MASN dispute update

[ThomasTomasz]

3 hours 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. 

It's not that, it's a question of whether or not the sons can afford to pay the inheritance taxes and everything once things pass through that stage.  If Peter were to pass away tomorrow, I bet things transfer to his wife, and everything keeps spinning, but that only delays the inevitable of the sons eventually having to pay the taxes to gain ownership of the team.  If they can't pay the taxes on their own, then they essentially have sell some or all of their shares to cover what they owe on the inheritance tax.  

I'm not an expert, but this has been what's been discussed in multiple places already.  

[ThomasTomasz]

2 hours ago, theocean said:

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. 

The Nats deal has stunk since Day One.  Most everyone knew that this day would come when the original sweetheart deal would get overturned, especially once other teams, in MLB and other sports, started getting exorbitant contracts for their TV rights.  

In a sense, the ownership group can only blame themselves.  There is a large population of Nationals fans who just stopped rooting for the Orioles because of bad ownership.  As a DC sports fan outside of the Orioles, they already had that with Daniel Snyder and the Redskins.  The Wizards have been terrible under Ernie Grunfeld.  They were more than happy to jump ship as ownership continued to flounder in the dark ages.  There are other fans in DC who were never Orioles fans, or just casual fans to begin with, but our struggles did us no favors.

The rising costs of attending any sporting event has cut down on attendance across the board.  After Jerry World, NFL stadiums are getting smaller.  MLB stadiums are following that as well- the Rangers are cutting 12,000 seats when they open next year, and the Braves cut 8,000 transitioning to their new park.  The Orioles ticket prices and parking prices are much better than the Nationals, but their concession prices are quickly approaching or surpassed what the Nationals charge, at least as far as value goes.  

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

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

I don't think so.  Not unless it has pretty radically changed in the past four years.

[Aglets]

Ugh, the Blue Jays have their own COUNTRY??!?!?!!

How are we possibly supposed to compete with that........ 

[TonySoprano]

1 minute ago, Aglets said:

Ugh, the Blue Jays have their own COUNTRY??!?!?!!

How are we possibly supposed to compete with that........ 

Canada has a population almost the size of California (which has 5 teams), and 90% of it lives within 100 miles of the border.  

[tntoriole]

11 hours ago, orpheus100 said:

Why is Portland considered a great place for a team?

That city has an incredible amount of problems similar to Seattle.

Portland has little baseball tradition and little likelihood to support a team in the long term ...it would be worse than the Florida teams by a substantial margin. 

[Aglets]

12 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

Canada has a population almost the size of California (which has 5 teams), and 90% of it lives within 100 miles of the border.  

I'm pretty sure Tony is advocating that we break up Canada into 5 mini countries since it has become too large of a monopoly.

Let's move......at dawn.

[tntoriole]

22 hours ago, 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 am highly suspicious of this map.  The demographics of Facebook fan likes for example and the likes of older fans such as myself who still go to games despite living far away and still spend money on Orioles brand is skewed. 

For example there are still many older Orioles fans in sw Virginia due to the 50 years of having had the Bluefield Orioles in this region and in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, local radio through this region carried Orioles games exclusively.  But all that is now gone. 

[mdoriolefan]

13 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

Portland has little baseball tradition and little likelihood to support a team in the long term ...it would be worse than the Florida teams by a substantial margin. 

Great documentary about Portland Independent baseball and its fight with MLB

 

Battered Bastards of Baseball

Edited May 6, 2019 by mdoriolefan
media not inserted correctly

[$Greatness$]

I'm still trying to understand why this is even a thing? MLB and the Washington Nationals signed a contract. Don't understand why this case isn't cut and dry. The law is definitely an interesting thing!

[drjohnnyfeva]

49 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

I am highly suspicious of this map.  The demographics of Facebook fan likes for example and the likes of older fans such as myself who still go to games despite living far away and still spend money on Orioles brand is skewed. 

For example there are still many older Orioles fans in sw Virginia due to the 50 years of having had the Bluefield Orioles in this region and in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, local radio through this region carried Orioles games exclusively.  But all that is now gone. 

