MASN dispute update

[Curse of the Bamdino]

28 minutes ago, weams said:

There are many fallacies here. And Peter turned 89  a week back. He is not of health to participate in any of this. in public or the sidelines. 

Last year. He's now a nonagenarian.

[Frobby]

45 minutes ago, weams said:

There are many fallacies here. And Peter turned 89  a week back. He is not of health to participate in any of this. in public or the sidelines. 

90, I believe, not 89.    

[drjohnnyfeva]

2 hours ago, VaBird1 said:

I think this map doesn’t have the White Sox on it.

Yeah, you're right.  And it doesn't have the A's on there either... Yet if this is the way MLB sees it in our area, I stand by that post.  We'll get the short end.  Even if the map isn't true, but it is the way MLB sees it, we'll get the short end.

That's been my point all along.  The different maps show all kinds of different allegiances in the area that is the Nats' in my pic.  The point is, that in none of the maps is our old area still ours.  That's not good!

What it means is that if the Nats see it in the way that my map shows, they think they are the territory now.  That's why I chose this map among the others to show...

That's a scary scenario for the money we, re. ownership, might expect to receive many years from now.  And all the more reason we need to continue to hope that it's the O's and not the Nats' territory. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by drjohnnyfeva
speeling

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Greg Pappas said:

Thank you. As an educated person and avid Orioles fan, how do you view the Nationals move into our territory and to what degree has this relocation hurt the O's? I ask because my understanding of what's happened thus far has been shoddy, as was evident in my earlier reply. I guess I'm looking for the negatives and positives (if there are any.)

I view this through the long arc of history.    The Washington Senators predated the Orioles.   Under the AL charter at the time, they had the absolute right to veto a team moving to Baltimore.    They didn’t do it.    Meanwhile, Angelos had no absolute right to veto an NL team moving to DC.   He came up with some legal arguments about how his TV rights would be affected if DC had a team, and leveraged that into the MASN deal.     As an Orioles fan, I say good for him.    But MLB did require that the TV rights be assigned “fair market value” and the lawyers left the standard for determining that very vague.   

I personally believe the decisions of the RSDC have been reasonably Solomonic.    Neither side got what it wanted but both sides can live with it.    The Nats chose to accept that they didn’t get all they wanted; Angelos didn’t and has protracted the dispute for 5-7 years.    He got some short term benefits from that, but overall he has hurt the franchise by burning bridges with MLB and creating business uncertainty for the team.    He would have been better off looking for win-win solutions rather than treating the MASN deal as a zero sum game.   

As to the team, they’ve hurt themselves by being poorly run far more than the Nats have hurt them.   Would they be better off if the Nats weren’t here?    Of course, but the Nats move didn’t have to have a major impact.    The O’s have magnified its’ impact by their poorly run team.

[accinfo]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I view this through the long arc of history.    The Washington Senators predated the Orioles.   Under the AL charter at the time, they had the absolute right to veto a team moving to Baltimore.    They didn’t do it.    Meanwhile, Angelos had no absolute right to veto an NL team moving to DC.   He came up with some legal arguments about how his TV rights would be affected if DC had a team, and leveraged that into the MASN deal.     As an Orioles fan, I say good for him.    But MLB did require that the TV rights be assigned “fair market value” and the lawyers left the standard for determining that very vague.   

I personally believe the decisions of the RSDC have been reasonably Solomonic.    Neither side got what it wanted but both sides can live with it.    The Nats chose to accept that they didn’t get all they wanted; Angelos didn’t and has protracted the dispute for 5-7 years.    He got some short term benefits from that, but overall he has hurt the franchise by burning bridges with MLB and creating business uncertainty for the team.    He would have been better off looking for win-win solutions rather than treating the MASN deal as a zero sum game.   

As to the team, they’ve hurt themselves by being poorly run far more than the Nats have hurt them.   Would they be better off if the Nats weren’t here?    Of course, but the Nats move didn’t have to have a major impact.    The O’s have magnified its’ impact by their poorly run team.

I can't agree more with the way Frobby sees this. MLB now to me has no reason to give in at this point.  With the eventual change of ownership of the Orioles coming sooner than later they have all the leverage over who they allow the team to be sold to.  There is no way they will decide who buys the team until this MASN matter is put to bed for good.

[atomic]

The Orioles were at fault for signing the deal. If they are paying fair market value than having the network provides no benefit.  They could buy the rights on the open market.  Most of the mlb team rights were up for sale recently.  The Orioles could have bought them. 

I am sure whatever decision is made it will be appealed.  

[weams]

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

90, I believe, not 89.    

Easy math. I forgot it was 2019. 

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, weams said:

Easy math. I forgot it was 2019. 

