The 18th ranked market in MLB just signed an RSN deal that will pay them 50m-82m a season. Tell me again how MASN doesn't make any money LOL

[weams]

2 hours ago, nadecir said:

We just don't know how profitable MASN really is.  There is ample evidence that MASN hasn't turned out to be the cash cow that the Orioles hoped.  The number of subscribers to cable TV is down, and the number is heading even further down in the future as cutting the cord becomes more prevalent.  This trend obviously hurts MASN's bottom line.

On the other hand, baseball broadcast rights are generally up, but the Orioles don't participate directly in this increase because they own their own network.  However, the Nationals are getting a good case built for them to ask for even higher fees from MASN for the rights to their games in the future.

The Orioles have not been able to build MASN up through acquiring broadcast rights to other sports or from the production of their own original sports programming.  MASN Has show no streaming media creativity over the Internet to offset the loss of cable TV subscribers.   Maybe the Orioles just aren't really good at building their own cable sports network.

We all lauded the creation of MASN.  We all thought it would do great things for the Orioles.  It turns out that building your own network is harder than we thought.  I am not sure it has worked out as well as anyone hoped.  Maybe it's time for the Orioles to sell MASN and go back to selling their broadcast rights like many other teams.  Perhaps it's time to get out of a business that the Orioles have not shown they are really good at doing.

The Time to sell MASN and cash in was before the Nats end run. 

[eddie83]

Couple of thoughts.

The Orioles and Nats get much better ratings than the Caps and Wizards do.  

My DirectTV bill shows a charge of $6.64 for RSN. I get both MASN and NBCW. 

MASN is hurt that they do not have better year round programming but they own the summer months and have a huge inventory of games. 

If MASN wasn’t profitable then why is Angelos’ so desperate to hold onto it? 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

8 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Couple of thoughts.

The Orioles and Nats get much better ratings than the Caps and Wizards do.  

My DirectTV bill shows a charge of $6.64 for RSN. I get both MASN and NBCW. 

MASN is hurt that they do not have better year round programming but they own the summer months and have a huge inventory of games. 

If MASN wasn’t profitable then why is Angelos’ so desperate to hold onto it? 

Partnership with Fox Sports would help MASN greatly.  

[eddie83]

3 hours ago, TradeAngelos said:

Well that didn't take long. You people are so delusional it hurts my brain just to think about how you come up with this cockamamie stuff.

MASN makes money but a couple some of your points I disagree with. 

In your first post you said the Orioles and Nats had the 5th and 12th highest market. You probably meant rating which is correct but look at some numbers. 

The Orioles basically doubled the Rays in ratings but had 61k viewers a night. The Rays had 52k in viewers a night. The Tampa market is bigger than Baltimore. 

The Nats had 77K viewers a night but a lower rating than the Orioles. 

Another point is MASN is one channel basically. The Orioles and Nats combined for 138k viewers a night. Now that does not account for the number of people who watch the Orioles in DC and vice versa but still. 

Just because MASN and MASN 2 exist they don’t own 2 separate channels. They don’t get to charge the same fee twice in essence. 

[eddie83]

9 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Partnership with Fox Sports would help MASN greatly.  

Frobby knows this story real well and can explain it better than me. 

Basically if the Orioles have to pay out to each team what MLB wants the profit for MASN itself isn’t there. 

In NY the Mets and Yanks own separate channels. It isn’t like they share a channel like the Orioles and Nats do.

 

[weams]

A friend messaged me. 

Quote

I don't have access to the site right now but that guy citing the Forbes post on markets is incorrect. Orioles have a high rating in the market, but that needs to be scaled to population. Look at NYY, they rank below the Orioles but churn out about 5 times the viewership. He should be looking at the 000 column.

The Rays contract is indeed interesting, but the MASN is not an exceptional cash cow. They probably pull in an extra 20-25 MM by not sharing it with Nats.

Given how cheap their ticket and meal costs are and how poor their luxury box situation is...They are pretty much a fringe small market team.

1. People need to circle back to that MLB itself, the teams together, think the Orioles revenue is small enough that they need revenue sharing.

1

1

Quote

Owners stripped the As of it going forward, so they don't sit back and let teams cash in if they don't have to.

