MASN dispute update

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, esmd said:

Very educational stuff, thanks Frobby.  So let me ask this, and I guess this might be a hard question to answer as you probably don't have all the info to really give a good answer, but I'll ask it anyway.  Does the decision of the RSDC seem, on the face of it, fair to both the O's and Nationals, and does it seem to ensure the financial viability of both MASN and, by extension, the Orioles?

My opinion is yes.    Certainly MASN is viable, if they’re earning roughly a 20% operating margin after paying the rights fees.    And the amounts the O’s get in rights fees and profits should give them a steady income stream, even if not the larger stream they wanted.  

[LookinUp]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

However, that is not guaranteed, because (1) the RSDC has made clear that the "established methodology" can change in the future depending on what methodology is being used for other clubs' rights fees deals at the time, and (2) the data used for comparable deals may change over time depending on what further deals teams make.

So is the ongoing process for MASN to go through disputes like this every 5 or so years? Or is the theory that this decision, once settled through all of the courts, will create a predictable environment that would really only have a chance to change if the established methodology becomes quite obviously flawed?

 

[Frobby]

23 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

So is the ongoing process for MASN to go through disputes like this every 5 or so years? Or is the theory that this decision, once settled through all of the courts, will create a predictable environment that would really only have a chance to change if the established methodology becomes quite obviously flawed?

 

If we were talking about rational businessmen, I’d expect them to negotiate terms each five years based on the past precedent, taking into account changes in market conditions, and to take matters to arbitration only as a last resort.     But this has become a blood feud so I won’t be surprised if they never make a serous effort to negotiate with each other and just arbitrate/litigate ad infinitum.

[wildcard]

38 minutes ago, drjohnnyfeva said:

Lawyers suck.

They suck money for themselves.  They suck from people in fees and charges.  They suck life out of legitimate disputes, which is probably the worst of their suckitude.  But when they start trying to suck each other dry just because there's a dispute and they can and they want to show their nutsacks to each other by sucking the hardest... it's pitiful and they all need to be sucked into an abyss at that point.

It's pretty clear from the article who MLB has chosen.  It's a conflict of interest for them to be commenting on it since they were a party in brokering the original deal themselves.

 

Frobby, you have to watch this group.   They will have you at the bottom for the ocean before you know it.

Thanks for the summary.   Sounds like the saga goes on for a while longer.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Frobby, you have to watch this group.   They will have you at the bottom for the ocean before you know it.

Thanks for the summary.   Sounds like the saga goes on for a while longer.

I make it a policy not to respond to insults about lawyers.    

[Going Underground]

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

I make it a policy not to respond to insults about lawyers.    

Like the owners who suck money from cities and get many tax breaks are fine and upstanding people. 

[Redskins Rick]

1 hour ago, Going Underground said:

Like the owners who suck money from cities and get many tax breaks are fine and upstanding people. 

Actually, it was the State of Md that went to Cleveland and waved dollars at the Browns to move.

And yes, the state paid for OPCY, but I think there are many posts in OH, with details on the financial reports and both the state and the team is making money.,

I think the yearly tax dollars from the team being in Baltimore is being significant revenue for the state.

[BohKnowsBmore]

3 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Actually, it was the State of Md that went to Cleveland and waved dollars at the Browns to move.

And yes, the state paid for OPCY, but I think there are many posts in OH, with details on the financial reports and both the state and the team is making money.,

I think the yearly tax dollars from the team being in Baltimore is being significant revenue for the state.

I think I remember seeing that MSA is flush with money, which is why so many bond deals are originated from there even if they aren't completely related.

I also think both teams being downtown has been accretive to the recent boom of young people moving into the neighborhoods along the water (Fed, Fells, Canton).  Even if people aren't going to the games on a nightly basis, they definitely contribute to the vibe/character of downtown and help make it an attractive place.  Arguments around the ROI on stadium financing are fairly divergent w/r/t positions, but overall I think it would be tough to argue that the state has suffered in any way from its participation in OPACY.

[BohKnowsBmore]

16 hours ago, Frobby said:

I make it a policy not to respond to insults about lawyers.    

What about lawyer jokes?

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

What about lawyer jokes?

I like them when they’re actually funny.    

[hoosiers]

Not surprised by the latest result.  I don't trust Manfred and MLB any further than I can throw them.  

IMO, there is no way in **** that the Nats TV rights fees were worth close to an average of $60M in the 2011-12 time frame going for the next five years.  Not a chance in the world.  I personally believe this was all orchestrated behind closed doors by MLB and, lo and behold, the average of two calculations comes so close to what the prior RSDC came up with and that puts a pretty, difficult to contest bow around it all because it just sounds so reasonable.

Don't feel sorry for the Angelos family - the initial MASN years provided several hundred million dollars of profits for the Os side of MASN owners and most of that was distributed as profits to MASN owners and not invested into the team.

[drjohnnyfeva]

On 5/15/2019 at 4:58 PM, Frobby said:

If we were talking about rational businessmen, I’d expect them to negotiate terms each five years based on the past precedent, taking into account changes in market conditions, and to take matters to arbitration only as a last resort.     But this has become a blood feud so I won’t be surprised if they never make a serous effort to negotiate with each other and just arbitrate/litigate ad infinitum.

Well, this is what I was trying to say.  But it came out in a less than delicate way.  My apologies to lawyers who don't use their expertise in "blood feuds" or pissing contests...  Many lawyers still suck.

[LookinUp]

 

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, LookinUp said:

 

That sounds to me like the Judge doesn’t think much of the motion to stay.    That doesn’t surprise me.  And with oral argument scheduled for July it doesn’t sound like the Judge is in any mood to let Round 2 drag on the way Round 1 did.   

[DrungoHazewood]

On 5/16/2019 at 12:27 PM, BohKnowsBmore said:

I think I remember seeing that MSA is flush with money, which is why so many bond deals are originated from there even if they aren't completely related.

I also think both teams being downtown has been accretive to the recent boom of young people moving into the neighborhoods along the water (Fed, Fells, Canton).  Even if people aren't going to the games on a nightly basis, they definitely contribute to the vibe/character of downtown and help make it an attractive place.  Arguments around the ROI on stadium financing are fairly divergent w/r/t positions, but overall I think it would be tough to argue that the state has suffered in any way from its participation in OPACY. 

I'd like to see a study/argument that wasn't financed or conducted by a sports team that showed positive ROI for a stadium financing deal.