Orioles Halt National's Exhibition Games At Naval Academy

[Tx Oriole]

On 11/3/2017 at 12:23 AM, MDtransplant757 said:

My bad. I meant to put hopefully. Their both Baltimore businessmen, and Plank is loaded. Local guy who made it huge. Hard not to root for him to buy the team. Same with Cal. 

Wish somebody would. 

[Frobby]

On 11/3/2017 at 1:23 AM, MDtransplant757 said:

My bad. I meant to put hopefully. Their both Baltimore businessmen, and Plank is loaded. Local guy who made it huge. Hard not to root for him to buy the team. Same with Cal. 

They also have a business relationship, as UA supplies the gear for the IronBirds and they have a marketing agreement.   

[Redskins Rick]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

They also have a business relationship, as UA supplies the gear for the IronBirds and they have a marketing agreement.   

UA supplies gear for a majority of the sporting team world now.

Damn wish I had invested in their stock when it was cheap back in the early years.

 

[Beetlejuice]

On 11/2/2017 at 5:29 PM, spiritof66 said:

The RSDC is supposed to resolve the inherent conflict between a team with an affiliated cable provider and the rest of MLB by deciding how much of the value of its cable rights a team can divert to an affiliated cable provider, thereby protecting them from revenue sharing. While the MASN agreement is not clearly written, I have no doubt that the only reasonable reading of it is that the parties intended to have the rights fees paid by  MASN treated like the rights fees paid by other team-affiliated cable providers. There are some problems with that interpretation, but no other interpretation makes any sense. 

At the time of the rights fees renewal (and at the time of the arbitration decision) treating MASN like other affiliated cable providers meant allowing MASN to pay rights fees under the Bortz formula -- it did not mean determining the rights fees that would be paid to a non-affiliated  cable provider. The RSDC just have set the rights fees in a way that permitted MASN (to the benefit of the Orioles, based on their majority ownership of MASN) to keep substantial profits,  just as it has, apparently, allowed every other affiliated cable provider to do. 

The RSDC is also there to support the teams to determine what they should be getting for selling their rights to Comcast, FoxSports, etc.  And with the creation of MASN they were given a new role; to protect the interests of the Nationals and Orioles from chicanery by Angelos.  The Orioles don’t own a percentage in MASN.  Angelos does.  As much as they don’t trust Angelos to hold back from MLB,  they doubly don’t trust him with the Nationals revenue stream.  There is no way they could have found a buyer for the team if the TV rights were held hostage by a third party without reasonable assurances they would get their TV revenue.

The way the settlement agreement was written, it was widely acknowledged the first five years of revenues to each team would be far below what could have been recouped from Comcast or Fox.  The purpose of this period was ostensibly to give MASN time to ramp up and allow MASN to compete with other RSNs.  Instead of investing in MASN, Angelos treated the 5 years of sub-rate fees as what was owed him for being wronged by MLB.  He could have then sold the rights to Comcast subject to MLB’s approval.  When it was clear that Angelos had no intention of building a RSN, MLB tried to broker a sale.  We weren’t privy to those negotiations, but I can guarantee you that Comcast wasn’t going to agree to pay the same rights fee to the Orioles as the Nationals.

The settlement agreement didn’t mention Boortz, because MLB wasn’t going to lock themselves up with a perpetual relationship with the Boortz group.  That’s why it was simpler to say “current methodology”, as it leaves them room to choose whatever methodology they want.  The “collusion” theory is sheer fantasy with no evidence to support it.  Was any evidence of colliusion found in discovery?  IIRC the interrogatories and demands didn’t make it seem like they actually believed this to be the case.

[Beetlejuice]

On 11/4/2017 at 11:43 PM, MDtransplant757 said:

I never had any illusions on him being a major owner. He would be a massive name to the group though 

He’s a marketing farce, like Jordan being an owner in the Wizards.  Of course Abe Pollin knew that Jordan might very well lace up his shoes one more time and that would sell tickets and jerseys.  He rode Jordan hard and put him away wet.

