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

[weams]

Selig said Tuesday he hadn?t yet met with Angelos but noted that their relationship is ?excellent? and will visit with him soon.

?MASN is an inter-club dispute,? Selig said. ?When you?re the commissioner, you hope these things don?t happen. But you?re going to have inter-club disputes. The next person is going to have inter-club disputes, and the person after him or her is going to have inter-club disputes. My relationship with Mr. Angelos is good. He?s on the [Major League] Executive Council, and I have no problem with him at all. In fact, [he's] one of the reasons we?re here.?

He's on the Executive council

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2014/08/12/bud-selig-says-nationals-orioles-are-having-constructive-dialogue-on-masn-dispute/

[BohKnowsBmore]

I dont trust business and the way some of the companies play with their books.

But, before everybody gets in an uproar. I have no evidence that MASN is one of those.

But, how many times, when businesses make a claim about losing money or not having enough money, its not always above board.

Look back at the movie, Coming to America, cost to produce 19 million, gross 150 million, and yet the studios with their bookkeeping methods, try to claim the picture lost money.

Just one of many many cases over the years.

Eh. Studio accounting is the wild west of accounting. You can't really use that to cast the entire realm of financial statements and bookkeeping in a certain light.

[Redskins Rick]

Eh. Studio accounting is the wild west of accounting. You can't really use that to cast the entire realm of financial statements and bookkeeping in a certain light.

Baseball teams have been accused of the same thing, just go back to strike years.

And I said, I don't believe MASN is doing so. However, I don't trust businesses when they claim it would cost off their money.

[weams]

Finally, the affidavit said the Nationals intended to use the MASN saga to dissolve MASN and acquire their rights fees.

During the RSDC appeal on April 3, 2012, I was present when counsel to the Nationals expressed that the Nationals have been "waiting seven years to get our rights back,"Haley wrote. Having received MASN`s quarterly financials, annual audited settlements and other partnership financial documents, the Nationals were aware that if the Nationals were to receive the telecast rights fees demanded at the hearing, MASN would be rendered immediately insolvent, a fact that the Nationals counsel acknowledged. The Orioles would have been severely financially harmed.

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

[weams]

Baseball teams have been accused of the same thing, just go back to strike years.

And I said, I don't believe MASN is doing so. However, I don't trust businesses when they claim it would cost off their money.

You must not be following the paper trail then. The Nats knew that their victory would blow up MASN and hurt the Orioles specifically because they were aware of the accounting practices as ownership.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Baseball teams have been accused of the same thing, just go back to strike years.

And I said, I don't believe MASN is doing so. However, I don't trust businesses when they claim it would cost off their money.

We'd have to talk specifics to get anywhere but in the case of the leaked Carolina panthers financials last year that was a case predominantly of the masses and talking heads not understanding the difference between an income statement and a statement of cash flows.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

You must not be following the paper trail then. The Nats knew that their victory would blow up MASN and hurt the Orioles specifically because they were aware of the accounting practices as ownership.

There's a lot of spin coming from both sides in this case. Obviously, the $118 mm the Nats were seeking was impossible for MASN to pay. Whether the $55-60 mm is impossible is anyone's quess. MASN is arguing that this would make their margins "impossibly thin," but I'd expect them to say something like that. Or, this may be a case where MASN can't pay "fair market value" because they haven't done a good job of running their network and thus can't pay what a well-run network would pay.

[DrungoHazewood]

There's a lot of spin coming from both sides in this case. Obviously, the $118 mm the Nats were seeking was impossible for MASN to pay. Whether the $55-60 mm is impossible is anyone's quess. MASN is arguing that this would make their margins "impossibly thin," but I'd expect them to say something like that. Or, this may be a case where MASN can't pay "fair market value" because they haven't done a good job of running their network and thus can't pay what a well-run network would pay.

My poorly-informed take is that:

1) The Nats are unhappy with the arrangement they had to agree to with the O's and MASN for obvious reasons. Nobody likes giving up what every other team has - control of their media destiny. They'll do what they can to change that.

