MASN dispute update

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

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.

True.    But I’d say that on the overall spectrum of promised benefits of sports stadiums, OPACY has probably been very good for Baltimore and brought people to that part of Baltimore at the perfect time, just as the Inner Harbor was getting developed.    Overall, a very well executed and coherent plan by the City of Baltimore.    Yeah, things like that used to happen there.   

[atomic]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

True.    But I’d say that on the overall spectrum of promised benefits of sports stadiums, OPACY has probably been very good for Baltimore and brought people to that part of Baltimore at the perfect time, just as the Inner Harbor was getting developed.    Overall, a very well executed and coherent plan by the City of Baltimore.    Yeah, things like that used to happen there.   

Harborplace and Aquarium were going strong before Camden Yards was built.  Maybe hotels and bars around Camden Yards have benefited. I am not sure it has done anything for city residents who dont attend the games.  

Ravens Stadium probably hasnt done anything for city economy.

Probably money would have been better spent making the zoo and art museum world class attractions.  I travel a lot and the quality of a sports stadium is never a factor in where. I travel. 

If you can pay you players millions of dollars you dont need taxpayers picking up your Bill's for you.

[Moose Milligan]

On 5/6/2019 at 7:55 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

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

If you look closely enough, you can see Baltimore's inferiority complex.

[Beetlejuice]

On 5/4/2019 at 4:06 AM, Frobby said:

It looks like they used the Bortz formula

I would be surprised if they actually did, considering the RSDC reportedly ditched the consultancy relationship with Bortz years ago due to alleged COI issues and the explosion of RSN income.  Bortz can’t represent both the clubs who are trying to keep as much of their money possible exempt from revenue sharing as well as the RSDC who’s trying to make sure MLB is getting what they are owed.  They parties literally have opposite interests. 

The Sun’s reporting notwithstanding, they’ve been factually incorrect so often regarding MASN you would think they would at least start attributing statements of supposed fact to their sources (even anonymously) instead of of publishing them with the full weight of The Sun’s “voice”.   No one is is that disillusioned as to pretend who is providing The Sun with this fly’s view of the proceedings.  Of course their sources are O’s executives.  And of course they are going to try and spin the narrative in their favor.  The journalists at the sports desk are supposed to be professionals, so this lack of any skepticism is rather amazing. Which begs the question as to what the hell their editor is thinking?

[Ohfan67]

On 5/18/2019 at 9:06 AM, Moose Milligan said:

If you look closely enough, you can see Baltimore's inferiority complex.

The poor Athletics aren’t even on the map. 

[Frobby]

16 hours ago, Beetlejuice said:

I would be surprised if they actually did, considering the RSDC reportedly ditched the consultancy relationship with Bortz years ago due to alleged COI issues and the explosion of RSN income.  Bortz can’t represent both the clubs who are trying to keep as much of their money possible exempt from revenue sharing as well as the RSDC who’s trying to make sure MLB is getting what they are owed.  They parties literally have opposite interests. 

The Sun’s reporting notwithstanding, they’ve been factually incorrect so often regarding MASN you would think they would at least start attributing statements of supposed fact to their sources (even anonymously) instead of of publishing them with the full weight of The Sun’s “voice”.   No one is is that disillusioned as to pretend who is providing The Sun with this fly’s view of the proceedings.  Of course their sources are O’s executives.  And of course they are going to try and spin the narrative in their favor.  The journalists at the sports desk are supposed to be professionals, so this lack of any skepticism is rather amazing. Which begs the question as to what the hell their editor is thinking?

You might want to read ahead in this thread, since the opinion is now public.   Just go back 2 pages from here.   

[Beetlejuice]

I’m still not seeing how anyone is concluding Bortz is applicable, especially because the main takeaway of Bortz is that a 20% profit margin for is required for a RSN.  A notion by the way, which the RSDC completely rejected.  The tail is not there to wag the dog.  Contrary to what Angelos may think, the O’s and Nat’s TV rights don’t exist to provide a guarantee for MASN profitability.  Rather they are the base on which to operate.  MASN should be parlaying those rights to build original programming to generate revenue not subject to revenue sharing. Considering Angelos would be pocketing the lion’s share of that revenue, it’s a real head scratcher as to why he hasn’t done so already.  This is another reason as to question whether MASN will ever truly be a viable entity.  

MLB acquiesced to Angelos fit of pique with the terms of the settlement agreement that guaranteed the Os the same broadcast fees as the Nats.  Since the true FMV (by definition, what they would fetch on the open market) for the Nats is going to be higher than the Os MASN will never be able to make up the difference.   Back in 2005 the TV rights weren’t nearly as lucrative as they are now, and Angelos demanding this provision was more out of being petty than anything else.  He got hoisted by his own petard.  If by the looks of the way the RSDC is viewing things through their lens, they are going to insist on the Nats getting a FMV.  MASN might find a way to survive the second reset period, but not a chance they will live into the third period.

