MASN dispute update

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Frank Abagnale passed it without going to law school or college.

There is always going to be that "outter" that devies logic, and are the 1 percenters of the population.

I once had a coworker, who really did have a photographic memory. Ask him to tell you what was written on page 125 on book XXXXX and he could recite it.

Blew us away.

[Redskins Rick]

17 minutes ago, foxfield said:

There are a few reasons...but as an example, you state a rather large number of opinions as unassailable fact.

and some of those opinions are wrong assumptions and in some cases totally impossible. 

[atomic]

22 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

The paper shingle on the wall behind the person's desk, is meaningless to if they know how to do their job.

Some of the skaters who went to Ivy league schools thanks to Daddy's money and into Daddy's firm, in a made up position, can't hold a stick compared to somebody that earned their degree, studied and worked their arse off for it.

ho

LOL.  The people who went to Yale Law worked their asses off to get in.  They scored in the top 1 percentile on the LSAT and had a median GPA of 3.9 in college.

The median LSAT at U of B is 150.  That is the 50th percentile.  

Really I am not sure why we arguing about this.  Yale is one of the hardest law school to get into in the country.  Median starting salary is $180k compared to $68k for U of B.  

 

[jarman86]

10 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

and they turn the blind eye, when the paper turned in, was clearly wrote by somebody else, or downloaded from the internet.

My only question, is how the heck do they pass the darn bar, or do they have to?

Depends on the state.  Maryland is more heavily based on essay, while others might be more heavily weighted on multiple choice.  The courses literally train you how to take the test and depending on the tutor/course, you can pass the bar.  All I did was 8-10 weeks of multiple choice.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, atomic said:

Really I am not sure why we arguing about this.  

That's a question we're all asking after four or five pages of banging our heads on a wall.

[atomic]

53 minutes ago, makoman said:

 

Thurgood Marshall went to Howard. Comparable ranking as U of B, in the low 100s. But this whole conversation is just dumb. 

You do realize there was segregation and racism when Thurgood Marshall went to college, don't you? 

"Marshall wanted to study in his hometown law school, the University of Maryland School of Law, but did not apply because of the school's segregation policy."

My father helped escort the first black student to University of Mississippi in 1963. That was 30 years after Marshall graduated from law school.  

[jarman86]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That's a question we're all asking after four or five pages of banging our heads on a wall.

Cause I was naïve in thinking I was talking to a person and not a troll.  

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, atomic said:

Really I am not sure why we arguing about this. 

Honestly, I think it’s time to drop it. It’s pretty far off topic at this point.   

[weams]

Back to the MASN dispute. No more trolling of Baltimore, Peter Angelos, Common Men and Women,  or fellow posters in general.  This is not a thread about elitism or quality of education or work place financial compensation. 

[weams]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Honestly, I think it’s time to drop it. It’s pretty far off topic at this point.   

It's required.

[NCRaven]

Damn!  You required us to go back on topic and since then we've gone nearly 45 minutes without any posts.  What was the topic again?

[weams]

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

Damn!  You required us to go back on topic and since then we've gone nearly 45 minutes without any posts.  What was the topic again?

The MASN dispute update. And to my knowledge, there were no new developments. It just became a thread polluted with personal attacks and defenses previously. It's probably best that is rest until a new development occurs. 

[Frobby]

46 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Damn!  You required us to go back on topic and since then we've gone nearly 45 minutes without any posts.  What was the topic again?

The MASN dispute.   Here’s something relevant: last week MASN filed a brief seeking to clarify a small point about how to calculate the overdue sum on which interest is now due.     In the course of making the argument, MASN disclosed that it paid the Nats $41.8 mm in profit distributions during 2012-16.     It went on to say that it couldn’t have made these payments if rights fees were set at the levels awarded by the panel.    

This figure is interesting because the Nats only owned 13-17% of MASN from 2012-16, so this implies that the Orioles share of the profits (if the O’s had won the arbitration) would have been about  $236.9 mm, in addition to the $197.6 mm in rights fees they received.    So, a total of $434.5 mm over 5 years.    Instead, they’ll receive $296.8 mm in rights fees (equal to the Nats) and about $68.3 mm in profits, for a total of about $365.1 mm.    Still a nice chunk of change from their TV network.    

[Going Underground]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The MASN dispute.   Here’s something relevant: last week MASN filed a brief seeking to clarify a small point about how to calculate the overdue sum on which interest is now due.     In the course of making the argument, MASN disclosed that it paid the Nats $41.8 mm in profit distributions during 2012-16.     It went on to say that it couldn’t have made these payments if rights fees were set at the levels awarded by the panel.    

This figure is interesting because the Nats only owned 13-17% of MASN from 2012-16, so this implies that the Orioles share of the profits (if the O’s had won the arbitration) would have been about  $236.9 mm, in addition to the $197.6 mm in rights fees they received.    So, a total of $434.5 mm over 5 years.    Instead, they’ll receive $296.8 mm in rights fees (equal to the Nats) and about $68.3 mm in profits, for a total of about $365.1 mm.    Still a nice chunk of change from their TV network.    

My friend who has some knowledge of the situation, once told me the Orioles are more profitable with the Nationals and the MASN deal then they would be if the Nationals were not here I thought he was kidding but not that sure now. Based on the Orioles basically getting mist of the profits from a major market team TV revenue. I guess as the percentage the Orioles own of MASN goes down ,perhaps not as much.

[TGO]

28 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

My friend who has some knowledge of the situation, once told me the Orioles are more profitable with the Nationals and the MASN deal then they would be if the Nationals were not here I thought he was kidding but not that sure now. Based on the Orioles basically getting mist of the profits from a major market team TV revenue. I guess as the percentage the Orioles own of MASN goes down ,perhaps not as much.

I believe the lowest the O's ownership of MASN will ever go is 67%.