MASN dispute update

[Frobby]

On 5/28/2019 at 3:29 PM, Frobby said:

Key upcoming dates:

June 21 - MASN/Orioles brief opposing motion to confirm the arbitration award.

July 5 - Nats reply brief on motion to confirm the arbitration award.

July 12 - Oral argument on motion to confirm the arbitration award.

July 14 - MASN/Orioles brief to the Court of Appeal appealing the prior decision to send the 2nd arbitration to the RSDC rather than to an independent arbitral body.    

MASN/Orioles previously had indicated they would seek to stay the motion to confirm the arbitration award while their appeal was pending, but subsequently they informed the court they would not seek a stay.    

Quick update: the briefing on the Nats’ motion to confirm the arbitration award was completed as scheduled and the oral argument took place last Friday.   According to a press account, the judge seemed skeptical of MASN/Orioles’ position.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/07/12/orioles-ask-court-to-refuse-arbitration-decision-with-nats/amp/

[eddie83]

Here is another article on it. I forgot to post it Friday. 

 

https://media.sportbusiness.com/news/ny-judge-wrestles-with-legal-issues-surrounding-long-running-masn-dispute/

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Here is another article on it. I forgot to post it Friday. 

 

https://media.sportbusiness.com/news/ny-judge-wrestles-with-legal-issues-surrounding-long-running-masn-dispute/

The second article makes the outcome seem like more of a toss-up.    Personally I think MASN/O’s have an uphill battle here, but they’ve won uphill battles before.   

[Greg Pappas]

If I may, could someone explain to me the gist of the overarching story here? 

My vague recollection (probably wrong) is the following:

The Montreal Expos were granted relocation to Washington after the 2004 season. Washington fell within the Orioles regional territory and was a strong part of our fan base. This relocation occurred against the wishes of Peter Angelos and the Orioles, but they acquiesced after MLB agreed to let the Orioles create a new regional TV network --MASN-- which would carry both National and Orioles games AND be 86% owned by the Orioles with the Nats getting 14%. The Orioles were paid $75m for some reason... can't recall. 

Both teams would be awarded $29m per season for TV rights, and that was that.. or so it seemed. It was completely egregious -to me- that MLB forced the O's into this situation. However, in 2012 the Nats were not happy with the arrangement and wanted to own 50% of MASN. They apparently were granted this in court and the O's have kept fighting the ruling.

I know I'm wrong on some level here... but need help sorting this all out. Sorry and thank you, in advance. 

[scOtt]

On 5/9/2019 at 2:29 PM, Tony-OH said:

That seems pretty accurate! I'd like to see around Sarasota though to see if the Orioles spring training there has put them on the map in that county.

Here's a MUCH larger file with more detail.

2 things... Proud that Franklin County PA is Orioles country.

Not one iota of love for Oakland? Even the Marlins have 2 or 3 counties...

[scOtt]

Not to hijack the thread but there's one one county in Idaho and one in Oklahoma that voted Pirates. Are there players from there?

[Camden_yardbird]

1 hour ago, scOtt said:

Not to hijack the thread but there's one one county in Idaho and one in Oklahoma that voted Pirates. Are there players from there?

More likely they were a very good team in the 70s and the demographic that voted became fans then in the lack of a local team.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Greg Pappas said:

If I may, could someone explain to me the gist of the overarching story here? 

My vague recollection (probably wrong) is the following:

The Montreal Expos were granted relocation to Washington after the 2004 season. Washington fell within the Orioles regional territory and was a strong part of our fan base. This relocation occurred against the wishes of Peter Angelos and the Orioles, but they acquiesced after MLB agreed to let the Orioles create a new regional TV network --MASN-- which would carry both National and Orioles games AND be 86% owned by the Orioles with the Nats getting 14%. The Orioles were paid $75m for some reason... can't recall. 

Both teams would be awarded $29m per season for TV rights, and that was that.. or so it seemed. It was completely egregious -to me- that MLB forced the O's into this situation. However, in 2012 the Nats were not happy with the arrangement and wanted to own 50% of MASN. They apparently were granted this in court and the O's have kept fighting the ruling.

I know I'm wrong on some level here... but need help sorting this all out. Sorry and thank you, in advance. 

This is wrong on many levels.    

- Under the deal, the Nats’ initial ownership of MASN was 10%, but increasing by 1% a year until it reaches 33%.   The $75 mm was the purchase price of that ownership interest.   The Nats have never tried to change their ownership interest.

- The deal set rights fees for the first 5 years, but after that the parties (Nats and MASN) were to negotiate the rights fees every five years and if they couldn’t come to an agreement, it would be decided in an arbitration before the RSDC using their “usual methodology” for determining rights fee issues.   

- The RSDC decided on rights fees averaging $60-70 mm/yr for 2012-16.   That’s what the O’s are fighting, not the ownership interest.    The O’s argue that the RSDC didn’t follow its “usual methodology” and is biased for various reasons.    

[Greg Pappas]

23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

This is wrong on many levels.    

