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

[ShaneDawg85]

Watching the game last night it baffled me why the AL was wearing whites in an NL ballpark. Then it clicked in my mind, and came back that the NL will be hosting the All Star game two more years after this. The utter lunacy of it all.

[Frobby]

My biggest issue with your position is that you seem to be set on making the Orioles out to be the petulant one. IMO, the Nationals seem much more apt for the "NOT FAIR!" characterization. The lerners bought the team knowing said agreement was in place. Whether you or they thought it was a good thing is largely besides the point.

And why should the Orioles not fight for their interpretation of the agreement?

I feel that both sides were overreaching in their interpretation, and that the RSDC decision was pretty fair, though arguably not perfect. I have no problem with the Orioles (MASN) fighting for a more favorable interpretation.

[weams]

My biggest issue with your position is that you seem to be set on making the Orioles out to be the petulant one. IMO, the Nationals seem much more apt for the "NOT FAIR!" characterization. The lerners bought the team knowing said agreement was in place. Whether you or they thought it was a good thing is largely besides the point.

And why should the Orioles not fight for their interpretation of the agreement?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They were told by MLB that the agreement could be changed. Or something. And they had the same attorney feeding them the same advise. Maybe it is the Lerners that should be suing MLB for misrepresentation? Bud was making an enormous income for many years.

[weams]

I feel that both sides were overreaching in their interpretation, and that the RSDC decision was pretty fair, though arguably not perfect. I have no problem with the Orioles (MASN) fighting for a more favorable interpretation.

I am pretty much here. If you give the Lerners this amount right now without challenge, you might lose the right to continue to champion the Bortz calculation going forward.

[weams]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Going to Supreme Court was always on the table for [Tom] Brady but if 2nd Circuit didn't grant re-hearing...what are chances SCOTUS takes case?</p>— Michele Steele (@ESPNMichele) <a href="

">July 13, 2016</a></blockquote>

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

[DrungoHazewood]

My biggest issue with your position is that you seem to be set on making the Orioles out to be the petulant one. IMO, the Nationals seem much more apt for the "NOT FAIR!" characterization. The lerners bought the team knowing said agreement was in place. Whether you or they thought it was a good thing is largely besides the point.

And why should the Orioles not fight for their interpretation of the agreement?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I completely understand the Orioles position and under the agreed-upon rules they have every right to protest until they've exhausted their legal paths. I think the Nats came into this not quite grasping that MLB would be okay with this bizarre setup in perpetuity. I think they believed that a situation where one city's team got to siphon another's profits forever would eventually be renegotiated, or go away when Angelos died, and probably some MLB official told them as much to get them to agree.

[weams]

I completely understand the Orioles position and under the agreed-upon rules they have every right to protest until they've exhausted their legal paths. I think the Nats came into this not quite grasping that MLB would be okay with this bizarre setup in perpetuity. I think they believed that a situation where one city's team got to siphon another's profits forever would eventually be renegotiated, or go away when Angelos died, and probably some MLB official told them as much to get them to agree.

Bud, with his authoritarian tactic, thought he could pressure the Orioles into selling MASN off for a profit to Fox or Comcast and thereby removing the cloud on the title for Nationals rights. Did not go that way.

[hoosiers]

Under the rationale of the RSDC's decision, the rights fees intentionally were set at a level where MASN was projected to make a profit. So, while the Nats might not think it is relevant or desirable for MASN to remain solvent, the RSDC clearly did.

The Nats just want their $. I don't think it matters if it comes from the local rights fees or the MASN profit distributions. For now, the MASN profit distributions are too low (even though it shields $ from revenue sharing) with the Nats (eventually) giving up two-thirds of the profits from the ownership of their local TV rights for one-third of the Bmore market. This is contractually set and is very lop-sided for the Os - to the point that the entire concept of owning part of MASN is not palatable to the Nats and they are better off if MASN fails - not exactly a win-win situation.

The only option for the Nats is to maximize the local rights fees.

Separately, the RSDC decision sets MASN profits at 5%. That is patently absurd - both as an investment return for an MLB owner AND it somewhat puts a nail in the coffin of the concept that MLB owners should own RSNs. I'd love to see what happens if MLB told the NYY that their local TV rights for revenue sharing purposes would be set so that YES earned 5%.

The RSDC decision may seem to be comfortably in the middle of the Os request and the Nats request, but IMO the decision reflects the behind the scenes workings of Manfred and the Nats to leave MASN with the lowest possible, but conceptually acceptable, margin. And the judge said Manfred ran a heavy-handed process to arrive at the RSDC decision. I don't see how the decision could be considered fair given how the process was run.

All that said, the Os ownership has received incredible profit distributions from MASN and it would be nice to see them move off Bortz and create a better solution for the Lerners before one of these legal decisions moves against them in a bad way.

[Ohfan67]

Bud, with his authoritarian tactic, thought he could pressure the Orioles into selling MASN off for a profit to Fox or Comcast and thereby removing the cloud on the title for Nationals rights. Did not go that way.

The O's might ultimately make more money if they did sell. It seems like they got into the regional sports network business a little late in the game and it's not clear MASN is the cash cow folks imagined.

[Ohfan67]

The O's might ultimately make more money if they did sell. It seems like they got into the regional sports network business a little late in the game and it's not clear MASN is the cash cow folks imagined.

Although I'm sure the profits from the sell or even the sell itself would be tied up in court for a couple of years by the Nats. The situation is pretty much a mess.

[Frobby]

I completely understand the Orioles position and under the agreed-upon rules they have every right to protest until they've exhausted their legal paths. I think the Nats came into this not quite grasping that MLB would be okay with this bizarre setup in perpetuity. I think they believed that a situation where one city's team got to siphon another's profits forever would eventually be renegotiated, or go away when Angelos died, and probably some MLB official told them as much to get them to agree.

I don't think the Lerners are that naive. They paid $450 mm for the Nats, and I'm sure they had lawyers looking under every rock. I do think it's possible that they underestimated Peter Angelos' willingness to dig in and fight and the kind of tactics he would use.

[SteveA]

I don't think the Lerners are that naive. They paid $450 mm for the Nats, and I'm sure they had lawyers looking under every rock. I do think it's possible that they underestimated Peter Angelos' willingness to dig in and fight and the kind of tactics he would use.

Never fight a land war in Asia.

Don't take on Peter Angelos in the courtroom.

[Dark Helmet]

MLB should have stepped in and kept the Nationals/Expos in Montreal. The Nats have been nothing but a thorn in the Orioles side since they got here. And MLB has been wanting a team back there ever since.

[DrungoHazewood]

MLB should have stepped in and kept the Nationals/Expos in Montreal. The Nats have been nothing but a thorn in the Orioles side since they got here. And MLB has been wanting a team back there ever since.

MLB had no political leverage to extract a new $billion Mallpark from the citizens of Montreal. They got that easily in DC. I think they can live with a lawsuit over a few tens of millions in annual rights fees.

I think MLB is trying to use Montreal or another city to resurrect the old strategy of threats of losing your team to extract taxpayer money for new parks. Oakland and Tampa really want free stadiums with luxury boxes and acres of $25 parking and PSAs and all those other ways to print money. I don't think MLB is really itching to put a team in Montreal, they just want a viable relocation site for leverage. Just as they used the then-vacant stadium in Tampa to get stadiums built in the 80s/90s in places like Chicago and San Francisco.

[Frobby]

MLB had no political leverage to extract a new $billion Mallpark from the citizens of Montreal. They got that easily in DC. I think they can live with a lawsuit over a few tens of millions in annual rights fees.

Especially since MLB isn't the one that has to pay it.