I don't know the source, as I mentioned, but if you overlay the one I posted with the one Drungo posted, there is no substantial difference in the overall, now disputed, "territory."  The question is, how do they make the split equitable when the DC market for us, was (probably) more profitable than Baltimore itself and much of the rest of our once large territory combined?  DC is a cash cow, that's going to be gone.  What's our compensation?  Does MLB think we even deserve any?  I would argue that it's doubtful that they do given how quickly they have reneged on agreement that was in place.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, $Greatness$ said:

I'm still trying to understand why this is even a thing? MLB and the Washington Nationals signed a contract. Don't understand why this case isn't cut and dry. The law is definitely an interesting thing!

Because the language in the contract was written in an intentionally vague way.   It provides that the rights fees are to be renegotiated every five years, and if the parties can’t agree “then the fair market value of the Rights shall be determined by the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (“RSDC”) using the RSDC’s established methodology for evaluating all other related party telecast agreements in the industry.”    The parties don’t agree on what that means.    The last time around, the O’s argued it meant one thing, the Nats argued it meant something else, and the RSDC decided it meant a third thing.   When the RSDC’s decision got challenged in court, the Court found the RSDC’s interpretation “reasonable on its face,” but overturned the decision due to possible bias because the Nats’ lawyers previously had represented MLB in other matters.   Now it seems that the RSDC (which has different members now than the first time) has adopted a new interpretation which is closer to what the Orioles had argued, except that the data has changed.   When the initial arbitration over the 2012-16 rights fees was held, it was unknown what the revenues of MASN would be, so the parties accepted MASN’s projections even though they were considered to be conservative.    But by now, MASN’s revenues from 2012-16 are known, so they provide a different base for setting the rights fees.    So, the result of the new decision was similar to the old one in terms of the rights fees to be paid, but the way that result was achieved was different and apparently more favorable to the Orioles when applied to future periods.   I say “apparently” because the decision isn’t public so I’m relying on somewhat sketchy information provided in the Sun article.    Perhaps more information will come out later.   

[Redskins Rick]

52 minutes ago, $Greatness$ said:

I'm still trying to understand why this is even a thing? MLB and the Washington Nationals signed a contract. Don't understand why this case isn't cut and dry. The law is definitely an interesting thing!

No offense to our own Frobby.

But, lawyers can tear about just about every contract written, they did deep enough and hard enough they will eventually get it done.

Legal contracts in this country is just no longer the binding agreement that it was meant to be.

I know of a Amish house builder in Southern Maryland, doing quality work and has a long waiting list.

He hasnt done the first contract, when he shakes your hand, you know the deal is done and will get done.

I heard a first year law student get told by their old professor, there is no cut and dry cases, especially when going before a jury, you never know how they will act.

 

[Mondo Trasho]

I think the likelihood of the team moving to Las Vegas or anywhere else is low. Probably very low. But not zero. Lots of teams move, lots of teams who appear very likely to move, don't (I'm old enough to remember when the Sacramento Kings moving to Virginia Beach was viewed as "very likely"). The future is hard to predict sometimes.

I wish Mr. Angelos good health of course, but no one lives forever, and as others have stated it's not a given that the sons will own the team, whether that's due to MLB interference, tax issues, or just disinterest in doing so. The MASN case, the continued competition with the Nationals for the hearts and minds of area fans, and dwindling attendance are all issues to keep in mind down the road. Even if they don't result in the team moving, they could still impact the team's ability to compete.

I don't see anything wrong with 105.7 having a lawyer appear on a talk show saying he heard of or knows of an offer to move the team to Vegas. Maybe someone did offer to buy the team but Angelos turned it down. Who knows.

[jtschrei]

Did the Angelos family ever think of moving the Orioles to DC? Like, in retrospect, from a long-term financial perspective for the Angelos family, that might have been the smarter move that trying to essentially make the best deal possible to have your most important market taken from you. "No Lerner family, you can't move the Expos to DC because we are going to move the Orioles to DC first." I can't remember if that was ever a discussion. 

I know it sounds like blasphemy, but I wonder if I would be happier as an Orioles fan if the team was in DC?