MASN dispute update

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, jtschrei said:

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? 

 

OPACY was already a thing.  

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Aglets said:

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

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

Expansion teams in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Halifax.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, Mondo Trasho said:

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...

Not in MLB, not any more.  In the 50s through early 70s a lot of teams moved and it was chaotic.  In the past 45 years the Expos/Nats are the only team that has moved.

[Mondo Trasho]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Not in MLB, not any more.  In the 50s through early 70s a lot of teams moved and it was chaotic.  In the past 45 years the Expos/Nats are the only team that has moved.

Hence, why I wrote "probably very low". Yes, it hasn't happened in the MLB for quite some time (outside of the Expos to DC) but it's happened in other sports.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Not in MLB, not any more.  In the 50s through early 70s a lot of teams moved and it was chaotic.  In the past 45 years the Expos/Nats are the only team that has moved.

I know some posters are scared that the Orioles will move, and I know there are rumors abundantly.

Personally, I think I have a better chance of dating Kate Upton, than the Orioles moving.

[atomic]

23 minutes ago, jtschrei said:

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? 

 

They had 17 years left on their lease.  They couldn't have moved the team. 

[spiritof66]

24 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

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 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.

 

That's really not true. If the parties to an agreement want a contract whose meaning is clear and not open to multiple interpretations, and if the lawyers do a good job drafting the contract to make it come out that way, there's a high likelihood the contract will be enforced according to that meaning. And, by the way, if they do those things and do them well, the issue is decided by a judge (or by arbitrators) and never gets to a jury. 

I spent 35 years practicing law, much of it advising clients about the likely outcome of disputes over the interpretation of large commercial contracts (in litigation and in arbitrations) and representing clients in those litigations and arbitrations. So from my perspective, and I imagine from yours, it seems like an awful lot of contracts end up in disputes about their meaning. But that's looking at the toenail of the elephant. The vast majority of commercial contracts have a clear meaning, and the parties perform their obligations according to that clear meaning, and you just never hear about them. 

It is true that, even where the parties entered into a contract whose meaning is clear and unambiguous, there is nothing to prevent one side from suing (or initiating an arbitration if the contract calls for that) and arguing a different meaning. That's the way our legal system was designed -- to let people sue whenever they want to, with very little likelihood they will be penalized for making bogus arguments. But if the contract is written so its terms are clear and consistent, arguments like that almost certainly are not going to win, and in a lot of courts a  party offering a bogus interpretation will lose pretty quickly.

One thing that has interested me since I started looking at this issue years ago is why the definition of "fair market value" in the MASN agreement is written so poorly. Frobby has offered the opinion that this definition was intentionally vague (not sure whose intention he's referring to -- the Orioles/MASN, MLB or both). I don't know, but it's my opinion that the deficient definition is the result of poor lawyering on the MASN/Orioles side. I'll try to post something on that before I head out to Camden Yards on Wednesday.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

I know some posters are scared that the Orioles will move, and I know there are rumors abundantly.

Personally, I think I have a better chance of dating Kate Upton, than the Orioles moving.

I think the odds are pretty low of the O's moving.  But they're not that low!

[BohKnowsBmore]

12 hours ago, ThomasTomasz said:

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.  

There absolutely have been folks speculating that MLB would block the transfer of ownership to the sons.

I think tax planning has gotten much more front-of-mind among sports owners since the days of JKC's kids needing to sell the team due to taxes.

[drjohnnyfeva]

2 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

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.

 

I surmised this exact course of events a few years ago.  They only agreed to get the team in DC.  They agreed because without "agreeing" there was no move.  What's the old saying, "There's no contract that can't be broken..."  It was all part of the moving plan.

[Frobby]

I spent some time this morning reading the papers recently filed in the MASN case, including some excerpts from the new decision of the RSDC that the Nationals have moved to enforce.    Unfortunately those excerpts don’t discuss the amount of the new award or the rationale for it.     The panel did find, in the part available, that it had no authority to award interest on the amount MASN had “underpaid” in 2012-16.    I suspect more information about the decision may come out as the enforcement case proceeds.    It looks like there hasn’t been a decision made about whether those filings submitted under seal will remain sealed.     

[atomic]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I spent some time this morning reading the papers recently filed in the MASN case, including some excerpts from the new decision of the RSDC that the Nationals have moved to enforce.    Unfortunately those excerpts don’t discuss the amount of the new award or the rationale for it.     The panel did find, in the part available, that it had no authority to award interest on the amount MASN had “underpaid” in 2012-16.    I suspect more information about the decision may come out as the enforcement case proceeds.    It looks like there hasn’t been a decision made about whether those filings submitted under seal will remain sealed.     

I am not sure why the National Owners are disputing MASN Holding back dividend payments this year. If their big rights fee payments is the reason for the lack of dividends I am not sure the point. 

[ThomasTomasz]

31 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

There absolutely have been folks speculating that MLB would block the transfer of ownership to the sons.

I think tax planning has gotten much more front-of-mind among sports owners since the days of JKC's kids needing to sell the team due to taxes.

Not true,  team was left to the JKC Foundation with directions to sell the team to benefit the foundation.

[BohKnowsBmore]

2 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:

Not true,  team was left to the JKC Foundation with directions to sell the team to benefit the foundation.

Well that's my mistake.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

One thing that has interested me since I started looking at this issue years ago is why the definition of "fair market value" in the MASN agreement is written so poorly. Frobby has offered the opinion that this definition was intentionally vague (not sure whose intention he's referring to -- the Orioles/MASN, MLB or both). I don't know, but it's my opinion that the deficient definition is the result of poor lawyering on the MASN/Orioles side. I'll try to post something on that before I head out to Camden Yards on Wednesday.

Of course, I really don’t know, and the original RSDC decision didn’t delve into how that language got negotiated.   I definitely agree that assuming that the MASN/the Orioles had wanted language that would be definitive as to how fair market value would be calculated, the language that ended up in the contract certainly didn’t accomplish that.   Whether that was due to poor drafting or just negotiations where the parties compromised on some ambiguous language because they couldn’t agree on something more specific, I don’t know for sure.    I suspect it was the latter (which is why I said the language was “intentionally” vague), but I really don’t know.   So let’s just say it’s vague.