Orioles wins the TV rights court case battle against the Nats and MLB

[DrungoHazewood]

The Nats are trying to run the O's out of town, maybe replace them in Montreal. That's what the plan is, only DC is more pricy, the food sucks and so does the stadium when compared to Camden Yards.

That's a conspiracy too far. MLB is not going to pull out of Baltimore anytime in the foreseeable future. Baltimore, even without significant support from DC, isn't anywhere remotely close to the worst or smallest market in MLB. Not only that but they're not close to cracking the nut that led to the Expos leaving - Montreal lawmakers aren't in any mood to give MLB $1B for a new stadium.

[weams]

That's a conspiracy too far. MLB is not going to pull out of Baltimore anytime in the foreseeable future. Baltimore, even without significant support from DC, isn't anywhere remotely close to the worst or smallest market in MLB. Not only that but they're not close to cracking the nut that led to the Expos leaving - Montreal lawmakers aren't in any mood to give MLB $1B for a new stadium.

I do not believe the Orioles will be relocated to Montreal under the ownership of the Angelos family. After watching Goodell run his sport, I am not as quick to debunk conspiracies.

[abbott]

To borrow a line from the great Weams: this is all the news Angelos wants heard.

As far as the Orioles are concerned, this is the biggest win this decade.

Congrats to the O's MVP's,the best attorneys money can buy. When it comes to hiring lawyers, the O's are defintiely not scouting minor leagu free agents or recent law school grads. Big names cost big money. Angelos is willing to pay to get the results he wants, off the field wins.

[sportsfan8703]

That was exactly my conclusion as well. The Nats tried to blow up the TV deal completely by making outrageous demands they knew all along could not be met and then somehow got the arbitration stacked in their favor.

It's tough, but if someone isn't going to negotiate in good faith, there will never be a deal.

Which means that the extra 40 million doesn't become suddenly available. The o's are going to have to basically set aside that 40 million for every year until they make a decision.

So we're still in limbo. Maybe even right back to square one. But PA has a great point. They made a deal years ago to let the nats move here. They can't just go changing things now. MLB needs to remember that the Nationals franchise was a huge burden on baseball for awhile. They should have contracted them. Instead they shifted the burden/problem onto the O's and hurt our market size. MLB and the Nats should live up to the terms of the original deal, because without that there wouldn't be any Nats.

[Frobby]

A totally Pyrrhic victory

"A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory")."

That is my opinion of the Orioles' "victory" this week. I think two parts of Justice Marks' decision are paramount:

1. The opinion totally rejected MASN's argument that the RSDC's decision had "exceeded their powers" or that they "stray[ed] from the interpretation or application of the agreement and effectively dispense[d] [their] own brand of justice." To the contrary, Justice Marks found that the arbitrators "set forth an extensive explanation of their determination of the appropriate methodology to apply," and that explanation was "reasonable on its face...and therefore must be upheld even if this Court were to conclude that the RSDC's interpretation of its own established methodology was legally and factually incorrect." See pages 12-15 of the opinion.

2. The opinion makes clear that its will not re-write the parties' agreement and require that the remanded arbitration take place before a body other than the RSDC. He essentially said all that needs to happen is that the Nationals need to hire new counsel who don't concurrently represent MLB. See opinion at p. 28, fn. 21.

In other words, this is a wholly technical victory for MASN and the Orioles. Justice Marks has issued at open invitation for RSDC to render an updated decision that makes the exact same findings as before about the interpretation of the parties' agreement. If I were the Nats, I would not appeal this "loss." I'd rush back to the RSDC, change my counsel, and let them present the exact same case that was presented before. And the end result of the remanded arbitration will be virtually the same as before, and now MASN and the Orioles will be stuck with it.

It will be interesting to see what MASN and the Orioles do here. If they are the ones who decide to take an appeal from this decision, that will tell you who really "won."

For convenience, here's another link to the decision. I'd recommend reading all of it, but especially pages 12-15 and footnote 21 on page 28. They create huge problems for MASN and the Orioles, IMO. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=zA51e0IRuIQwKn5t4IqWhw==&system=prod

[Can_of_corn]

I wouldn't call this a Pyrrhic victory. All the O's have lost to this point is legal fees.

I also wouldn't call this a victory at all.

I would categorize it as the Orioles not losing.

[abbott]

I wouldn't call this a Pyrrhic victory. All the O's have lost to this point is legal fees.

I also wouldn't call this a victory at all.

I would categorize it as the Orioles not losing.

