

Do you believe MASN is well-run? Do you believe it charges market rates for subscription fees for two baseball teams for markets the size of Baltimore and Washington?

[hoosiers]

My solution:

The Gnats pay the Orioles (not MASN) $50 million/year plus COLA in perpetuity for the right to leave MASN and either start their own network or license their broadcasts to another network. Plus, the Gnats pay the Orioles 25 cents per month for every subscriber whose system drops MASN in favor of the Gnats new broadcaster.

This should be enough to keep the O's and Gnats on fairly equal financial footing.

I think my idea would be better. I think there should be a solution where MASN continues to work for both franchises, where PA gets his payday for altering the current contract, and where (even after PA's payday) the Os continue to share in the Nats TV rights (by receiving all or a portion of the local TV rights shared with other teams - this alone being an annuity perhaps into the $30M-$35M neighborhood).

The ongoing dispute only serves to create bad blood between the owners and fans of the Nats and Os and is not healthy. Surely, there is a price for PA to let this go

[mdbdotcom]

I think my idea would be better. I think there should be a solution where MASN continues to work for both franchises, where PA gets his payday for altering the current contract, and where (even after PA's payday) the Os continue to share in the Nats TV rights (by receiving all or a portion of the local TV rights shared with other teams - this alone being an annuity perhaps into the $30M-$35M neighborhood).

The ongoing dispute only serves to create bad blood between the owners and fans of the Nats and Os and is not healthy. Surely, there is a price for PA to let this go

Whatever everybody agrees to is fine with me. Just like in the middle east.

[AdamK]

I'm enjoying reading this thread.

I think making it to the end enables me to add "esquire" to my name and title.

AdamK :: Data Integration, Man About Town, Esquire

Denver Megalopolis

[hoosiers]

Of the three teams in the MLB panel, one is in the AL East (Tampa), one is in the NL East (Mets) and one in the NL Central Pittsburgh. Folks can talk about conflict of interest regarding teams making a decision about teams in their division - Tampa and NYM - as well as every team in baseball possibly receiving $2M each or so more annually as a result of this decision.

However, at least one NL team (Pirates most likely, but maybe the Mets) voted to allow an NL competitor $10s of millions of $ in additional annual TV rights.

For starters, Bud should have put teams in the panel outside the divisions of the Os and Nats.