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

[Frobby]

This is a big report.

Just to be clear, the article is quoting an affidavit by one of the MASN lawyers, Alan Rifkin. So, it is his version of events. There are other affidavits giving the other side's version of events. I'd caution against taking either side's version at face value.

There are literally hundreds of briefs, affidavits and exhibits on file with the Court in the MASN case, mostly available for public viewing. I wish I had time to sit down and read it all. Rifkin's affidavit references more than 30 exhibits, including things like drafts of the MASN agreement. Maybe one of these days I'll clear out a weekend to read some of these things.

That said, my overall impression is that MASN has done a good job of pointing out some legit reasons why the RSDC panel may have been biased.

[weams]

What a mess. MLB comes off looking either stupid or dishonest or both in that article and attachments. The Orioles/MASN look to be in better shape than I would have expected.

I am smug today.

[TonySoprano]

The Orioles have estimated the lost asset value of its network to be $800 million, and last August, the team succeeded in getting a judge to issue a preliminary injunction on enforcement of the arbitration ruling.

Explain to me how $800 million is reasonable or should I say, in the ballpark.

[Can_of_corn]

Explain to me how $800 million is reasonable or should I say, in the ballpark.

You can use the money to build a ballpark.

[TonySoprano]

You can use the money to build a ballpark.

How can Peter and pals lose $800 million by paying the Nats more in rights fees?

[Can_of_corn]

How can Peter and pals lose $800 million by paying the Nats more in rights fees?

Any monies paid to the Nats has to be paid to the O's so any increase is a double hit.

Rights monies are subject to revenue sharing.

Lowered revenue for MASN lowers the value of the corporation.

I think.

[TonySoprano]

Any monies paid to the Nats has to be paid to the O's so any increase is a double hit.

Rights monies are subject to revenue sharing.

Lowered revenue for MASN lowers the value of the corporation.

I think.

Contractually, MASN is required to give the Nats an increase. Market rates are on the rise.

[Can_of_corn]

Contractually, MASN is required to give the Nats an increase. Market rates are on the rise.

Tell that to the Astros.

The bubble will burst in the near future.

[TonySoprano]

Tell that to the Astros.

The bubble will burst in the near future.

This was supposed to address the market as it looked in 2012.

[Can_of_corn]

This was supposed to address the market as it looked in 2012.

And the rate of increase was excessive considering the revenue that was being generated.

[Nigel Tufnel]

How can Peter and pals lose $800 million by paying the Nats more in rights fees?

I think I did the math early in this thread, but they can. The obvious answer is that they're the ones that have to pay the Nats.

[Br10n]

It sounds like MASN is making a strong case. What happens if the judge rules in their favor? Does it set up a new arbitration?

[weams]

It sounds like MASN is making a strong case. What happens if the judge rules in their favor? Does it set up a new arbitration?

Supposedly.

[TonySoprano]

I think I did the math early in this thread, but they can. The obvious answer is that they're the ones that have to pay the Nats.

How did their asset take an $800M loss when the whole issue of rights fee is from 2012-2016. This gets opened up again in 2017 under the colossal assumption this gets wrapped up before then?

[Nigel Tufnel]

How did their asset take an $800M loss when the whole issue of rights fee is from 2012-2016. This gets opened up again in 2017 under the colossal assumption this gets wrapped up before then?

They seem to be talking about the value of MASN, which is presumably tied to a multiple of profits, and not straight cash. As the RSDC decision currently stands, MASN will pay out about $200 million in additional rights fees for 2012-2016.