MASN dispute update

[Obando]

2 hours ago, mdbdotcom said:

What really matters is this month's arbitration ruling. Maybe the Angelos clan is waiting for that before deciding whether to hire a president or sell the team. They seem to be doing a good job of eliminating obligations and headcount, but haven't hired anyone.

I don’t think the arbitration ruling is holding anything up.  They will need to hire a President either way, since business still needs to get done with the team regardless.  It’s possible the pending MASN ruling and potential for a sale could have an impact on who is interested in taking the job, however, and that is probably more of the reason why this hire is taking so long to get done.  I’m guessing John & Lou complied a list of candidates and are whittling through it based on the interviews and who is actually interested in taking the job.  Keep in mind the Giants still haven’t hired a President/GM yet either, so it’s not like the Orioles are the only team in this situation, even though as O’s fans we are just focused on our team.

[Frobby]

7 hours ago, FlipTheBird said:

Facts don't lie. The Nationals, ultimately, have been no more successful than the Orioles over the last decade.

Of course, what really matters is the NEXT decade, wherein I strongly suspect the Nationals will be far more successful than the entirely rudderless Orioles.

Depends how you measure success, I suppose.    I’d say 4 division titles > 1 division title and 2 wild card berths, even if we did manage to win one playoff series while the Nats haven’t.   And yes, I consider an 82 win season to be drastically better than a 47 win season even if neither team made the playoffs.

And yes, the Nats are much better positioned going forward than the Orioles are.  

[MCO'sFan]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Depends how you measure success, I suppose.    I’d say 4 division titles > 1 division title and 2 wild card berths, even if we did manage to win one playoff series while the Nats haven’t.   And yes, I consider an 82 win season to be drastically better than a 47 win season even if neither team made the playoffs.

And yes, the Nats are much better positioned going forward than the Orioles are.  

It is a matter of personal perception. I great discount the Nats division titles due to the extended time that everyone else in their division stunk. In every year that the Nats had serious competition they've failed to win the division and they've been exposed during the playoffs when they did make it there. I am not saying I'd rather be in the O's position rather than the Nats but there has been a huge difference in the quality of teams in the AL East vs. the NL east for the last 6-8 years.

[Frobby]

21 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

It is a matter of personal perception. I great discount the Nats division titles due to the extended time that everyone else in their division stunk. In every year that the Nats had serious competition they've failed to win the division and they've been exposed during the playoffs when they did make it there. I am not saying I'd rather be in the O's position rather than the Nats but there has been a huge difference in the quality of teams in the AL East vs. the NL east for the last 6-8 years.

I can’t disagree that the Nats has an easier road than the O’s over the last 6-8 years.    Overall, though, I think they’ve had the better team.   As to them getting “exposed” in the playoffs, I guess you can see it that way, but they’ve lost 3-2, 3-1, 3-2 and 3-2.   A couple of breaks and the story could have looked a lot different.   But sometimes you lose a close series.   

[bobmc]

8 hours ago, mdbdotcom said:

What really matters is this month's arbitration ruling. Maybe the Angelos clan is waiting for that before deciding whether to hire a president or sell the team. They seem to be doing a good job of eliminating obligations and headcount, but haven't hired anyone.

And they have already declared that Brian Graham is attending the GM meeting next week.

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, mdbdotcom said:

What really matters is this month's arbitration ruling. Maybe the Angelos clan is waiting for that before deciding whether to hire a president or sell the team. They seem to be doing a good job of eliminating obligations and headcount, but haven't hired anyone.

The arbitration reportedly will commence this month, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a decision.   It could be many months before there is a ruling.  

[weams]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/26/loverro-baltimore-whispers-orioles-leaving/

Quote

The All-Star Game coming up in Washington — the game that the Orioles bid on for several years only to be passed over by MLB’s preference of four straight National League teams to host the game — adds new fuel to the bitter fight between the two clubs.

That fight has resulted in rumors in Baltimore that the Orioles would consider moving the franchise if they are dealt what they believe is a debilitating hand in the MASN dispute.

Last week, respected Baltimore Sun columnist Peter Schmuck wrote that the MASN dispute has led to “whispers around town about the possibility of the Orioles leaving Baltimore one day.”

I know Peter Schmuck well. He didn’t just pull that out of thin air.

Now, we are a long way from the Orioles — the former St. Louis Browns who relocated to Baltimore in 1954 — backing Mayflower vans up to Camden Yards.

 

[spiritof66]

2 hours ago, weams said:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/26/loverro-baltimore-whispers-orioles-leaving/

 

I'm guessing that somebody's blowing smoke about the possibility of moving, a tried and true tactic that MLB owners have been using since at least the 1940s: "If we can't get what we want, we'll just pick up the team and move it somewhere else." George Steinbrenner was probably the all-time champion, extorting hundreds millions of dollars in benefits from New York State and City after he threatened to move the NYYs to New Jersey.