- Under the deal, the Nats’ initial ownership of MASN was 10%, but increasing by 1% a year until it reaches 33%.   The $75 mm was the purchase price of that ownership interest.   The Nats have never tried to change their ownership interest.

- The deal set rights fees for the first 5 years, but after that the parties (Nats and MASN) were to negotiate the rights fees every five years and if they couldn’t come to an agreement, it would be decided in an arbitration before the RSDC using their “usual methodology” for determining rights fee issues.   

- The RSDC decided on rights fees averaging $60-70 mm/yr for 2012-16.   That’s what the O’s are fighting, not the ownership interest.    The O’s argue that the RSDC didn’t follow its “usual methodology” and is biased for various reasons.    

Thank you. As an educated person and avid Orioles fan, how do you view the Nationals move into our territory and to what degree has this relocation hurt the O's? I ask because my understanding of what's happened thus far has been shoddy, as was evident in my earlier reply. I guess I'm looking for the negatives and positives (if there are any.)

[VaBird1]

3 hours ago, scOtt said:

Not to hijack the thread but there's one one county in Idaho and one in Oklahoma that voted Pirates. Are there players from there?

It’s just the number of people who “liked” the team page on Facebook.

[drjohnnyfeva]

3 hours ago, scOtt said:

Here's a MUCH larger file with more detail.

2 things... Proud that Franklin County PA is Orioles country.

Not one iota of love for Oakland? Even the Marlins have 2 or 3 counties...

 

10 minutes ago, VaBird1 said:

It’s just the number of people who “liked” the team page on Facebook.

This is not an accurate "territory" map.

The one I posted earlier in this thread seems more MLB accurate.  This one is just fan devotion it seems.

The Nationals were basically given all of VA and NC and eastern WVA if I recall.  I'll dig it up and repost it.

I'm not sure it makes any difference given what Frobby's expertise and explanation tell us...

 

[VaBird1]

On 5/5/2019 at 9:30 AM, drjohnnyfeva said:

This is well said.

Bruce "Burghandy" discussing anything with an attorney is hilarious to me.  It's sheer sensationalism. 

I respect what Peter Angelos was able to do with the MASN and the deal that was cut, but it was prime to be litigated.  Did anyone think for a minute that the owners of the Nats would settle for being the second fiddle team in the region?  We ARE going to get the short end of the stick on this in the end.  I don't think there is any doubt.  DC is the larger market AND there is likely a grudge of some kind between MLB and the Angelosii. 

It's crazy to me that all of the area the O's once held down into NC is now DC.  But if this is accurate and MLB sees it THIS way, we will soon be a very small market team.  I have no clue as to how the lines could be drawn differently, but it would seem that maybe our farm towns could be included in a swath to our region.  Yet losing DC is biggest loss, obviously, and there's a big part of me that thinks that we should receive some grandfathered benefit for a long time.  But will we?  We usually get the short end of the stick.

 

I think this map doesn’t have the White Sox on it.

[TradeAngelos]

2 hours ago, Greg Pappas said:

Thank you. As an educated person and avid Orioles fan, how do you view the Nationals move into our territory and to what degree has this relocation hurt the O's? I ask because my understanding of what's happened thus far has been shoddy, as was evident in my earlier reply. I guess I'm looking for the negatives and positives (if there are any.)

 You keep making references to a "bad deal" for the O's. A deal that has resulted in their ownership  padding their bank account by hundreds of millions of dollars. Soon to be a billion dollars as the years pass. This deal was so ridiculously one sided it wasn't even funny, and now the Orioles are trying to keep it that way while the Nats want their fair share of the profits. Of course Pete Angelos is having none of it and is just trying to cry poor again  while raking in all the TV money from the 4th largest combined TV market in baseball. He will fight for every single cent to the death. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

 You keep making references to a "bad deal" for the O's. A deal that has resulted in their ownership  padding their bank account by hundreds of millions of dollars. Soon to be a billion dollars as the years pass. This deal was so ridiculously one sided it wasn't even funny, and now the Orioles are trying to keep it that way while the Nats want their fair share of the profits. Of course Pete Angelos is having none of it and is just trying to cry poor again  while raking in all the TV money from the 4th largest combined TV market in baseball. He will fight for every single cent to the death. 

You had me until you said this.

First off I hate the expression, what's fair?  Also, I don't think the Nats wanted a "fair share" I think the Nats, in conjunction with MLB, wanted to force a settlement that would cause the O's to have to sell MASN.  MLB loaned the Nats money based on future MASN earnings, they were clearly an interested party.

[weams]

11 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

 You keep making references to a "bad deal" for the O's. A deal that has resulted in their ownership  padding their bank account by hundreds of millions of dollars. Soon to be a billion dollars as the years pass. This deal was so ridiculously one sided it wasn't even funny, and now the Orioles are trying to keep it that way while the Nats want their fair share of the profits. Of course Pete Angelos is having none of it and is just trying to cry poor again  while raking in all the TV money from the 4th largest combined TV market in baseball. He will fight for every single cent to the death. 

There are many fallacies here. And Peter turned 89  a week back. He is not of health to participate in any of this. in public or the sidelines.