[MDtransplant757]

On 11/6/2017 at 8:15 AM, Redskins Rick said:

I dont disagree with that.

I just dont see the Angelos family welcoming him into the organization in any manner.

 

They won’t matter. They’ll have to pay close to a billion dollars to keep the O’s, the law firm, MASN and peter’s resteraunt In inheritance taxes. That and MLB will kick them out due to how peter bucked the system back in the day 

[MDtransplant757]

17 hours ago, Beetlejuice said:

He’s a marketing farce, like Jordan being an owner in the Wizards.  Of course Abe Pollin knew that Jordan might very well lace up his shoes one more time and that would sell tickets and jerseys.  He rode Jordan hard and put him away wet.

Jordan owns the hornets, and is the majority owner due to him making a fortune off of Nike. I see what you’re getting at, though

[Redskins Rick]

5 minutes ago, MDtransplant757 said:

They won’t matter. They’ll have to pay close to a billion dollars to keep the O’s, the law firm, MASN and peter’s resteraunt In inheritance taxes. That and MLB will kick them out due to how peter bucked the system back in the day 

MLB doesnt have the balls, have you been watching MLB decisions over the past two decades?

Seriously, this is not the NFL.

[esmd]

Spiteful and petty.  Only way to try and salvage it somewhat would be to play their own annual exhibition game there every spring, and also to maybe try and have the Baysox play the Academy team or something like that.

[spiritof66]

On 11/6/2017 at 3:37 PM, Beetlejuice said:

The RSDC is also there to support the teams to determine what they should be getting for selling their rights to Comcast, FoxSports, etc.  And with the creation of MASN they were given a new role; to protect the interests of the Nationals and Orioles from chicanery by Angelos.  The Orioles don’t own a percentage in MASN.  Angelos does.  As much as they don’t trust Angelos to hold back from MLB,  they doubly don’t trust him with the Nationals revenue stream.  There is no way they could have found a buyer for the team if the TV rights were held hostage by a third party without reasonable assurances they would get their TV revenue.

The way the settlement agreement was written, it was widely acknowledged the first five years of revenues to each team would be far below what could have been recouped from Comcast or Fox.  The purpose of this period was ostensibly to give MASN time to ramp up and allow MASN to compete with other RSNs.  Instead of investing in MASN, Angelos treated the 5 years of sub-rate fees as what was owed him for being wronged by MLB.  He could have then sold the rights to Comcast subject to MLB’s approval.  When it was clear that Angelos had no intention of building a RSN, MLB tried to broker a sale.  We weren’t privy to those negotiations, but I can guarantee you that Comcast wasn’t going to agree to pay the same rights fee to the Orioles as the Nationals.

The settlement agreement didn’t mention Boortz, because MLB wasn’t going to lock themselves up with a perpetual relationship with the Boortz group.  That’s why it was simpler to say “current methodology”, as it leaves them room to choose whatever methodology they want.  The “collusion” theory is sheer fantasy with no evidence to support it.  Was any evidence of colliusion found in discovery?  IIRC the interrogatories and demands didn’t make it seem like they actually believed this to be the case.

You may know a lot more about the background of the MASN agreement than I do since I didn't pay much attention to it back in 2004-05. But I studied the court papers pretty closely a few years ago, and what is in there doesn't support some of your assertions about the agreement.

I've never seen anything to indicate the RSDC is involved in assessing rights fees paid  to MLB clubs by non-affiliated cable providers. The description of the RSDC's purpose in footnote 2 of the MASN arbitration decision does not  mention that function, and it doesn't make sense that it would. I don't see any reason why MLB or the RSDC would get involved in assessing those fees between non-affiliated entities, which would have nothing to do with revenue sharing. Maybe you know something about the RSDC's functions that I don't,.