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, Beetlejuice said:

I’m still not seeing how anyone is concluding Bortz is applicable, especially because the main takeaway of Bortz is that a 20% profit margin for is required for a RSN.  A notion by the way, which the RSDC completely rejected.  The tail is not there to wag the dog.  Contrary to what Angelos may think, the O’s and Nat’s TV rights don’t exist to provide a guarantee for MASN profitability.  Rather they are the base on which to operate.  MASN should be parlaying those rights to build original programming to generate revenue not subject to revenue sharing. Considering Angelos would be pocketing the lion’s share of that revenue, it’s a real head scratcher as to why he hasn’t done so already.  This is another reason as to question whether MASN will ever truly be a viable entity.  

MLB acquiesced to Angelos fit of pique with the terms of the settlement agreement that guaranteed the Os the same broadcast fees as the Nats.  Since the true FMV (by definition, what they would fetch on the open market) for the Nats is going to be higher than the Os MASN will never be able to make up the difference.   Back in 2005 the TV rights weren’t nearly as lucrative as they are now, and Angelos demanding this provision was more out of being petty than anything else.  He got hoisted by his own petard.  If by the looks of the way the RSDC is viewing things through their lens, they are going to insist on the Nats getting a FMV.  MASN might find a way to survive the second reset period, but not a chance they will live into the third period.

The RSDC decision makes clear that it determines the FMV of the rights to the O’s and Nats combined, then awards half the value to each team, rather than determining the FMV of the Nats rights and then awarding each team an amount equal to that.    The difference is significant since the Nats rights are worth more.   

[atomic]

9 hours ago, Beetlejuice said:

I’m still not seeing how anyone is concluding Bortz is applicable, especially because the main takeaway of Bortz is that a 20% profit margin for is required for a RSN.  A notion by the way, which the RSDC completely rejected.  The tail is not there to wag the dog.  Contrary to what Angelos may think, the O’s and Nat’s TV rights don’t exist to provide a guarantee for MASN profitability.  Rather they are the base on which to operate.  MASN should be parlaying those rights to build original programming to generate revenue not subject to revenue sharing. Considering Angelos would be pocketing the lion’s share of that revenue, it’s a real head scratcher as to why he hasn’t done so already.  This is another reason as to question whether MASN will ever truly be a viable entity.  

MLB acquiesced to Angelos fit of pique with the terms of the settlement agreement that guaranteed the Os the same broadcast fees as the Nats.  Since the true FMV (by definition, what they would fetch on the open market) for the Nats is going to be higher than the Os MASN will never be able to make up the difference.   Back in 2005 the TV rights weren’t nearly as lucrative as they are now, and Angelos demanding this provision was more out of being petty than anything else.  He got hoisted by his own petard.  If by the looks of the way the RSDC is viewing things through their lens, they are going to insist on the Nats getting a FMV.  MASN might find a way to survive the second reset period, but not a chance they will live into the third period.

What kind of programming would generate a profit?  Most of the money MASN gets are from people who don’t even watch any games.  None of the other RSNs have anything anyone is watching that isn’t sports.  More original programming will lead to less profit.  Unless you think they could gthink they could get Capital and Wizards games on there by outbidding their current broadcaster.

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

What kind of programming would generate a profit?  Most of the money MASN gets are from people who don’t even watch any games.  None of the other RSNs have anything anyone is watching that isn’t sports.  More original programming will lead to less profit.  Unless you think they could gthink they could get Capital and Wizards games on there by outbidding their current broadcaster.

Tom Davis talking this weeks deals found in the Weis Market circulars. 

[TonySoprano]

4 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Tom Davis talking this weeks deals found in the Weis Market circulars. 

He has Mark Viviano doing it also.  RIP Mars grocery store chain and also Miss Kitty Gerling of Midstate bank (who died at the age of 95).

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Tom Davis talking this weeks deals found in the Weis Market circulars. 

If they'd put Davis back in the stands giving the out of town scores while stealing people's food, I'd tune in to watch a 40-win team.

[Hallas]

On 5/18/2019 at 4:09 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

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.

I remember reading that Oriole Park and the Barcelona olympics were the two outliers for stadium financing/construction.  Granted, 2 positive outliers out of around a hundred or so of these deals is not very good ROI on average.

[Frobby]

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.    

[TonySoprano]

1 hour ago, 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.    

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is still dealing with years 2012-2016.  When will the fun begin for the next five year period?