MASN dispute update

[fansince1988]

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.

I disagree with the highlighted sentence. The Nats have had a major impact on attendance and the fan base. I know many, many people who don't drive to Baltimore that used to regularly attend Orioles games, solely because there is a closer option in Washington.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

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. 

What do you mean?  Have you ever been to a women's pro game in the US?  Are you familiar with the NWSL?  Crowds are small, and each team might have one or two players from the USWNT.  The league from the late 90s and early 2000s folded because they couldn't draw crowds or otherwise make money.  The newer league is scaled back from the earlier modest ambitions.  The current Washington Spirit plays at the Germantown soccer complex (a place where youth leagues and travel teams usually play) in a "stadium" that seats 4000.  The NWSL is only slightly higher profile than something like the independent Atlantic League in baseball.  Median per-game attendance in 2018 was about 4300.

In contrast the men's MLS median per-game attendance is about 20,000, and both Seattle and Atlanta are among the top 20 or 30 best-attended teams in the world.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, fansince1988 said:

I disagree with the highlighted sentence. The Nats have had a major impact on attendance and the fan base. I know many, many people who don't drive to Baltimore that used to regularly attend Orioles games, solely because there is a closer option in Washington.

You’d have to be dense to think that the existence of the Nats doesn’t impact our attendance.     But in terms of the size of the impact, you have to consider that attendance dropped by more than a million fans a year between 1998-2004 before the Nats arrived, and that we are drawing literally half right now what we were drawing 5 years ago.    My point is the drop in attendance is primarily (not entirely) due to losing, and that to the extent we have lost fans to the Nats, that loss has been maximized because our team has been bad the overwhelming majority of the time for the last 20 years.    Fans don’t usually switch away from a winning team.   

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

What do you mean?  Have you ever been to a women's pro game in the US?  Are you familiar with the NWSL?  Crowds are small, and each team might have one or two players from the USWNT.  The league from the late 90s and early 2000s folded because they couldn't draw crowds or otherwise make money.  The newer league is scaled back from the earlier modest ambitions.  The current Washington Spirit plays at the Germantown soccer complex (a place where youth leagues and travel teams usually play) in a "stadium" that seats 4000.  The NWSL is only slightly higher profile than something like the independent Atlantic League in baseball.  Median per-game attendance in 2018 was about 4300.

In contrast the men's MLS median per-game attendance is about 20,000, and both Seattle and Atlanta are among the top 20 or 30 best-attended teams in the world.

What you are saying has nothing to do with the quality of play. The MLS players are not that good.   The NWSL teams have great players on them.   I am not sure what attendance has to do with anything.  I know we live in a misogynistic world where male sports are perceived to be better no matter what the quality difference. 

You can watch MLS teams get humiliated this summer in friendlies against top league teams.  Colorado just lost to Aresnal 3-0.  Arsenal sat most of their stars.  

[atomic]

21 minutes ago, Frobby said:

You’d have to be dense to think that the existence of the Nats doesn’t impact our attendance.     But in terms of the size of the impact, you have to consider that attendance dropped by more than a million fans a year between 1998-2004 before the Nats arrived, and that we are drawing literally half right now what we were drawing 5 years ago.    My point is the drop in attendance is primarily (not entirely) due to losing, and that to the extent we have lost fans to the Nats, that loss has been maximized because our team has been bad the overwhelming majority of the time for the last 20 years.    Fans don’t usually switch away from a winning team.   

I think attendance is quite good this year for the quality of product on the field.  They are at the bottom of attendance along with every other team with less than 40 wins.  Along with good teams like the Rays and Indians.  

The best attendance of any team with less than 40 wins is the Mariners who were good in the beginning of the season and average 20k fans a game opposed to the Orioles 17k.  I am sure their totals will converge as the season continues. 

[fansince1988]

24 minutes ago, Frobby said:

You’d have to be dense to think that the existence of the Nats doesn’t impact our attendance.     But in terms of the size of the impact, you have to consider that attendance dropped by more than a million fans a year between 1998-2004 before the Nats arrived, and that we are drawing literally half right now what we were drawing 5 years ago.    My point is the drop in attendance is primarily (not entirely) due to losing, and that to the extent we have lost fans to the Nats, that loss has been maximized because our team has been bad the overwhelming majority of the time for the last 20 years.    Fans don’t usually switch away from a winning team.   

Are you saying that winning increases attendance? Gee, I never considered that. The DMV has a long history of not being able to support two MLB teams. A majority of the corporate suite and box-seat season ticket holders are in DC, and overall their season ticket base is double, maybe even triple of ours? Nats haven't won a playoff series since moving to Washington either.

[DrungoHazewood]

 

7 minutes ago, atomic said:

What you are saying has nothing to do with the quality of play. The MLS players are not that good.   The NWSL teams have great players on them.   I am not sure what attendance has to do with anything.  I know we live in a misogynistic world where male sports are perceived to be better no matter what the quality difference. 

You can watch MLS teams get humiliated this summer in friendlies against top league teams.  Colorado just lost to Aresnal 3-0.  Arsenal sat most of their stars.  

What you're saying has nothing to do with making a viable commercial product.  The US has good women players in the NWSL.  Few people pay to watch that.  You can blame that on misogyny or just the fact that the women are playing at a lower objective level, or that the women's league has little history, but it's still true.

MLS is, at least relative to the NWSL, a huge commercial success.  Many people are interested in watching MLS, which is a growing league with American players.  No one particularly cares that Colorado isn't on par with Arsenal, just as no one cares that Alabama or Clemson would be wiped off the field by the Redskins.  People often feel some connection to their hometown team and players and won't quit on them just because they're not the best in the world this very moment.