If the Angeloses wanted to move, it would be easy for MLB and the other owners to say, "You can no longer make a go of it in Baltimore? Sell the team to someone who thinks he, she or they can. We have a list of people who think they can do that if they run the team comptetently. No offense to Pop Angelos, of course."

It's odd that someone would say that a setback for the Orioles in the interpretation of the MASN agreement could lead them to move. If the Orioles moved -- and IMO that's not going to happen for quite a while if it ever does -- they would be trading one MASN mess for a new one.  The agreement gives MASN the exclusive right to broadcast Orioles games for rights fees to be determined, and I see nothing in the publicly available portions of that agreement that alters that commitment if the franchise moves. The Orioles would need to need to resolve the MASN situation from a position of extreme weakness., perhaps just walking away from their majority ownership of MASN.

[Ohfan67]

4 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I'm guessing that somebody's blowing smoke about the possibility of moving, a tried and true tactic that MLB owners have been using since at least the 1940s: "If we can't get what we want, we'll just pick up the team and move it somewhere else." George Steinbrenner was probably the all-time champion, extorting hundreds millions of dollars in benefits from New York State and City after he threatened to move the NYYs to New Jersey.

If the Angeloses wanted to move, it would be easy for MLB and the other owners to say, "You can no longer make a go of it in Baltimore? Sell the team to someone who thinks he, she or they can. We have a list of people who think they can do that if they run the team comptetently. No offense to Pop Angelos, of course."

It's odd that someone would say that a setback for the Orioles in the interpretation of the MASN agreement could lead them to move. If the Orioles moved -- and IMO that's not going to happen for quite a while if it ever does -- they would be trading one MASN mess for a new one.  The agreement gives MASN the exclusive right to broadcast Orioles games for rights fees to be determined, and I see nothing in the publicly available portions of that agreement that alters that commitment if the franchise moves. The Orioles would need to need to resolve the MASN situation from a position of extreme weakness., perhaps just walking away from their majority ownership of MASN.

I strongly agree with your post. Moving In Baseball is rare and very difficult. The number of baseball teams who have threatened to move is almost equal to the number of teams in MLB. And certainly the LA situation in football shows that it often doesn’t work out as leagues hoped. But I think the point of moving would be to increase attendance and not have an in market competitor on TV. MASN could still broadcast games from Portland, but there wouldn’t be another MLB stadium 40 miles away with tens of thousands of fans residing in the area. MASN would probably be more profitable if the Orioles and Nats didn’t share a market. 

[Frobby]

14 hours ago, weams said:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/26/loverro-baltimore-whispers-orioles-leaving/

 

 

12 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I'm guessing that somebody's blowing smoke about the possibility of moving, a tried and true tactic that MLB owners have been using since at least the 1940s: "If we can't get what we want, we'll just pick up the team and move it somewhere else." George Steinbrenner was probably the all-time champion, extorting hundreds millions of dollars in benefits from New York State and City after he threatened to move the NYYs to New Jersey.

If the Angeloses wanted to move, it would be easy for MLB and the other owners to say, "You can no longer make a go of it in Baltimore? Sell the team to someone who thinks he, she or they can. We have a list of people who think they can do that if they run the team comptetently. No offense to Pop Angelos, of course."

It's odd that someone would say that a setback for the Orioles in the interpretation of the MASN agreement could lead them to move. If the Orioles moved -- and IMO that's not going to happen for quite a while if it ever does -- they would be trading one MASN mess for a new one.  The agreement gives MASN the exclusive right to broadcast Orioles games for rights fees to be determined, and I see nothing in the publicly available portions of that agreement that alters that commitment if the franchise moves. The Orioles would need to need to resolve the MASN situation from a position of extreme weakness., perhaps just walking away from their majority ownership of MASN.

It makes some sense to me that if MLB hosed MASN in the rights fees case, it might make economic sense for the O's to go somewhere else where they could get a more attractive TV deal.   But honestly, I don't think the earlier decision of the RSDC was all that terrible for the O's.    They simply didn't get everything they wanted, but I'm not sure they'd find a better deal somewhere else.

[spiritof66]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

It makes some sense to me that if MLB hosed MASN in the rights fees case, it might make economic sense for the O's to go somewhere else where they could get a more attractive TV deal.   But honestly, I don't think the earlier decision of the RSDC was all that terrible for the O's.    They simply didn't get everything they wanted, but I'm not sure they'd find a better deal somewhere else.

The problem with the 2014(!) arbitration decision is that it doesn't give the Orioles the compensation that they thought they were getting (and from everything I've read, what they should have gotten) as some compensation for moving the Expos to Washington: majority ownership of a regional sports network that would, through below-market rights fees that would be the same for both teams, divert a portion of its profits to its owners to the same extent as regional sports network owned by other MLB teams. 

