MASN dispute update

[NCRaven]

This article says that the Nationals have not received any TV rights money since 2011.  Is that true?  I thought the O's paid them the amount that they thought right and put the rest into escrow.  No?

[Dark Helmet]

I hate the Nationals. 

[atomic]

1 hour ago, accinfo said:

The Post has an article about a new hearing this week.  To me the title is deceiving.  What is the likely hood the Orioles don't appeal a negative decision?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/11/13/nationals-orioles-masn-dispute-could-finally-end-this-week/?utm_term=.bb5585d6277e

I think the side that loses will appeal. I don't see this ending any time soon.

[NedFromYork]

How in the world can the Toronto Blue Jay's CEO be one of three people on the RSDC panel? You can already cast why their vote will be.  What is MLB thinking?  I would say none of the panel members should be affiliated with MLB.

Edited November 14, 2018 by NedFromYork

[mdbdotcom]

4 minutes ago, NedFromYork said:

How in the world can the Toronto Blue Jay's CEO be one of three people on the RSDC panel? You can already cast why their vote will be.  What is MLB thinking?  I would say none of the panel members should be affiliated with MLB.

You know, the CEO of the Blue Jays was born and raised in Baltimore. His father was the agent for Brooks Robinson, Eddie Murray and many others.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

You know, the CEO of the Blue Jays was born and raised in Baltimore. His father was the agent for Brooks Robinson, Eddie Murray and many others.

That doesn't stop Cito from sucking.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, NedFromYork said:

How in the world can the Toronto Blue Jay's CEO be one of three people on the RSDC panel? You can already cast why their vote will be.  What is MLB thinking?  I would say none of the panel members should be affiliated with MLB.

That's the wrong question. That's what the MASN agreement says.

The right question, IMO, is this: What were the Orioles thinking when they agreed to have all MASN rights fee disputes decided by a committee of other teams' executives appointed by MLB (or by the owners, I'm not sure which) without knowing who the future members of that committee would be or what teams they would be affiliated with? 

Having said that, I'll repeat what I've theorized before. The members of the current RSDC, from what I can tell, are smarter and probably will be fairer than the RSDC members who reached the earlier decision. Whether that will do the Orioles any good (as well as whether my assessment is accurate) remains to be seen. I am more confident that Cito sucks, but I don't think that issue will come before the RSDC.

Edited November 14, 2018 by spiritof66

[NCRaven]

3 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

 I am more confident that Cito sucks, but I don't think that issue will come before the RSDC.

Well, it should.

[Frobby]

11 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

That's the wrong question. That's what the MASN agreement says.

The right question, IMO, is this: What were the Orioles thinking when they agreed to have all MASN rights fee disputes decided by a committee of other teams' executives appointed by MLB (or by the owners, I'm not sure which) without knowing who the future members of that committee would be or what teams they would be affiliated with? 

Having said that, I'll repeat what I've theorized before. The members of the current RSDC, from what I can tell, are smarter and probably will be fairer than the RSDC members who reached the earlier decision. Whether that will do the Orioles any good (as well as whether my assessment is accurate) remains to be seen. I am more confident that Cito sucks, but I don't think that issue will come before the RSDC.

People should realize that the RSDC does more than just officiate the MASN deal.   They address all manner of issues relating to revenue sharing and team TV contracts with their wholly or partially captive TV networks.   So it’s not like these guys were picked solely with the MASN case in mind, though I’m sure it was a significant consideration.   

The interesting thing about Shapiro being on the committee is that the Blue Jays are owned by the parent company of the network that broadcasts their games.   So they obviously have a huge interest in how the RSDC decides to analyze captive TV contracts.   

[Frobby]

On 10/31/2018 at 4:42 PM, Frobby said:

I’m also not clear whether the RSDC is only hearing the 2012-16 rights case (in which case it’s the data that was available at the time that should be pertinent, not the current data), or whether it’s also going to hear the 2017-21 case (in which case current data is highly relevant).    It would make sense to me for them to hear both cases simultaneously, but not much of what has happened in the last six years has made sense, so who knows.   

Per the Post article, the new RSDC hearing will cover both 2012-16 and 2017-21.

[spiritof66]

 

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

People should realize that the RSDC does more than just officiate the MASN deal.   They address all manner of issues relating to revenue sharing and team TV contracts with their wholly or partially captive TV networks.   So it’s not like these guys were picked solely with the MASN case in mind, though I’m sure it was a significant consideration.   

The interesting thing about Shapiro being on the committee is that the Blue Jays are owned by the parent company of the network that broadcasts their games.   So they obviously have a huge interest in how the RSDC decides to analyze captive TV contracts.   

That's another fact that makes the first ruling so unfair. The main function of the RSDC, as described in the first arbitration ruling, is to review determinations of how much revenue teams should share because, by setting rights fees too low, the regional sports networks they own or control retain too much of the value of those to-be-shared rights fees. While this portion of the MASN agreement is poorly (and, it appears, either ignorantly or deceptively) written, leaving the determination of the Orioles' and Nats' rights fees in the hands of the RSDC, "using the RSDC's established methodology for evaluating all other related party telecast agreements in the industry," was that the Orioles and the Nats would be treated like every other team that controls a regional sports network and uses it to divert a portion of the value of its rights fees.

One of the arbitrators the first time around was Jeff Wilpon, COO of the Mets and one of the least liked and respected sports figures in New York. The Mets and other Wilpon family/Saul Katz entities own SportsNet New York (SNY), which broadcasts the Mets' games, and therefore have an interest in allowing lower rights fees and higher sports network profits. Whether Wilpon and the other RSDC members had anything to do with the arbitration decision, or simply signed off on what Manfred and his minions wrote, is unclear. But in either case, if Wilpon seems to have participated in a decision that's against his self-interest, the decision took care of that by noting the differences between the RSDC's usual function and its acting as an arbitrator -- and ignoring the contract language I quoted. It explained, in a footnote, "this decision shall not constitute precedent of the RSDC."

If the RSDC sticks to the approach that this a one-off determination, unrelated to everything else it does, the BJs and Rogers Communications shouldn't believe the RSDC's decision will have any effect on it. I am confident that Mark Shapiro and Mark Attanasio have the intelligence to see through that, and I hope they have the integrity and independence to act on that perception and render a fair decision. 

[weams]

 

[hoosiers]

There is no doubt in my mind that MLB had a role in the initial RSDC ruling.  Or that it will try again to influence the process.

The Os must be more practical in valuing the club allocations.  As Frobby noted, the RSDC ruling is likely to impact other TV deals (or at least how they are structured) and so an executive of a rival might be negatively impacting his own organization's treatment of its TV deal if he just tries to punish the Orioles.  

[TonySoprano]

Quote

 The Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles finished their arguments in a two-day rehearing before a committee of baseball executives in their long-running dispute over television rights fees.

They completed their presentations Friday before the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee, which now includes Milwaukee Brewers chairman Mark Attanasio, Seattle Mariners president Kevin Mather and Toronto Blue Jayspresident Mark Shapiro.

Written briefs are due Dec. 14, and no reply briefs are scheduled.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25296092/baltimore-orioles-washington-nationals-finish-arguments-tv-dispute-rehearing

[Chavez Ravine]

Is it coincidence that two of the current members of the RSDC are from teams (Toronto and Seattle) whose regional territories would be impacted by team movements/expansions that have been contemplated of late?