I'm not clear where where your idea that the RSDC is supposed "to protect the interests of the Nationals and Orioles from chicanery by Angelos" comes from. Under the MASN agreement, the RSDC decides post-2011  rights fees to be paid to the Orioles and the Nats if the parties can't agree. I don't see that as related to potential chicanery, but maybe I just don't follow what you mean by that. The way the MASN agreement works, someone had to play that role if the parties can't agree, and the Orioles and MASN either  misjudged the RSDC or had no choice when they agreed that the RSDC would play that role.

I had thought that MASN was owned by individuals, but the court papers state in a number of places that the Orioles and the Nats -- not any individuals -- are the partners in MASN.

What you say was "widely acknowledged" about reduced rights fees during the first five years of MASN revenues is unfamiliar to me. It is not stated in the agreement (unless it's n the portions that were redacted), and nothing about that was argued by the Nats. If it's not in the agreement and wasn't discussed by the parties at the time they entered into the MASN agreement, such an arrangement or understanding would be legally irrelevant even it was "widely acknowledged."

Manfred and MLB love the argument that the RSDC wasn't obligated to apply Bortz because the MASN agreement doesn't specify the use of Bortz. The Orioles did a poor job, IMO, of responding to this argument: the answer is that the agreement didn't specify Bortz because nobody knew in 2004 what methodology the RSDC would be using years in the future. But it doesn't follow that the MASN agreement "leaves [the RSDC] room to choose whatever methodology they want" in determining the rights fees to be paid by MASN. The agreement requires the RSDC to use its own "established methodology for evaluating all other related party telecast agreements in the industry."  Based on everything I've read or heard, it seems pretty clear that, at the time  of the arbitration, the RSDC's only "established methodology for evaluating" such agreements was the Bortz methodology, and it had no basis under the terms of the MASN agreement to diverge from Bortz. 

I'm not sure what you or anyone else means by "collusion'" in connection with the MASN arbitration. Here are the facts. MLB personnel, including Manfred himself,  "administered" the arbitration and participated at the heating. The three members of the RSDC, who signed the decision, were Jeff Wilpon of the Mets, Stu Sternberg of the Rays and Frank Coonelly of the Pirates. Jeff Wilpon (whose father, Fred, is the Mets' principal owner) is, to put it kindly, a man of modest talent, who happened to be sired by a very rich father. At the time of the arbitration hearing in 2012, the Mets were still extricating themselves from the Madoff mess. Sternberg was facing the prospect of needing MLB's support for a new Tampa Bay stadium, or deferring a stadium decision and investment, or a relocation or sale of the franchise. Neither Wilpon nor Sternberg was in a position -- or had the expertise, so far as I can tell -- to make an independent assessment of the issues that might be contrary to MLB's conclusion. In contrast, Coonelly had plenty of expertise., but to expect him to be independent of the Commissioner's office is a fantasy.  He came to the Pirates from MLB, where he had worked closely with Manfred in labor litigation and arbitrations for many years, and before that he and Manfred worked together in a law firm. I have detailed their relationship in an earlier post and won't repeat it.

I can't prove it, but I am virtually certain that MLB, probably Manfred (before he was Commissioner) or those working under him, decided this dispute, wrote the award -- which is largely gibberish -- and had the members of the RSDC sign it -- or something very close to that. Coonelly may have had some role. In discovery, MASN and the Orioles did not get to look into the process by which the arbitration award was reached -- I forget whether they tried -- but such discovery should not have been allowed if it was sought. Call it collusion if you want,, but that sort of proceeding  is what the Orioles let themselves in for when they agreed to a determination by the RSDC. As I've explained before, I think there is some reason to hope that if this dispute goes before the current members of the RSDC, they will bring more integrity and expertise to their decision, and will reach a decision that  the MASN agreement calls for. 

 

[MDtransplant757]

11 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

MLB doesnt have the balls, have you been watching MLB decisions over the past two decades?

