Jump to content

MASN dispute update


accinfo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Beetlejuice said:

For those who think the end is near, a recent WasnPost article had a MASN attorney stating they would seek relief from Maryland State Court if they lose this appeal.  😂 

That seems absurd, don’t you think?  I give that a 0% chance of success.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think it is about success, it's about delay.

That delay would be minimal, in my opinion.  There are fundamental legal principles that prevent parties from relitigating decided issues in a second set of courts, that would cause the Maryland courts to toss any new case about the 2012-16 rights fees arbitration very quickly.   And maybe issue sanctions against MASN for bringing a frivolous case.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think it is about success, it's about delay.

 

26 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That delay would be minimal, in my opinion.  There are fundamental legal principles that prevent parties from relitigating decided issues in a second set of courts, that would cause the Maryland courts to toss any new case about the 2012-16 rights fees arbitration very quickly.   And maybe issue sanctions against MASN for bringing a frivolous case.  

I am getting to the point where this is simply about kicking the can down the road. 
 

They already seem to want to pinch pennies as much as possible. Why pay today for what you can put off tomorrow. 

 

My question is what is the impact of this whenever it’s resolved on the 2017-22 reset? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

 

I am getting to the point where this is simply about kicking the can down the road. 
 

They already seem to want to pinch pennies as much as possible. Why pay today for what you can put off tomorrow. 

 

My question is what is the impact of this whenever it’s resolved on the 2017-22 reset? 

The impact could be huge.  I believe the RSDC already held an arbitration hearing on the 2017-21 period, at essentially the same time as the 2012-16 second hearing, but they have withheld a ruling while awaiting the court decision on the 2012-16 period.   If the 2012-16 decision stands, then the RSDC probably issues a prompt decision on 2017-21 that closely follows the rationale and methodology of the earlier decision.  If the 2012-16 decision is thrown out, that means the matter is going to a third hearing before a non-RSDC arbitration panel, and probably means that hearings about later time periods will be heard by a non-RSDC panel as well.   That could take years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The impact could be huge.  I believe the RSDC already held an arbitration hearing on the 2017-21 period, at essentially the same time as the 2012-16 second hearing, but they have withheld a ruling while awaiting the court decision on the 2012-16 period.   If the 2012-16 decision stands, then the RSDC probably issues a prompt decision on 2017-21 that closely follows the rationale and methodology of the earlier decision.  If the 2012-16 decision is thrown out, that means the matter is going to a third hearing before a non-RSDC arbitration panel, and probably means that hearings about later time periods will be heard by a non-RSDC panel as well.   That could take years.  

If the decision stands could the Orioles fight the 17-21 decision separately and drag that out like 12-16?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

The impact could be huge.  I believe the RSDC already held an arbitration hearing on the 2017-21 period, at essentially the same time as the 2012-16 second hearing, but they have withheld a ruling while awaiting the court decision on the 2012-16 period.   If the 2012-16 decision stands, then the RSDC probably issues a prompt decision on 2017-21 that closely follows the rationale and methodology of the earlier decision.  If the 2012-16 decision is thrown out, that means the matter is going to a third hearing before a non-RSDC arbitration panel, and probably means that hearings about later time periods will be heard by a non-RSDC panel as well.   That could take years.  

"This is the song that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on, my friends
..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

If the decision stands could the Orioles fight the 17-21 decision separately and drag that out like 12-16?

They can fight that out separately, but it’s unlikely to take years and years like this one did, because the big issues regarding how the arbitration is to be conducted will have been decided. 

This case has been highly unusual.  Normally, when an arbitration award is made, any court challenges are decided pretty quickly and very rarely is the award overturned.  The whole idea is that courts don’t substitute their own judgment for that of the arbitrators.   Grounds to overturn an award are extremely limited.   If this one stands, chances are very high that future awards will be affirmed pretty quickly in the courts.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

They can fight that out separately, but it’s unlikely to take years and years like this one did, because the big issues regarding how the arbitration is to be conducted will have been decided. 

This case has been highly unusual.  Normally, when an arbitration award is made, any court challenges are decided pretty quickly and very rarely is the award overturned.  The whole idea is that courts don’t substitute their own judgment for that of the arbitrators.   Grounds to overturn an award are extremely limited.   If this one stands, chances are very high that future awards will be affirmed pretty quickly in the courts.  
 

Thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the lawyers, masochists, and curiosity-seekers out there, here's the video of last week's argument in the New York Court of Appeals. I haven't watched it, beyond confirming that it's the right case on the video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQIJoj6O4c

I don't know, if anything, what the MASN/Orioles lawyers have in mind about a challenge in the Maryland courts if they get an adverse final ruling in New York. But it's hard for me to see how that challenge wouldn't be frivolous and short-lived. And it's easy to see that the Orioles' bringing a Maryland lawsuit after the Nats prevail in New York (where MASN and the Orioles elected to bring and pursue their case) would further piss off MLB. 

