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

[weams]

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.

That is an idea that appears good. I will take it under advisement.

[weams]

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?

I don't know if it is or isn't. Nor am I gonna armchair that. I just want the deal that left MLB off the hook for the Expos to be enforced. Completely.

[weams]

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

Absolutely.

[TonySoprano]

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.

What happens using your hypothetical Tillman thread is the same "news" gets posted in both threads simultaneously. The threads take turns leapfrogging each other up and down the thread list. In the case of MASN, the two threads are following the same storyline and if you come into the discussion with the latest news, you're missing on some interesting background information.

[hoosiers]

I thought the article below was interesting. It mentions something in the CBA that I had not previously heard, but have since seen in another article.

Beginning in 2016, the Top 15 markets will not receive TV revenue sharing from local TV rights. While the total $ will remain subject to the same calculations, the teams outside the top 15 will see their share of this pie grow - perhaps double. This will be additional $ for PA/Orioles in the tens of $Ms range, but the Nats are inside the top 15 and will lose their share - while being subjected to the Bortz FMV calculation that appears to keep their local TV rights fees artificially low. Wow.

This is another reason for a future uptick in payroll if the Os are to benefit $20+M more in local TV rights in two years.

http://seamheads.com/2014/07/08/when-will-baltimore-be-forced-to-quit-stealing-tv-revenues-in-the-mid-atlantic/

[Moose Milligan]

Does....anyone else here not care? Especially in the middle of a pennant race?

[BohKnowsBmore]

Does....anyone else here not care? Especially in the middle of a pennant race?

Similar to seeking fellow teetotalers in a bar, I'm not sure there's a great chance of finding the similarly apathetic among those who have clicked on and commented within this thread.

[Frobby]

Does....anyone else here not care? Especially in the middle of a pennant race?

I care because the outcome will have a huge impact on the Orioles' future. But don't worry, it is not distracting me from what is going on down on the field. Not one iota!

[BradyBunch]

My solution is the following:

- get MASN professional management to get programming and TV subscription rates to market rates

- give each team local TV rights in line with real FMV (presumably to $60M for the Os and $100+M for the Nats)

- split the ownership evenly between the Os and Nats

- have mediator/arbiter determine the $ due to PA for this ownership change and conversion to FMV

- have MLB agree to give ALL or PART of the Nat's TV rights fees that is shared with MLB to the Os. This enables the Nats to get their FMV and for the Os to profit from those TV rights fees.

This will not work. Giving Nat's $100m is based on the fact they see the market as combined so the O's would get $100m as well. You can't say O's only get $60m and Nats get $100m when they have the same market. Just won't work.

[BradyBunch]

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.

It's simple. O's and Nat's share the same market. There is no "two" markets. Nat's are carried in regions they would lose out to if they went their way and O's would lose out on what use to be HALF of their market.

Nat's own valuation comes from the fact they are using Metro Area population (which includes very heavily Orioles areas ) and claiming them as their areas because they are broadcasted there via MASN. I get it. They want their cake and eat it too. But they have to realize half the market and that $100m + should be halved as well.

[schittenden]

I second this.

My suggestion would be to close the older thread to new comments and put a final post directing people to the new thread with updated information. That way, someone who finds the old thread will know where to go for newer information on the topic and people will be able to find the newer thread on the board more easily.

[Frobby]

So, here is a brief update on the MASN dispute. A raft of papers were filed yesterday by MLB and the Nationals opposing MASN's motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the Nationals from terminating their agreement with MASN, and opposing MASN's petition to vacate the arbitration award. There have been a ton of legal briefs, affidavits and supporting documents filed in this case over the last six weeks, too many for me to take the time to read them all. However, if you want to see a list of what has been filed, and have a look at any of the court documents, they are all accessible here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASeFiledDocsDetail?county_code=d9QKqTmPYKSYFGVPs29slQ%3D%3D&txtIndexNo=eOFQjtLbjMMxBsveNdz%2F2g%3D%3D&showMenu=no&isPreRji=N I have skimmed a few of them.

The gist of MLB/the Nationals' position is that the Court does not have the power to review MLB's decision at this stage. Rather, they say the contract provides for a multi-tiered review process, which includes a review of MLB' decision by independent arbitrators of the American Arbitration Association, and the court has no power to intervene until after that process is complete. So, the argument they are making is mostly procedural, without getting into specifics about why MASN's argument about the methodology used to determine fair market value is wrong.

There is a very important oral argument being held next Monday at 11:30, where the court will consider whether to extend the preliminary injunction that it issued at MASN's request. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the initial injunction was just a short term move to preserve the status quo and allow the parties time to brief the issues more fully. The decision as to whether to extend the injunction requires much more careful consideration of which side is likely to prevail on the merits of the case. The decision still won't be a "final" ruling on who wins the case, but it will be a very serious indicator of which way the wind is blowing with the Court. Stay tuned!

Here's a fairly good article from this morning's Washington Post describing the status, though it doesn't include information from the many court documents filed by MLB and the Nationals last night:http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/orioles-nationals-baseball-to-file-arguments-concerning-injunction-in-masn-dispute/2014/08/13/1aa8aeaa-2303-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?tid=hpModule_a4df998e-86a7-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

[Can_of_corn]

If the injunction is lifted and it goes to the AAA for review do the O's need to immediately pay the judgement or is it held in reserve until the board has reached a decision?

[Nigel Tufnel]

I thought these were an interesting couple of tweets from Adam Kilgore:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>In court papers filed last night, the Nationals asserted MLB's arbitration panel award was $38M closer to the Orioles' proposal than theirs.</p>— Adam Kilgore (@AdamKilgoreWP) <a href="

">August 14, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>By the math the Nats used in their filing and what's already public, MLB's panel awarded the Nats about $55 million in rights fees.</p>— Adam Kilgore (@AdamKilgoreWP) <a href="

">August 14, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

I'm assuming the $55 million is for 2012, so that's in comparison to the $34 million that MASN actually paid them for that year. Of the extra $21 million, the Nats/Lerners would actually see about $9 million, with the rest of the money going to the other 28 teams for revenue sharing. It would cost the O's and their share of MASN about $22 million, even taking into account the $21M in rights fees that the O's would also receive.

[Odenton O]

That is an idea that appears good. I will take it under advisement.

FWIW, I would be in favor of fewer thread merges. Ever since we've gone to the system of merging everything and constantly bumping threads for over a year, I have a hard time finding anything actually new on the board.