Seriously, this is not the NFL.

It may not matter if MLB has the balls. It will happen because of a stupid tax. 

[Beetlejuice]

On 11/7/2017 at 7:36 PM, spiritof66 said:

I had thought that MASN was owned by individuals, but the court papers state in a number of places that the Orioles and the Nats -- not any individuals -- are the partners in MASN.

What you say was "widely acknowledged" about reduced rights fees during the first five years of MASN revenues is unfamiliar to me. It is not stated in the agreement (unless it's n the portions that were redacted), and nothing about that was argued by the Nats. If it's not in the agreement and wasn't discussed by the parties at the time they entered into the MASN agreement, such an arrangement or understanding would be legally irrelevant even it was "widely acknowledged."

Manfred and MLB love the argument that the RSDC wasn't obligated to apply Bortz because the MASN agreement doesn't specify the use of Bortz. The Orioles did a poor job, IMO, of responding to this argument: the answer is that the agreement didn't specify Bortz because nobody knew in 2004 what methodology the RSDC would be using years in the future. But it doesn't follow that the MASN agreement "leaves [the RSDC] room to choose whatever methodology they want" in determining the rights fees to be paid by MASN. The agreement requires the RSDC to use its own "established methodology for evaluating all other related party telecast agreements in the industry."  Based on everything I've read or heard, it seems pretty clear that, at the time  of the arbitration, the RSDC's only "established methodology for evaluating" such agreements was the Bortz methodology, and it had no basis under the terms of the MASN agreement to diverge from Bortz. 

Check again.  IIRC MASN is owned by an entity controlled by Angelos that is not the same entity that owns the Orioles.  I do believe the Nationals ownership entity controls their stake in MASN.

As for Boortz, the relationship was most likely terminated by MLB prior to the dispute.  I’m sure Angelos would have found otherwise in discovery.  I don’t have the dates.  And the Boortz method wouldn’t have even been applicable here due to the requirement that identical fees be paid out for two different markets.  Boortz-prime isn’t Boortz.  Methodologies change and that seems like that possibility was drafted into the settlement. Pound the facts, pound the law, pound the desk.

And the composition of the RSDC is pretty irrelevant.  MLB’s staff is likely doing all the work.  It is an MLB entity after all.  But Angelos found no evidence in discovery of collusion by Manfred or anyone else for that matter.  Remember the overall puprose of the RSDC is to make sure MLB is getting their cut from team controlled RSNs.  MASN wasn’t their first rodeo.  It might not have been their first go since they fired Boortz.  My personal gut feeling is Selig and Manfred didn’t see the explosion of TV revenue.  Neither did Angelos for that matter.  But Angelos likes to drag things out and wear his opponent down.  He’d rather pay tomorrow than pay today.  I don’t see the second RSDC making a substantially different award.  It’s quite possible that since they have the actual numbers, which as I have mentioned increased every year the award goes up.  This could be an 8 figure “ooop” on Angelos.

[weams]

On 11/7/2017 at 7:36 PM, spiritof66 said:

You may know a lot more about the background of the MASN agreement than I do since I didn't pay much attention to it back in 2004-05. But I studied the court papers pretty closely a few years ago, and what is in there doesn't support some of your assertions about the agreement.

I've never seen anything to indicate the RSDC is involved in assessing rights fees paid  to MLB clubs by non-affiliated cable providers. The description of the RSDC's purpose in footnote 2 of the MASN arbitration decision does not  mention that function, and it doesn't make sense that it would. I don't see any reason why MLB or the RSDC would get involved in assessing those fees between non-affiliated entities, which would have nothing to do with revenue sharing. Maybe you know something about the RSDC's functions that I don't,.