 

 

[incubus]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Wall to Wall Baseball is solely about the Orioles.    Every once in a while they might kick around a national story, but they certainly don’t cover the Nats in any significant way.    

Every time I watch it they have Mike Antonen and the other Nats guy on and they go back and forth between the teams.

[TradeAngelos]

28 minutes ago, weams said:

A friend messaged me. 

 

Was wondering what took you so long as the leader of the "MASN makes no money" crowd. I'm sure your "friend" has no interest in making the team and Angelos look as good as possible. Not a bit. 

[TradeAngelos]

48 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

MASN makes money but a couple some of your points I disagree with. 

In your first post you said the Orioles and Nats had the 5th and 12th highest market. You probably meant rating which is correct but look at some numbers. 

The Orioles basically doubled the Rays in ratings but had 61k viewers a night. The Rays had 52k in viewers a night. The Tampa market is bigger than Baltimore. 

The Nats had 77K viewers a night but a lower rating than the Orioles. 

Another point is MASN is one channel basically. The Orioles and Nats combined for 138k viewers a night. Now that does not account for the number of people who watch the Orioles in DC and vice versa but still. 

Just because MASN and MASN 2 exist they don’t own 2 separate channels. They don’t get to charge the same fee twice in essence. 

The bottom line is that a market that is roughly half the size of the one(s) we control, is getting paid 50-80m over the next whatever years. Can't break it down any simpler than that.

To think that MASN makes LESS than that is preposterous. Why wouldn't they just fold up shop and go that route if it was SO much more lucrative? You think there are a bunch of idiots running the Orioles who want them to be in a deal that makes them 10's of millions LESS than a market half the size? You think they didn't do exhaustive studies before one cent was spent on this venture and knew how much of a cash cow it was going to be? Teams are getting rich off RSN money, teams that don't even OWN their own RSN yet some want us to believe that Baltimore is the only city in MLB where that is not happening, It is almost comical that some of you actually believe this complete nonsense. 

 

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, incubus said:

Every time I watch it they have Mike Antonen and the other Nats guy on and they go back and forth between the teams.

Absolutely not.    Their regular panelists are Tom Davis (host), Steve Johnson, Mark Viviano, Roch  Kubatko and sometimes Jim Duquette.  It’s all about the Orioles.   I watch it very regularly and assure you that any time spent on the Nats is incidental.

[Frobby]

58 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

MASN makes money but a couple some of your points I disagree with. 

In your first post you said the Orioles and Nats had the 5th and 12th highest market. You probably meant rating which is correct but look at some numbers. 

The Orioles basically doubled the Rays in ratings but had 61k viewers a night. The Rays had 52k in viewers a night. The Tampa market is bigger than Baltimore. 

The Nats had 77K viewers a night but a lower rating than the Orioles. 

Another point is MASN is one channel basically. The Orioles and Nats combined for 138k viewers a night. Now that does not account for the number of people who watch the Orioles in DC and vice versa but still. 

Or the people who watch MASN who are not in the immediate DC/Baltimore area.    It has much larger geographic coverage than that.  

[accinfo]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Absolutely not.    Their regular panelists are Tom Davis (host), Steve Johnson, Mark Viviano, Roch  Kubatko and sometimes Jim Duquette.  It’s all about the Orioles.   I watch it very regularly and assure you that any time spent on the Nats is incidental.

Frobby is absolutely correct.  You are confused with the show during the week Mid-Atlantic Sports report.  They cover both teams,  I am such a baseball nerd I TIVO the Wall to Wall every Saturday because it is an Oriole show.

[Going Underground]

12 hours ago, incubus said:

MASN doesn’t even have a dedicated Orioles show. Their own damn team and they don’t produce a show for them. They have Nats Talk, but no Orioles Talk. I know they have Take me out to the ball game and Wall to wall baseball, but I care not for the Nats and just want an Orioles program to watch. Hell, they need programming, it seems like self producing something would be the cheapest way to get it. They could also play local college basketball and football games. Towson, Morgan, Stevenson, Salisbury etc.

Here is John Angelos  in 2016 discussing programming. Also could not find the Oriole filing in the MASN case but article references profits.

 

Angelos also discussed the possibility of additional MASN programming in the future.