This has little to do with the Orioles, it's about MASN. JUST BECAUSE OWNERSHIP IS SIMILAR doesn't mean the goals are the same.

[Can_of_corn]

This has little to do with the Orioles, it's about MASN. JUST BECAUSE OWNERSHIP IS SIMILAR doesn't mean the goals are the same.

I'm going to go with the goals are exactly the same.

If MASN and the Orioles, who are both primarily owned by the same person, are not coordinating their actions then things are more mixed up then I thought.

[weams]

I'm going to go with the goals are exactly the same.

If MASN and the Orioles, who are both primarily owned by the same person, are not coordinating their actions then things are more mixed up then I thought.

Identical.

[mcgraw238]

A totally Pyrrhic victory

"A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory")."

That is my opinion of the Orioles' "victory" this week. I think two parts of Justice Marks' decision are paramount:

1. The opinion totally rejected MASN's argument that the RSDC's decision had "exceeded their powers" or that they "stray[ed] from the interpretation or application of the agreement and effectively dispense[d] [their] own brand of justice." To the contrary, Justice Marks found that the arbitrators "set forth an extensive explanation of their determination of the appropriate methodology to apply," and that explanation was "reasonable on its face...and therefore must be upheld even if this Court were to conclude that the RSDC's interpretation of its own established methodology was legally and factually incorrect." See pages 12-15 of the opinion.

2. The opinion makes clear that its will not re-write the parties' agreement and require that the remanded arbitration take place before a body other than the RSDC. He essentially said all that needs to happen is that the Nationals need to hire new counsel who don't concurrently represent MLB. See opinion at p. 28, fn. 21.

In other words, this is a wholly technical victory for MASN and the Orioles. Justice Marks has issued at open invitation for RSDC to render an updated decision that makes the exact same findings as before about the interpretation of the parties' agreement. If I were the Nats, I would not appeal this "loss." I'd rush back to the RSDC, change my counsel, and let them present the exact same case that was presented before. And the end result of the remanded arbitration will be virtually the same as before, and now MASN and the Orioles will be stuck with it.

It will be interesting to see what MASN and the Orioles do here. If they are the ones who decide to take an appeal from this decision, that will tell you who really "won."

For convenience, here's another link to the decision. I'd recommend reading all of it, but especially pages 12-15 and footnote 21 on page 28. They create huge problems for MASN and the Orioles, IMO. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=zA51e0IRuIQwKn5t4IqWhw==&system=prod

Spot on. Sums up what Spiritof66 and I initially said about the decision.

[Frobby]

This has little to do with the Orioles, it's about MASN. JUST BECAUSE OWNERSHIP IS SIMILAR doesn't mean the goals are the same.

The Orioles control MASN. They participated in the arbitration and the lawsuit. They urged that the Bortz methodology, including a 20% profit margin was the "established methodology." The RSDC rejected that argument and the Court said the RSDC's decision on that point was "reasonable on its face." So I don't think the Orioles are likely to achieve their [stated] goals in this process.

That said, I've felt all along that the RSDC decision was more favorable to the Orioles than to the Nats, who wanted to set rights fees at roughly double what the RSDC decided. It's a decision the Orioles can live with, and they are simply doing their best to grab for more, so in a sense, they are playing with house money.

[mdbdotcom]

Perhaps MASN will modify its approach in the next arbitration hearing in an attempt to win a better outcome than they got in the first.

[Can_of_corn]

The Orioles control MASN. They participated in the arbitration and the lawsuit. They urged that the Bortz methodology, including a 20% profit margin was the "established methodology." The RSDC rejected that argument and the Court said the RSDC's decision on that point was "reasonable on its face." So I don't think the Orioles are likely to achieve their [stated] goals in this process.

That said, I've felt all along that the RSDC decision was more favorable to the Orioles than to the Nats, who wanted to set rights fees at roughly double what the RSDC decided. It's a decision the Orioles can live with, and they are simply doing their best to grab for more, so in a sense, they are playing with house money.

I feel that the Nats did not want to set rights fees, they wanted to bankrupt MASN to get out of the agreement MLB fostered onto them. I think it would be faulty to even use the Nationals' proposed number as a starting point.

[Can_of_corn]

Perhaps MASN will modify its approach in the next arbitration hearing in an attempt to win a better outcome than they got in the first.

Can they win?

Is it rigged?

[weams]

Can they win?

Is it rigged?

For they Orioles, delay is a win. Anyone who wishes to lessen this decision is not understanding.

The Orioles had already lost.

And the last play of the game was been determine to need to be replayed. Several years afterwards.

That's a victory. No matter the final results.