Jump to content

MASN dispute update

Dark Helmet

By Dark Helmet
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
It's affecting the Os as well.

The Os could use another $25M per year in spend that the RSDC says our common owners have been shorting the team.

The ownership doesn't have to spend the money either way, just a lot more of it goes to the O's side if it isn't paid out in rights fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
The ownership doesn't have to spend the money either way, just a lot more of it goes to the O's side if it isn't paid out in rights fees.

But not if MASN has to keep it in reserve in case it loses the arbitration. Then nobody's getting the benefit of it for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradyBunch All-Star

BradyBunch

Posted
Posted
No they don't. They have double the ratings in their immediate viewing area, which is a little less than half the size of the Nats' viewing area, so total viewership is about the same (actually, the Nats have slightly more, 67,000 households vs. 62,000). http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/07/17/prime-time-tv-ratings-for-all-29-u-s-mlb-teams-shows-baseball-ruling-summer-programming/2/#470dd8b74c04 How the two teams do in areas outside their immediate viewing area isn't publicly available information, so far as I know.

In any event, it is the Orioles who insisted that the rights fees for the two teams needed to be equal. They certainly didn't insist on that because they were interested in subsidizing the Nats.

Gotta be careful here, Frobby. My biggest pet peeve about Nielsen (which harms my argument a little bit if they follow my adivce) is that the Gnats "tv market" is Washington and Hagerstown area. Nielsen has screwed up tri-state tv market and what Washington and Baltimore ratings truly are (on the grand scale). If Hagerstown isn't included DC falls from 7th largest market to 10th market just ahead of Tampa/St. Pete.

Nielson has to create a Hagerstown/Winchester/Chambersburg market..the TV market there is news stations from local to Harrisburg, York, DC and Baltimore. Even with Sports it's like this. Root (FSN Pittsburgh) is carried in these areas. So the area is not an exlusive market anymore.

Yes, they have 67,000 viewers in a TV market that is 2.4m (officially). That's horrible. Especially when you consider San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market pulls double that for the Giants and it's literally the same market size. Then when you consider, Dbacks, Mariners, Padres, Royals, Tigers, Twins and Pirates pull better numbers as well in MUCH smaller markets.

Orioles pulling 62,000 in a market that's 1.1m is actually alot more then the Nats. Double the Baltimore market.. you'd see about 100,000 to 120,000 viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hallas Hangout Grand Counsel

Hallas

Posted
Posted
It's affecting the Os as well.

The Os could use another $25M per year in spend that the RSDC says our common owners have been shorting the team.

The O's (potentially) get a bigger share of the money because of profit sharing on MASN's profits. Or not, maybe they choose to invest the money back into MASN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hoosiers Hangout Grand Counsel

hoosiers

Posted
Posted

A really poor article IMO and very one-sided.

The Nats may or may not have made good player acquisition decisions, but the only issue regarding MASN IMO is whether the Nats are being compensated at market rates for their local TV rights. I don't believe in the RSDC decision, but I also do not believe MASN has made appropriate efforts to get the Nats (and the Os) fair market rates. It is 2016.

"It is neither MASN's nor the Orioles' fault if the Nationals 2016 product is harmed in any way by their current financial situation." Yeah, it is MASN's fault. It's 2016, pal, the Nats have every right to complain about not receiving their market rate 2012 fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
The O's (potentially) get a bigger share of the money because of profit sharing on MASN's profits. Or not, maybe they choose to invest the money back into MASN.

Again. I think the current number is around 40 million. Not the old number from the other five year window. The Bortz Method pegged the reset number around that and MASN has been paying that out in accordance with their understanding of the agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
A really poor article IMO and very one-sided.

The Nats may or may not have made good player acquisition decisions, but the only issue regarding MASN IMO is whether the Nats are being compensated at market rates for their local TV rights. I don't believe in the RSDC decision, but I also do not believe MASN has made appropriate efforts to get the Nats (and the Os) fair market rates. It is 2016.

"It is neither MASN's nor the Orioles' fault if the Nationals 2016 product is harmed in any way by their current financial situation." Yeah, it is MASN's fault. It's 2016, pal, the Nats have every right to complain about not receiving their market rate 2012 fees.

They need to increase the cost per household.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Br10n Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Br10n

Posted
Posted
A really poor article IMO and very one-sided.

The Nats may or may not have made good player acquisition decisions, but the only issue regarding MASN IMO is whether the Nats are being compensated at market rates for their local TV rights. I don't believe in the RSDC decision, but I also do not believe MASN has made appropriate efforts to get the Nats (and the Os) fair market rates. It is 2016.

"It is neither MASN's nor the Orioles' fault if the Nationals 2016 product is harmed in any way by their current financial situation." Yeah, it is MASN's fault. It's 2016, pal, the Nats have every right to complain about not receiving their market rate 2012 fees.

If the Nats want fair compensation maybe they should not be fighting the use of an independent arbitrator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satyr3206 Hangout Grand Counsel

Satyr3206

Posted
Posted
A really poor article IMO and very one-sided.

The Nats may or may not have made good player acquisition decisions, but the only issue regarding MASN IMO is whether the Nats are being compensated at market rates for their local TV rights. I don't believe in the RSDC decision, but I also do not believe MASN has made appropriate efforts to get the Nats (and the Os) fair market rates. It is 2016.

"It is neither MASN's nor the Orioles' fault if the Nationals 2016 product is harmed in any way by their current financial situation." Yeah, it is MASN's fault. It's 2016, pal, the Nats have every right to complain about not receiving their market rate 2012 fees.

My take is slightly different. The original Masn agreement was partial compensation for the Orioles because the Nats moved into their territory. They agreed to it along with MLB. Now they want fair market rates and want to change an agreement they signed. Does that mean the Orioles could back out and ask them to move?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...