The problem with the 2014 decision is that the rights fees to be paid by MASN to both teams are too high, reducing the value of the Orioles' majority ownership of MASN. Moving the team won't address that problem, and won't bring back the benefit that the Orioles expected from the MASN agreement. If the arbitrators say it's gone, it's gone for good. 

If the Orioles were to leave Baltimore, the current arrangement of selling rights to a package of Orioles and Nats games no longer would make sense. I think MLB would require the Orioles to get out of the MASN agreement -- great for the Nats, who could sell their cable rights to the highest bidder, take over MASN as their own network, or create their own. The Orioles could either sell their rights to a cable station operating in their new home or build their own regional sports network -- the latter a dubious proposition in 2020 (or whenever) for a team, not flush with cash, that's trying to arrange for a new stadium while it builds out its scouting and front-office infrastructure and incurs all the other expenses of moving a franchise. 

There's no way to know what the Orioles' cable rights fees in an unidentified new city would be, but I am guessing that selling rights to watch a lousy and poorly run team, with no established fan base, in a smaller market (possibly one with a youthful and tech-savvy demographic, like Portland's, that probably includes lots of cord-cutters), would not bring in more than the Orioles are getting from MASN, in rights fees and their share of profits, under a worst-case interpretation of the MASN agreement.

All that assumes that the MLB owners would allow the Orioles to move, deserting one of MLB's most attractive venues, inviting a new stadium fiasco in which MLB almost certainly will be portrayed as liars and extortionists as the Orioles try to exact government spending for a new stadium or expansion of an existing facility, and potentially reducing the fees the 30 owners will receive from the sale of expansion franchises. Not likely.

 

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

The problem with the 2014(!) arbitration decision is that it doesn't give the Orioles the compensation that they thought they were getting (and from everything I've read, what they should have gotten) as some compensation for moving the Expos to Washington: majority ownership of a regional sports network that would, through below-market rights fees that would be the same for both teams, divert a portion of its profits to its owners to the same extent as regional sports network owned by other MLB teams. 

The problem with the 2014 decision is that the rights fees to be paid by MASN to both teams are too high, reducing the value of the Orioles' majority ownership of MASN. Moving the team won't address that problem, and won't bring back the benefit that the Orioles expected from the MASN agreement. If the arbitrators say it's gone, it's gone for good. 

If the Orioles were to leave Baltimore, the current arrangement of selling rights to a package of Orioles and Nats games no longer would make sense. I think MLB would require the Orioles to get out of the MASN agreement -- great for the Nats, who could sell their cable rights to the highest bidder, take over MASN as their own network, or create their own. The Orioles could either sell their rights to a cable station operating in their new home or build their own regional sports network -- the latter a dubious proposition in 2020 (or whenever) for a team, not flush with cash, that's trying to arrange for a new stadium while it builds out its scouting and front-office infrastructure and incurs all the other expenses of moving a franchise. 

There's no way to know what the Orioles' cable rights fees in an unidentified new city would be, but I am guessing that selling rights to watch a lousy and poorly run team, with no established fan base, in a smaller market (possibly one with a youthful and tech-savvy demographic, like Portland's, that probably includes lots of cord-cutters), would not bring in more than the Orioles are getting from MASN, in rights fees and their share of profits, under a worst-case interpretation of the MASN agreement.

All that assumes that the MLB owners would allow the Orioles to move, deserting one of MLB's most attractive venues, inviting a new stadium fiasco in which MLB almost certainly will be portrayed as liars and extortionists as the Orioles try to exact government spending for a new stadium or expansion of an existing facility, and potentially reducing the fees the 30 owners will receive from the sale of expansion franchises. Not likely.

 

The bolded part is really my point.    I'm not sure any of the markets we have discussed would yield a rights fee package for the O's that equals what they are getting now in rights fees plus their majority share of MASN's profits.  

As to the 2014 decision (informally reached in 2012, but postponed for two years while MLB tried to broker a different kind of deal as an alternative), I've never been that sympathetic to MASN/the Orioles' version of "what they thought they were getting."   They could have made the contract language a lot more clear if "what they thought they were getting" was the Bortz formula.   But that's been debated ad nauseum here.

[NattyO's]

All this talk about the O's leaving is getting me sick in the stomach.

[weams]

2 hours ago, NattyO's said:

All this talk about the O's leaving is getting me sick in the stomach.

How about the MASN bankruptcy. How does that make you feel? 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

How about the MASN bankruptcy. How does that make you feel? 

I'm afraid I'd find a MASN bankruptcy hilarious.

They spend too much on off-season programming?  What did they do start showing TWIB episodes from the 80's?