I try to forget that sometimes.   

[weams]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I try to forget that sometimes.   

I don't feel this old...

[DrungoHazewood]

8 hours ago, atomic said:

The Orioles were at fault for signing the deal. If they are paying fair market value than having the network provides no benefit.  They could buy the rights on the open market.  Most of the mlb team rights were up for sale recently.  The Orioles could have bought them. 

I am sure whatever decision is made it will be appealed.  

They could have played hardball and had MLB just tell them to pound sand and they'd still be trying to compete with Home Team Sports covering the smaller, less affluent part of the DC-Baltimore area.

I have little sympathy for an owner who goes to the mat to protect his right control the baseball fortunes of another city 40 miles away.  It's only a thing because baseball has a monopoly and doesn't shy away from using it.  

[atomic]

23 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

They could have played hardball and had MLB just tell them to pound sand and they'd still be trying to compete with Home Team Sports covering the smaller, less affluent part of the DC-Baltimore area.

I have little sympathy for an owner who goes to the mat to protect his right control the baseball fortunes of another city 40 miles away.  It's only a thing because baseball has a monopoly and doesn't shy away from using it.  

Yeah probably not the affluent part that is the reason more likely just a bigger population.  In my experience less affluent people never have much trouble paying for cable TV. 

With the Median age of MLB TV viewership at 57 in 2017 and rising by the time the MASN dispute plays out it might not matter anymore.  MLB seems to be going the way of the Symphony and Horse Racing.   

Baltimore should be focused on getting MLS and NWSL teams.  That is the future.  

[DrungoHazewood]

9 minutes ago, atomic said:

Yeah probably not the affluent part that is the reason more likely just a bigger population.  In my experience less affluent people never have much trouble paying for cable TV. 

With the Median age of MLB TV viewership at 57 in 2017 and rising by the time the MASN dispute plays out it might not matter anymore.  MLB seems to be going the way of the Symphony and Horse Racing.   

Baltimore should be focused on getting MLS and NWSL teams.  That is the future.  

Baseball isn't going anywhere.  It'll be quite a while before record profits turn into MLB not being a viable business interest.

Baltimore tried to steal DC United while they were negotiating how and where to build Audi Field.  Obviously didn't work out.  It's still very much an open question as to whether the NWSL will be around in five years.  The women's' World Cup is fun and fairly high level of play, but an NWSL team is full of players you've never heard of and a pretty low level of play.  The Freedom used to have doubleheaders with DC United, and the difference between the two was cringe-inducing.  

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Baseball isn't going anywhere.  It'll be quite a while before record profits turn into MLB not being a viable business interest.

Baltimore tried to steal DC United while they were negotiating how and where to build Audi Field.  Obviously didn't work out.  It's still very much an open question as to whether the NWSL will be around in five years.  The women's' World Cup is fun and fairly high level of play, but an NWSL team is full of players you've never heard of and a pretty low level of play.  The Freedom used to have doubleheaders with DC United, and the difference between the two was cringe-inducing.  

You are totally wrong on this.  Most of the US Men's world cup team plays in Europe. And the men's team is pretty awful. The US women's team is the best in the world and most play in the NWSL. 

[Greg Pappas]

12 hours ago, Frobby said:

I view this through the long arc of history.    The Washington Senators predated the Orioles.   Under the AL charter at the time, they had the absolute right to veto a team moving to Baltimore.    They didn’t do it.    Meanwhile, Angelos had no absolute right to veto an NL team moving to DC.   He came up with some legal arguments about how his TV rights would be affected if DC had a team, and leveraged that into the MASN deal.     As an Orioles fan, I say good for him.    But MLB did require that the TV rights be assigned “fair market value” and the lawyers left the standard for determining that very vague.   

I personally believe the decisions of the RSDC have been reasonably Solomonic.    Neither side got what it wanted but both sides can live with it.    The Nats chose to accept that they didn’t get all they wanted; Angelos didn’t and has protracted the dispute for 5-7 years.    He got some short term benefits from that, but overall he has hurt the franchise by burning bridges with MLB and creating business uncertainty for the team.    He would have been better off looking for win-win solutions rather than treating the MASN deal as a zero sum game.   

As to the team, they’ve hurt themselves by being poorly run far more than the Nats have hurt them.   Would they be better off if the Nats weren’t here?    Of course, but the Nats move didn’t have to have a major impact.    The O’s have magnified its’ impact by their poorly run team.

Thank you kindly for this. This overview helps me put things in perspective... something I needed. Clarity is a good thing.

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

Thank you kindly for this. This overview helps me put things in perspective... something I needed. Clarity is a good thing.

I’m sure not everyone agrees with my take.