MASN dispute update

[weams]

Not disagreeing, but the current cost is well below industry standards. That despite being a 2 for 1 deal.

It way to make a bubble burst is to add more air. Neither one of these clubs have won any World Series lately.

[Can_of_corn]

It way to make a bubble burst is to add more air. Neither one of these clubs have won any World Series lately.

Did I miss the one the Padres won? (20yr/1.2B)

[hoosiers]

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

The RSDC decision was withheld for two years - I doubt that was at the Nats request. It is not the Nats who have held up this process.

The use of an independent arbitrator is not part of the MASN agreement. It is an attempt by the Os/MASN to work outside the framework of the agreement. Why should the Nats agree to that?

[weams]

Did I miss the one the Padres won? (20yr/1.2B)

Well, California man. They sure acted like they were gonna win won though. Didn't they!

[hoosiers]

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?

The original agreement can be looked at as partial compensation to the Os for the Nats moving into their territory and the initial MASN distribution of fees practically guaranteed MASN/Os profits of nearly $200M in the first few years! That's pretty good partial compensation - besides the creation of an RSN that could grow to $1B in value.

The agreement does, however, call for the Nats to receive fair market rates for their local TV rights fees beginning in 2012. The Nats are not asking for anything not in the original MASN agreement.

[weams]

The RSDC decision was withheld for two years - I doubt that was at the Nats request. It is not the Nats who have held up this process.

No, it was actually the MLB that tried to avoid litigation because of who knows what back room drama. They hoped for an agreement or sale during those two years.

[Br10n]

The RSDC decision was withheld for two years - I doubt that was at the Nats request. It is not the Nats who have held up this process.

The use of an independent arbitrator is not part of the MASN agreement. It is an attempt by the Os/MASN to work outside the framework of the agreement. Why should the Nats agree to that?

You are 100% correct about the use of an independent arbitrator. That said, it appears they would prefer to continue the use of biased arbitration and have no concern for fair.

[BohKnowsBmore]

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?

Great use of the counter-factual

[BohKnowsBmore]

The original agreement can be looked at as partial compensation to the Os for the Nats moving into their territory and the initial MASN distribution of fees practically guaranteed MASN/Os profits of nearly $200M in the first few years! That's pretty good partial compensation - besides the creation of an RSN that could grow to $1B in value.

The agreement does, however, call for the Nats to receive fair market rates for their local TV rights fees beginning in 2012. The Nats are not asking for anything not in the original MASN agreement.

The independent arbiter was to be brought in to help resolve what was "fair market rates." Your take seems to be countering Oriole homer takes by going completely the other way and refusing to see the Orioles's position having any merit.

[Frobby]

The independent arbiter was to be brought in to help resolve what was "fair market rates." Your take seems to be countering Oriole homer takes by going completely the other way and refusing to see the Orioles's position having any merit.

As I recall, hoosiers did not think the RSDC decision was very well reasoned, but that's beside the point. The point is, the parties agreed that the RSDC would be the arbitral body to decide the issue. That was the deal. MASN didn't like the RSDC's decision and so now they want someone else to decide. But that wasn't the agreement. It's about that simple.

[Satyr3206]

The independent arbiter was to be brought in to help resolve what was "fair market rates." Your take seems to be countering Oriole homer takes by going completely the other way and refusing to see the Orioles's position having any merit.

I think the problem is how to determine fair market value. It almost has to be based on the revenue that MASN is producing. You can't compare it to the Dodgers deal or any other team, it has to be based on actual revenue.

[Satyr3206]

As I recall, hoosiers did not think the RSDC decision was very well reasoned, but that's beside the point. The point is, the parties agreed that the RSDC would be the arbitral body to decide the issue. That was the deal. MASN didn't like the RSDC's decision and so now they want someone else to decide. But that wasn't the agreement. It's about that simple.

Well MLB did make some questionable moves and none of them looked fair and equitable.

[JLee2027]

The RSDC decision was withheld for two years - I doubt that was at the Nats request. It is not the Nats who have held up this process.

The use of an independent arbitrator is not part of the MASN agreement. It is an attempt by the Os/MASN to work outside the framework of the agreement. Why should the Nats agree to that?

So the Nats are blameless here? :laughlol:

[Br10n]

So the Nats are blameless here? :laughlol:

Yes, the courts did say the Nats and MLB have been "fair" and blameless.

[Frobby]

So the Nats are blameless here? :laughlol:

Pretty much. There's only two things you could really blame them for:

1. Using the Proskauer firm as their attorneys, knowing that Proskauer has represented MLB and some of its teams in unrelated matters (including 1 or 2 of the teams whose representatives were sitting on the RSDC when it heard the case). The court said that created the potential for a conflict of interest and bias on the part of the RSDC. But I would respond as follows:

a. Even if that's true, I'd put the blame more on (i) Proskauer, which should have considered whether it had a conflict of interest before it took the assignment, and (ii) the RSDC, which declined to disqualify Proskauer from working on the case. Generally, clients rely on their lawyers to tell them what the rules are on conflicts of interest.

b. I think the court's decision on the conflict of interest issue is questionable. That issue is now on appeal and I won't be surprised if the Appellate Division decides that it was perfectly OK for Proskauer to act as the Nats' lawyers here.

2. Overreaching in their theory of how "fair market value" should be determined. But it's not exactly unusual for a party to take an extreme position in a negotiation or in litigation. MASN's position also was very extreme. In the end, the RSDC did not agree with either of them. I don't see any reason to blame either party for pushing for the position most advantageous to them.