2) MASN is probably run poorly. The evidence seems to point in that direction. This inflames the Nats' unhappiness. They are probably convinced that on their own they'd do a lot better. Or even if they were just running things at MASN.

3) If I were the Nats I'd be ok with MASN going belly-up.

4) If I were the Orioles I'd fight tooth and nail to keep the original agreement and as favorable rights terms as I could, because they know that in a more market-based situation the O's would lose money and the Nats would be in a much stronger position. Take away all the history and handshakes and agreements and Baltimore is a small-to-mid market team, and the Nats are pretty large market.

I have no idea how this is going to work out in the end, but long-term it's hard to see the situation holding where basically the Nats are revenue sharing only with the O's, forever.

[Can_of_corn]

My poorly-informed take is that:

I have no idea how this is going to work out in the end, but long-term it's hard to see the situation holding where basically the Nats are revenue sharing only with the O's, forever.

As bad as that situation is, it still beats Montreal.

[DrungoHazewood]

As bad as that situation is, it still beats Montreal.

Maybe. I think Montreal wasn't nearly as bad as it was portrayed. It all boiled down to MLB not having leverage with Canadian lawmakers, not being able to convince them to build them a new stadium with a ton of luxury boxes and modern revenue enhancers for free. All of the other attendance problems and no radio affiliates and fielding uncompetitive teams were a result of MLB trying to "prove" that Montreal wasn't viable and it was justified to move the team out of a huge market to another huge market more willing to build a stadium.

I think the Expos, had they somehow built a new park sometime around 2000 and got a real owner, would be a thriving mid-to-large market team. The Expos drew very well when they were a good team in the 80s, and Montreal is big and fairly rich.

But yes, paying the O's tax in perpetuity is better than being in Stade Olympique with concrete collapsing around you and having Loria as your owner-saboteur.

[Frobby]

My poorly-informed take is that:

1) The Nats are unhappy with the arrangement they had to agree to with the O's and MASN for obvious reasons. Nobody likes giving up what every other team has - control of their media destiny. They'll do what they can to change that.

There is one point I wanted to be clear about -- this deal was agreed upon long before the Lerners purchased the Nats. It should have factored into the price that the Lerners were willing to pay for the team (and probably did). Therefore, I have no sympathy for the argument that the Nats are stuck in a bad deal. The Lerners went into this with their eyes wide open.

I'm not that sympathetic to MASN/the Orioles, either, because it's pretty clear that what MASN has been paying the Nats is way below fair market value.

[Redskins Rick]

Maybe. I think Montreal wasn't nearly as bad as it was portrayed. It all boiled down to MLB not having leverage with Canadian lawmakers, not being able to convince them to build them a new stadium with a ton of luxury boxes and modern revenue enhancers for free. All of the other attendance problems and no radio affiliates and fielding uncompetitive teams were a result of MLB trying to "prove" that Montreal wasn't viable and it was justified to move the team out of a huge market to another huge market more willing to build a stadium.

I think the Expos, had they somehow built a new park sometime around 2000 and got a real owner, would be a thriving mid-to-large market team. The Expos drew very well when they were a good team in the 80s, and Montreal is big and fairly rich.

But yes, paying the O's tax in perpetuity is better than being in Stade Olympique with concrete collapsing around you and having Loria as your owner-saboteur.

I doubt a new stadium and owner would have helped the average attendance of less than 8K per game. Many AAA teams have better attendance than the Expos did.

[LookinUp]

Having not read this thread in a very long time, am I right that we can't equate MASN with the O's? If the Nats simply "win" by getting a bigger share of profits, does that necessarily take away from the Orioles?

[DrungoHazewood]

I doubt a new stadium and owner would have helped the average attendance of less than 8K per game. Many AAA teams have better attendance than the Expos did.

That was after years of destructive decisions by ownership and MLB. Montreal supported a competitive team with good owners.

[Guest]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge blocks Baseball from compelling MASN to pay tens of millions of dollars a year more to the Washington Nationals for TV rights.</p>— Jeff Barker (@sunjeffbarker) <a href="

">August 18, 2014</a></blockquote>

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