Delaying things just a little by such a maneuver might make sense if the Angeloses believe (a) they are close enough to selling the team (implying that the owner is or may not have much time left) that the obligations to make payments to the Nats might get lumped in with the negotiation of the billion dollar-plus sale price and be paid by the purchaser, and (b) they might derive some benefit from that compared to  paying the Nats themselves. I'm not saying that's happening, but it's all I can think of.

I understood a few decades ago that Peter Angelos had a reputation for obtaining procedural rulings from the Maryland courts in asbestos cases that were pretty extraordinary, but I have to believe that possibility is long gone and, even if it weren't, wouldn't get MASN and the Orioles very far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As spiritof66 was posting this, I was watching it.   Pretty well argued by both sides.  I feel like the Nats got the better of it on the main issue, which is whether the RSDC was so "evidently partial" that the matter needs to go to an independent arbitrator.   Several of the justices seemed to feel that the defect of the first proceeding -- that the Nats used lawyers who had represented MLB in other matters -- was a narrow one that was cured in the second arbitration.   The O's lawyer, Carter Phillips (who, by the way, is one of the go-to lawyers for arguments before the US Supreme Court) argued that the Commissioner had made statements after the first arbitration was reversed that he expected the second arbitration to come out the same way, showing broader partiality than just the issue of using a law firm that MLB had used previously.  The Nats lawyer pointed out that it was the RSDC, not the Commissioner, that made the ruling, and it was a different RSDC than the one who decided the first case.   My sense is that most of the judges were skeptical that the second RSDC panel was "evidently partial."

There is a second issue, which is whether the Court can treat the RSDC's decision as a "money judgment" that it can affirm, or whether there have to be other proceedings before a separate arbitrator to calculate any set-offs against the amount of the rights fees that are payable.   There, the O's ssemed to do a little better.   So, even if the Nats win on the rights fees issue, it's possible there will need to be yet another round of proceedings to determine the net amount owed.   Honestly, that issue is one that grown-ups could resolve quickly without more legal proceedings, but that's not how these parties (especially the O's) roll.   

There was one judge who was questioning whether the RSDC proceeding was an "arbitration" subject to court review under the federa arbitration act at all, but rather, an "appraisal."   Neither side seemed prepared for that, and I doubt it goes anywhere.   None of the other judges seemed to care.

The O's lawyer made it pretty clear that the O's are going to continue to fight everything the RSDC does.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eddie83 said:

 

I am getting to the point where this is simply about kicking the can down the road. 
 

They already seem to want to pinch pennies as much as possible. Why pay today for what you can put off tomorrow. 

 

My question is what is the impact of this whenever it’s resolved on the 2017-22 reset? 

Why pay today what next year's owner (I can dream) can pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Good point on the age.  I think it would have to be someone like Nate George from this year's draft just blowing up next year. The story would be how everyone missed on him because he played in a cold weather state.    
    • First, Schmidt is having a better year than Cole. Second, the O's teed off Ragans and Lugo last time they faced them.
    • Elias needs to use better judgement when he dumpster dives, prepare better for the high percentage chance that his dumpster diving pickups will fail, and increase usage of other means to get pieces. Bullpen usage is another problem, but it’s hard to effectively juggle flaming torches. A wrong move burns badly 
    • I can see the case for Mountcastle based on defense alone, but what has Kjerstad done to warrant that kind of treatment? Is it the .505 OPS he’s put up since coming back? The overall .438 ML OPS since getting hit in the head? I’m as bummed as anyone that his season got derailed, but if you’re talking about where they are right now — he’s not your huckleberry. As for O’Hearn, he’s 8 for his last 23 (.348), with 3 doubles. That feels a little like the “getting himself together” that you referenced. He had an awful month-long slump, but he also has an extended track record (over 1.5 seasons) of excelling in the role he’s now back in, as the platoon LH 1B/DH guy. He had a 125 wRC+ in those 750 PAs as an Oriole until 8/20, which is roughly when Mountcastle went out.  I’d be good with Kjerstad DHing against LH starters, because there’s good reason to think he hits them better than O’Hearn. And if they want to play both O’Hearn and Kjerstad against some RHPs, in order to set up the potential of Mountcastle coming in to PH against a lefty reliever, I’m down for that too. But the primary alignment is going to (and should) be the Mountcastle/O’Hearn duo we’ve gotten accustomed to seeing.
    • The Achilles heel for this team is going to be the unit that doesn't step up in the postseason. I can easily see scenarios where: the bullpen is hot and provides good performances but the offense sputters and isn't clutch the offense comes up big but the bullpen blows games late starting pitching tosses some clunkers (not really likely with Burnes and Eflin) and they can't recover the defense sucks and gives opponents extra outs to work with, blowing games open when the bullpen or SP would have been able to escape and continue We've seen all of these units falter at one point or another during this season.  We've also seen all of these units perform very well at different times throughout the season.  So, we'll see what turns out to be the Achilles heel for the Orioles in the playoffs starting next week.
    • I agree I missed the mark on a correct forum, and ask a moderator to please relocate to Rants as that game annoyed me yesterday. I appreciate the strong moderators here and know I'm not one of them.     Sorry for making it worse at a tough moment.    I won't bump it again, even ironically if we kick their butts in the playoffs.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...