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

[weams]

Originally Posted by waroriole"

"If the arbitration process was biased, would it go to court instead of another arbitration hearing?"

If it does wind up in court, can a judge demand that the Orioles / Nats / MLB void the old agreement and create a new one concerning MASN, or possibly allowing the Nats to have their own sports network?

I think that is as much a possibility as the Anti Trust Exemption being removed and the Nationals force to play in Montreal until the Supreme Court rules on it.

[Satyr3206]

MLB and the Nats should know by now that going into a Courtroom vs Peter Angelos' Law Firm isn't a good idea. I'm not a lawyer and I could have told them that.

[weams]

MLB and the Nats should know by now that going into a Courtroom vs Peter Angelos' Law Firm isn't a good idea. I'm not a lawyer and I could have told them that.

Manfred is not going to start off his reign well this way after having his emails perused.

[weams]

Manfred is not going to start off his reign well this way after having his emails perused.

“MLB had a vested financial interest in the arbitration’s outcome: it advanced the Nationals $25 million in a secret deal, which provided that MLB would recoup its funds from the inflated proceeds of the award. In doing so, MLB acquired a direct financial stake in the Award and with it a powerful incentive to ensure that the [MLB panel] would return an Award more favorable to the Nationals.”

The hearing to decide whether to throw out the MLB panel’s TV rights award is slated for March 2.

WAPO

Buckley said MLB was a multi-billion enterprise and $25 million was “not a material amount.” Marks responded: “Well, it’s not beans.”

[Woody Held]

To me, it's like a divorce.

MASN-Nats and MASN-Orioles want to split and go their own ways, but they both want more than their fair share, and since the boundaries are not set in stone, it's going to be hard to split the companies.

Which is why it's 2.5 seasons overdue.

That's true but the Nat's signed a prenup

Swing hard,just in case you hit something

[weams]

That's true but the Nat's signed a prenup

Swing hard,just in case you hit something

Very nicely put.

[Guest]

That's true but the Nat's signed a prenup

Swing hard,just in case you hit something

Well said.

[TonySoprano]

Very nicely put.

The so-called prenup included a provision that entitled them to seek a change in their rights fees. If the situation was reversed I doubt any of the Nats haters would have objected if Angelos did the same.

[weams]

The so-called prenup included a provision that entitled them to seek a change in their rights fees. If the situation was reversed I doubt any of the Nats haters would have objected if Angelos did the same.

It's just a matter of how it is interpreted. After the discovery, we are likely to see that interpretation.

[AdamK]

?MLB had a vested financial interest in the arbitration?s outcome: it advanced the Nationals $25 million in a secret deal, which provided that MLB would recoup its funds from the inflated proceeds of the award. In doing so, MLB acquired a direct financial stake in the Award and with it a powerful incentive to ensure that the [MLB panel] would return an Award more favorable to the Nationals.?

The hearing to decide whether to throw out the MLB panel?s TV rights award is slated for March 2.

WAPO

[hoosiers]

If you believe PA has purposely kept cable fees low for the consumer to benefit, then you can't possibly find fault w the Nats aggressive nature here. Keeping cable rates low would have a severely negative impact on the payroll. PA may be concerned about sharing 1/3 of local rights fees, but I doubt he has a problem receiving the sharing from the new deals in Houston, Seattle, Philly, etc. That is truly disingenuous.

FWIW, it is impossible to find where MASN is helping the Os in the two most important spending categories - payroll (until this year) and amateur talent acquisition. Very little is being flowed into the team over the past five years in any tangible manner.

[Frobby]

If you believe PA has purposely kept cable fees low for the consumer to benefit, then you can't possibly find fault w the Nats aggressive nature here. Keeping cable rates low would have a severely negative impact on the payroll. PA may be concerned about sharing 1/3 of local rights fees, but I doubt he has a problem receiving the sharing from the new deals in Houston, Seattle, Philly, etc. That is truly disingenuous.

I doubt PA would keep cable fees low for any reason other than to persuade cable companies to subscribe. I know that Charlotte's Time Warner

Cable chose not to subscribe and PA fought that in court for about five years, unsuccessfully. I don't know enough about how cable rates are set to comment intelligently on this subject. I do think PA has kept ticket prices low, even for playoff games. I'm not sure he does that out of generosity, though; it seems that's what his market will bear.

[Frobby]

It is hard to tell why he keeps these things low for sure. He has the reputation of wanting prices to be low to help the little guy. Now, I think he likes that reputation so he may keep it alive whether true or not. It is always difficult to tell someone's motivation for these sorts of acts. At the end of the day, you can only truly judge the result.

Agreed. And I was impressed last year when he set aside 1,000 seats to a playoff game for inner city kids.

[hoosiers]

Frankly, I don't think they should have any say in the way MASN is managed, rates charged, etc...

Well, by most accounts, MASN is mis-managed and appears to be under-charging for the fact that it carries two teams. (MASN's profitability or perhaps more accurately) MASN's inability to cover what should be market-based fees for the Os and Nats and still generate a profit is at the heart of this matter. The Nats were expecting market-based local TV rights fees, and frankly, why shouldn't they? And, most importantly, why can't MASN seem to come remotely close to generating fees to cover the Nats (and the Os) true market rates? It appears that MASN, which PA and other Os owners have set up and own majority stakes, is terribly mis-managed and this is at the core of the Nats' issues, IMO.

[weams]

They can hope for whatever they want, but they have no say in it. Why? Because they basically negotiated to be a silent partner in this thing. Stupid, but entirely their own doing. If they want to squawk now, they should be squawking at themselves, their lawyers, and/or whoever signed up for this agreement in the first place. They didn't protect themselves well at all in the initial contract. They can be upset at what they perceive to be a loss of revenue, but they have no legal recourse IMO and their approach is horribly off base. The report from the committee clearly said as much. Their comps were off base and their rationale was entirely opinion based according to the report.

I agree that the fees should be higher, but I don't think they are nearly as high as you've advocated in this thread. From the committee's report, 2014 should have been about 60M each or 120M total in right's fees. That would leave MASN with a 5% profit rate. That doesn't sound low to me based on reading most of the referenced deals in this thread. It might be 10M or so low, but that is less than 10% on 120M. That doesn't sound remotely like "horribly mis-managed" to me.

Or maybe since the agreement was intended to be putative to the interlopers, less than than that. And more MASN profit to build the equity of the RSN quickly. That is what I think should occur. Once this is settled in this manner and the Bortz model is confirmed for future resets the a Orioles might have the freedom to spend even more on their players.