MASN dispute update

[atomic]

4 hours ago, EricK said:

Because MASN is still profitable and the O's get a larger portion of the profits.  Paying fair market value for the rights does not mean that MASN has to pay so much that it turns into a break-even corporation.  Plus they can pay themselves a salary out of the MASN pot of money before determining the profits that are to be shared.

 But the Orioles Could have bid on Nationals broadcast rights on open market.

[EricK]

42 minutes ago, atomic said:

 But the Orioles Could have bid on Nationals broadcast rights on open market.

If the Nationals broadcast rights were available on the open market, the Nats could create their own regional sports network and "over pay" for those broadcast rights by 1% and come out very much ahead.  Such a new RSN would still be profitable and the Nets would own all of it.  The current MASN agreement is an advantage over the Nats having control over their own broadcast rights with any reasonable calculation of the broadcast rights.

The real question is whether the current MASN agreement adequately compensates the O's for the relocation of the Nats taking away a portion of the O's revenue.  

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, EricK said:

If the Nationals broadcast rights were available on the open market, the Nats could create their own regional sports network and "over pay" for those broadcast rights by 1% and come out very much ahead.  Such a new RSN would still be profitable and the Nets would own all of it.  The current MASN agreement is an advantage over the Nats having control over their own broadcast rights with any reasonable calculation of the broadcast rights.

The real question is whether the current MASN agreement adequately compensates the O's for the relocation of the Nats taking away a portion of the O's revenue.  

I dont see it. Almost every team sells their rights. 

[MurphDogg]

6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

What is that map?  It's not the official MLB media territory/blackout map, because that one has all kinds of overlap.

I am pretty sure that is the map of county-by-county favorite MLB teams per Facebook likes.

[EricK]

13 minutes ago, atomic said:

I dont see it. Almost every team sells their rights. 

I'm not sure where you are coming from.  Are you trying to say that the current MASN agreement is the equivalent of the O's only owning their own broadcast rights and the Nats owning their own with the ability to sell them to anyone?

[Dr. Unk]

3 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

The 105.7 sports director has apologized for spreading rumors with no basis in fact. 

Yeah, I was reading it just now.

[drjohnnyfeva]

2 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

I am pretty sure that is the map of county-by-county favorite MLB teams per Facebook likes.

They are still essentially the same territory lines overall.  There's some additional bleeding into western PA, western NC, and WVa, but it's the idea more than the exact "MLB Blackout/ Media Area."  What's scary is if the Facebook model, as you call it, becomes or is the argument the Nats use, that they deserve the bulk of the pictured territory.

The question is, how is that area that was OURS distributed equitably?  It won't be, ultimately, but what measly piece will be given of that giant tract?

Edited May 5, 2019 by drjohnnyfeva
emphasis

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 hours ago, Dr. Unk said:

Yeah, I was reading it just now.

First hint that it was bogus should have been it was reported on Bruce “Ron Burgandy” Cunningham’s show. Stay classy Baltimore! 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

5 hours ago, drjohnnyfeva said:

Leave it to...

Ha, I see everyone knows Bruce is a joke. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

Where exactly is that word coming from?    The only thing I’ve seen in print is speculation from journalist Thom Loverro, who doesn’t have any specific basis for that speculation from what I’ve seen.   

Even if MLB as a whole isn’t happy with Angelos, I seriously doubt the other 28 owners would want to set a precedent of blocking the transfer of ownership to children or family members. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

3 hours ago, EricK said:

If the Nationals broadcast rights were available on the open market, the Nats could create their own regional sports network and "over pay" for those broadcast rights by 1% and come out very much ahead.  Such a new RSN would still be profitable and the Nets would own all of it.  The current MASN agreement is an advantage over the Nats having control over their own broadcast rights with any reasonable calculation of the broadcast rights.

The real question is whether the current MASN agreement adequately compensates the O's for the relocation of the Nats taking away a portion of the O's revenue.  

Yea. By design it’s supposed to be “unfair” to the Nats. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Yea. By design it’s supposed to be “unfair” to the Nats. 

I don’t know the specifics or length of the deal, but this is MLB’s fault if they don’t like it now.

You can’t renege on an agreed contract because you’re not happy about the terms. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

Just now, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I don’t know the specifics or length of the deal, but this is MLB’s fault if they don’t like it now.

You can’t renege on an agreed contract because you’re not happy about the terms. 

To be fair some of the argument is disagreement over “fair market value” and what that means re: calculation methodology. So it’s not the broader context of deal necessarily. 

I will say, it irks me that the MLB office seems to be siding with one team over another in something that appears to be so open to interpretation. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

4 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

To be fair some of the argument is disagreement over “fair market value” and what that means re: calculation methodology. So it’s not the broader context of deal necessarily. 

I will say, it irks me that the MLB office seems to be siding with one team over another in something that appears to be so open to interpretation. 

Yes that is what ticks me off too. MLB needs to stay out of this and let an independent arbitrator decide. Right now it’s the Orioles against all of MLB.

[theocean]

37 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Even if MLB as a whole isn’t happy with Angelos, I seriously doubt the other 28 owners would want to set a precedent of blocking the transfer of ownership to children or family members. 

I cannot agree more with this. MLB might threaten to delay a vote on the transfer of ownership until the MASN issue is resolved, but I can't see them forcing a sale like some are suggesting.

I think the O's biggest issues are that their television revenue is about to be cut, they can't bring fans into the park, are starting another lengthy rebuild, have a lease expiring, and an ownership group that might need to sell for financial reasons.