I see your take on building is the same in soccer as it is with the Orioles.  If you're not the best right now you're a total failure.  What a myopic point of view.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, fansince1988 said:

Are you saying that winning increases attendance? Gee, I never considered that. The DMV has a long history of not being able to support two MLB teams. A majority of the corporate suite and box-seat season ticket holders are in DC, and overall their season ticket base is double, maybe even triple of ours? Nats haven't won a playoff series since moving to Washington either.

My simple point is that if the O’s had been a well-run team that didn’t have a losing record 75% of the time, a lot fewer fans would have switched allegiances or decided that the team wasn’t worth the drive to Baltimore.    I feel that even in 2014, we probably had less attendance than we would have had if the O’s hadn’t strung 14 consecutive losing seasons together from 1998-2011.

[MCO'sFan]

The Nats move to DC absolutely hurt the O's tremendously. They took significant corporate sponsorships and luxury box owners away. They virtually lost all of DC, NoVa and most of MoCo and Pg. Losing didn't help but even when the O's had the best record in baseball over a 5 year period, attendance didn't improve to even close to pre-Nats levels. 

[atomic]

10 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

What you're saying has nothing to do with making a viable commercial product.  The US has good women players in the NWSL.  Few people pay to watch that.  You can blame that on misogyny or just the fact that the women are playing at a lower objective level, or that the women's league has little history, but it's still true.

MLS is, at least relative to the NWSL, a huge commercial success.  Many people are interested in watching MLS, which is a growing league with American players.  No one particularly cares that Colorado isn't on par with Arsenal, just as no one cares that Alabama or Clemson would be wiped off the field by the Redskins.  People often feel some connection to their hometown team and players and won't quit on them just because they're not the best in the world this very moment.

I see your take on building is the same in soccer as it is with the Orioles.  If you're not the best right now you're a total failure.  What a myopic point of view.

Where did I say that. I said I would gladly replace the Orioles with an MLS team. To me the MLS is more exciting than the Orioles.  You come out knocking the women's soccer league for some unknown reason. I know it isn't as big a draw as MLS currently.  But I don't see why they couldn't share a stadium in Baltimore.  I would see the women's team.  

The fact is women's team has a higher quality of player even if it doesn't draw as much.   Of the the Men's World Cup quater final teams how many had current MLS players starting for them?  Compare that to the number of player in the women's league playing on the world cup champions. 

[MCO'sFan]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

My simple point is that if the O’s had been a well-run team that didn’t have a losing record 75% of the time, a lot fewer fans would have switched allegiances or decided that the team wasn’t worth the drive to Baltimore.    I feel that even in 2014, we probably had less attendance than we would have had if the O’s hadn’t strung 14 consecutive losing seasons together from 1998-2011.

I just don't agree with this statement. I know dozens of people who were O's fans who instantly became Nats fans when they moved in. The O's win/loss had nothing to do with it. I am sure that some people left due to the losing but it is a very small number based on my experience and opinion.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, fansince1988 said:

The DMV has a long history of not being able to support two MLB teams.

Do they?  Prior to the current incarnation of the Nats there were long periods where there was just one team in the area, or one or both of the Senators and Orioles weren't good.  From 1903-53 the Senators had the area to themselves and were mostly bad by themselves.

The one year the expansion Senators were over .500 ('69) the Orioles and Senators were 5th and 6th in a 12-team AL in attendance.

Since the Nats got good in 2012 they've drawn well over 2M fans a year.  When the O's were good from '12-17 they also drew over 2M fans a year.

I think the history of the Nats, Senators, and Orioles shows that bad teams tend to draw poorly, and when they win they do pretty well, whether or not they have another team 40 miles away.

[MCO'sFan]

3 minutes ago, atomic said:

Where did I say that. I said I would gladly replace the Orioles with an MLS team. To me the MLS is more exciting than the Orioles.  You come out knocking the women's soccer league for some unknown reason. I know it isn't as big a draw as MLS currently.  But I don't see why they couldn't share a stadium in Baltimore.  I would see the women's team.  

The fact is women's team has a higher quality of player even if it doesn't draw as much.   Of the the Men's World Cup quater final teams how many had current MLS players starting for them?  Compare that to the number of player in the women's league playing on the world cup champions. 

Wow! This alone should cause you to be banned.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

The Nats move to DC absolutely hurt the O's tremendously. They took significant corporate sponsorships and luxury box owners away. They virtually lost all of DC, NoVa and most of MoCo and Pg. Losing didn't help but even when the O's had the best record in baseball over a 5 year period, attendance didn't improve to even close to pre-Nats levels. 

But pre-Nats was mostly still the OPACY honeymoon, Cal Ripken era.  The O's were coming down off of unsustainable highs when OPACY opened.  In 1997 the Orioles out-drew the Yanks by 1.2M.  I'm sorry, but you could eliminate the Nats, Phillies, Pirates and Braves and have the O's win 97 games and they aren't outdrawing the Yanks by 1.2M any time soon.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, atomic said:

Where did I say that. I said I would gladly replace the Orioles with an MLS team. To me the MLS is more exciting than the Orioles.  You come out knocking the women's soccer league for some unknown reason. I know it isn't as big a draw as MLS currently.  But I don't see why they couldn't share a stadium in Baltimore.  I would see the women's team.  

The fact is women's team has a higher quality of player even if it doesn't draw as much.   Of the the Men's World Cup quater final teams how many had current MLS players starting for them?  Compare that to the number of player in the women's league playing on the world cup champions. 

I don't even know what your point is.  Relative to world women's soccer the NWSL does have a higher quality of than MLS versus the world. But that's only because women's soccer in the world is at the same point men's pro sports were in 1910.  I would continue typing but I'm not sure what you're saying... that you'd convert OPACY into an NWSL stadium and your life would be better?  Or something.