“I think fans and viewers can definitely raise the question of more year-round, originally produced baseball programming and perhaps more live local sporting events, whether it be large college — like a Georgetown — basketball or a smaller college, women’s teams and all that,” Angelos said. “Those are all valid. In all of these regional sports networks, it often comes down to considerations of are there sponsorship dollars to support it, will it get more than hashmarks or tenths of a point on ratings, but I think a competing consideration is, is that part of kind of your cost of doing business and running a regional network? Do I think we’re in the absolutely last place we’ll ever be and the right place? No. I think we definitely should look at doing more on that.”

 

Sports Business Journal’s Eric Fisher reported earlier this month that MASN filed new documents opposing the Nationals’ request to have the case reheard by the RSDC. In the documents, MASN argued that the Nationals had signed several high-priced free agents and that any difficulty the Nationals had in attracting free agents was not due to a lack of financial resources caused by the dispute, but rather because of their “chaotic” clubhouse. MASN cited a column by Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal in which he referred to the Nationals as “Team Toxic” to support this claim. MASN also referenced the “over $9.6 million in profits” the Nationals received in 2015 from their partnership stake in in the network, which would put the Orioles’ share of the MASN profits in 2015 at around $50 million.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/05/17/orioles-vp-on-the-future-of-masn-and-blip-of-a-dispute-with-nats/?utm_term=.4044a13a2913

 

[Going Underground]

And also less revenue sharing if you keep the MASN profit and don't pay it to the team.

 

The problem with Angelos okaying more money being provided to the Orioles in broadcast rights fees is in his agreement with Major League Baseball. For every additional dollar he agrees to give the Orioles in broadcast rights fees, he must match it exactly for the Nationals (or, in this scenario, the other way around). A $1M increase in the rights fees paid to Baltimore really costs him $2M (assume that this is $1M from Angelos’ pocket and not $1M total; since he holds an 87% ownership stake in MASN, this equates to a $1.149M increase in rights fees paid to each team for an additional $2.298M in total outlay).

However, profit from MASN that isn’t paid to the team in broadcast fees is not subject to revenue sharing. This provision that benefits the small handful of teams that get their own RSN and provides clear incentive for the Orioles and for Peter Angelos: keep broadcast fees as low as possible. Where the Astros and Dodgers pay far more in this pocket of revenue sharing because their broadcast rights fees are higher, those teams wouldn’t have any money if it weren’t for broadcast fees. The Orioles, on the other hand, can take just a few dollars in broadcast dollars and keep the rest for themselves.

For that additional $2M outlay to make any sense in a vacuum, he has to get a 100% return on the broadcast rights fee paid to the Orioles – a highly unlikely proposition in the first place. But that decision doesn’t take place in a vacuum.

 

It’s possible to approximate MASN’s annual profit by working backwards from the reported equity payout to the Nationals. The most recent figure available here is from 2011, when the Nationals received $29M in broadcast rights fees and approximately $7M from its equity stake payment. I may be mistaken in this assumption, but for the purposes of estimation, I will assume that $7M is 13% of MASN’s 2011 profit such that broadcast rights fees to each franchise, maintenance, salaries, and reinvestment in the network are all paid for before the equity stake payment is calculated. If $7M is 13% of profits, 2011 profit for the network would total $53,846,153. That leaves $46.85M in profit for the Orioles. $29M to each team in broadcast fees plus $53.85M in profit totals $111.85M, leaving $56.15M (if we assume $168M is correct and reasonable, which it seems to be) for maintenance, upkeep, network salaries, etc. of two cable networks. That seems like a pretty likely breakdown of MASN revenues to me, so hold on to those numbers

 

http://baltimoresportsandlife.com/ownership-economics/

[eddie83]

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

Absolutely not.    Their regular panelists are Tom Davis (host), Steve Johnson, Mark Viviano, Roch  Kubatko and sometimes Jim Duquette.  It’s all about the Orioles.   I watch it very regularly and assure you that any time spent on the Nats is incidental.

Right before Wall to Wall is Nats Talk. Byron Kerr, Phil Wood or Craig Heist host with Mike Wallace. It’s the Nats version of Wall to Wall except they actually take phone calls.  

I think they try to balance out the same amount of coverage of both teams. The fact that the Orioles own the channel of course is never going to sit well with Nats fans.