I'm not clear where where your idea that the RSDC is supposed "to protect the interests of the Nationals and Orioles from chicanery by Angelos" comes from. Under the MASN agreement, the RSDC decides post-2011  rights fees to be paid to the Orioles and the Nats if the parties can't agree. I don't see that as related to potential chicanery, but maybe I just don't follow what you mean by that. The way the MASN agreement works, someone had to play that role if the parties can't agree, and the Orioles and MASN either  misjudged the RSDC or had no choice when they agreed that the RSDC would play that role.

I had thought that MASN was owned by individuals, but the court papers state in a number of places that the Orioles and the Nats -- not any individuals -- are the partners in MASN.

What you say was "widely acknowledged" about reduced rights fees during the first five years of MASN revenues is unfamiliar to me. It is not stated in the agreement (unless it's n the portions that were redacted), and nothing about that was argued by the Nats. If it's not in the agreement and wasn't discussed by the parties at the time they entered into the MASN agreement, such an arrangement or understanding would be legally irrelevant even it was "widely acknowledged."

Manfred and MLB love the argument that the RSDC wasn't obligated to apply Bortz because the MASN agreement doesn't specify the use of Bortz. The Orioles did a poor job, IMO, of responding to this argument: the answer is that the agreement didn't specify Bortz because nobody knew in 2004 what methodology the RSDC would be using years in the future. But it doesn't follow that the MASN agreement "leaves [the RSDC] room to choose whatever methodology they want" in determining the rights fees to be paid by MASN. The agreement requires the RSDC to use its own "established methodology for evaluating all other related party telecast agreements in the industry."  Based on everything I've read or heard, it seems pretty clear that, at the time  of the arbitration, the RSDC's only "established methodology for evaluating" such agreements was the Bortz methodology, and it had no basis under the terms of the MASN agreement to diverge from Bortz. 

I'm not sure what you or anyone else means by "collusion'" in connection with the MASN arbitration. Here are the facts. MLB personnel, including Manfred himself,  "administered" the arbitration and participated at the heating. The three members of the RSDC, who signed the decision, were Jeff Wilpon of the Mets, Stu Sternberg of the Rays and Frank Coonelly of the Pirates. Jeff Wilpon (whose father, Fred, is the Mets' principal owner) is, to put it kindly, a man of modest talent, who happened to be sired by a very rich father. At the time of the arbitration hearing in 2012, the Mets were still extricating themselves from the Madoff mess. Sternberg was facing the prospect of needing MLB's support for a new Tampa Bay stadium, or deferring a stadium decision and investment, or a relocation or sale of the franchise. Neither Wilpon nor Sternberg was in a position -- or had the expertise, so far as I can tell -- to make an independent assessment of the issues that might be contrary to MLB's conclusion. In contrast, Coonelly had plenty of expertise., but to expect him to be independent of the Commissioner's office is a fantasy.  He came to the Pirates from MLB, where he had worked closely with Manfred in labor litigation and arbitrations for many years, and before that he and Manfred worked together in a law firm. I have detailed their relationship in an earlier post and won't repeat it.

I can't prove it, but I am virtually certain that MLB, probably Manfred (before he was Commissioner) or those working under him, decided this dispute, wrote the award -- which is largely gibberish -- and had the members of the RSDC sign it -- or something very close to that. Coonelly may have had some role. In discovery, MASN and the Orioles did not get to look into the process by which the arbitration award was reached -- I forget whether they tried -- but such discovery should not have been allowed if it was sought. Call it collusion if you want,, but that sort of proceeding  is what the Orioles let themselves in for when they agreed to a determination by the RSDC. As I've explained before, I think there is some reason to hope that if this dispute goes before the current members of the RSDC, they will bring more integrity and expertise to their decision, and will reach a decision that  the MASN agreement calls for. 

 

Say it three times.

[webbrick2010]

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 1:01 PM, Redskins Rick said:

UA supplies gear for a majority of the sporting team world now.

Damn wish I had invested in their stock when it was cheap back in the early years.

 

You can buy UAA for what it was in the early years, down 80% in last 52 weeks

Plank not buying anything for awhile