MASN dispute update

[Beetlejuice]

12 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I don't have my copy with me, but the publicly available version of the settlement agreement was heavily redacted -- that is, it was blacked out. That may have been the case with this provision since it doesn't bear on the dispute that was arbitrated and then litigated.

Do you have a link?  It’s been a long time since I saw it.

[InsideCoroner]

16 hours ago, Frobby said:

Here’s something reported in the Post today that either I didn’t know, or had forgotten: 

“People around baseball suspect that the Angelos family is preparing to sell the Orioles. If the latter happens, you know what becomes of the Nationals’ broadcast rights? They transfer back to the Nationals.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/24/masn-nationals-owners/

Assuming that’s true, that significantly impacts the potential sales price of the Orioles (including their ownership interest in MASN).   And the Nats’ for that matter.

 

 

I imagine the same would apply if the Angelos family doesn’t sell the team outright, but if they merely give up a controlling interest? I’m sure people would exploit any loophole possible if it meant keeping control of the Nats’ brosdcasting rights. 

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, InsideCoroner said:

I imagine the same would apply if the Angelos family doesn’t sell the team outright, but if they merely give up a controlling interest? I’m sure people would exploit any loophole possible if it meant keeping control of the Nats’ brosdcasting rights. 

I’d imagine whomever buys it would keep them around as a minority owner if that allow them to maintain control of DC tv rights. What a Tupi agreement. I still say Angelos was an idiot for nor fight this in court. The Gnats could’ve had the vacant market around Nashville 

[InsideCoroner]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

I’d imagine whomever buys it would keep them around as a minority owner if that allow them to maintain control of DC tv rights. What a Tupi agreement. I still say Angelos was an idiot for nor fight this in court. The Gnats could’ve had the vacant market around Nashville 

That just sounds like too much of a loophole to me. "Assingment or sale of the club shall mean the forfeit of all Nats TV rights, unless you figure out that you can just sell 99.99% of the club, keep the Angelos family involved for a 0.01% share, and that the new owner can retain lucrative broadcast rights in perpetuity." 

[Frobby]

22 hours ago, Frobby said:

Here’s something reported in the Post today that either I didn’t know, or had forgotten: 

“People around baseball suspect that the Angelos family is preparing to sell the Orioles. If the latter happens, you know what becomes of the Nationals’ broadcast rights? They transfer back to the Nationals.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/24/masn-nationals-owners/

Assuming that’s true, that significantly impacts the potential sales price of the Orioles (including their ownership interest in MASN).   And the Nats’ for that matter.

 

 

I have re-read the MASN agreement and it does NOT appear to say that broadcast rights revert to the Nats if the Orioles are sold.   So, false alarm so far as I’m concerned.   

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, Beetlejuice said:

Do you have a link?  It’s been a long time since I saw it.

Try this: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=o9soJ5X776lSOqVcWBsmpw==

[Frobby]

By the way, the NY Court of Appeals case is now fully briefed.   No date for an oral argument has been set.   The docket for the appeals case (APL-2020-00175) can be found by plugging in the information here:  https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/courtpass/Docket.aspx

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, InsideCoroner said:

That just sounds like too much of a loophole to me. "Assingment or sale of the club shall mean the forfeit of all Nats TV rights, unless you figure out that you can just sell 99.99% of the club, keep the Angelos family involved for a 0.01% share, and that the new owner can retain lucrative broadcast rights in perpetuity." 

What about any of the other owners. I believe the original group includes Jeopardy. 
 

you’d have to see how the contract is written.

but, I agree it hurts the value. Is the sale protected for lost value. I thought I heard he had a bunch of guarantees way back when he agreed

 

[Beetlejuice]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:54 AM, Frobby said:

I have re-read the MASN agreement and it does NOT appear to say that broadcast rights revert to the Nats if the Orioles are sold.   So, false alarm so far as I’m concerned.   

I haven’t read it again.  But I’m somewhat surprised the Post said that, because that’s not the sort of thing if they knew to be factual they would just casually decide to blurt it out now.  I doubt he’s any more privy to the unredacted settlement agreement than we are, so his source is likely to be someone at the Nationals who is unable to comment publicly due to not being authorized to comment, yadda, yadda, etc.  And I would be surprised that it’s just their opinion on how things might play out, because as we’ve learned making any sort of assumptions on how the courts may see things is a fool’s errand.  Then again, the source might have been an attorney and they haven’t been shy about telling outright falsehoods.  So who knows?  

[Beetlejuice]

On 4/25/2022 at 9:08 AM, Frobby said:

Try this: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=o9soJ5X776lSOqVcWBsmpw==

This appears to not contain any redactions, correct?  I thought someone said the public has only seen a “heavily” redacted version?

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, Beetlejuice said:

This appears to not contain any redactions, correct?  I thought someone said the public has only seen a “heavily” redacted version?

When the original lawsuit was filed, the version on the court website was heavily redacted.   The version I linked to you was filed about 5 years later.   I guess someone decided the information was no longer sensitive.  

I sent the link to Barry Svrluga, the Post reporter who wrote the story, and asked what the basis was to conclude that the Nats broadcast rights reverted to the Nats if the Orioles were sold.  He said the was told this by “two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement” but said he was going to “triple check” with them.   Maybe he’ll get back to me once he does, though I’m not necessarily expecting him to.  
 

[Beetlejuice]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

He said the was told this by “two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement”

Short of signed documents, I’m skeptical.  Somehow I feel as if this understanding is the theory from one of the Nat’s attorneys.  And if there is one thing I’ve learned about attorneys is their theories sound great in both written and oral form.  But then so does the other guy’s attorneys.

Personally, I think Barry got taken by his source, who got it from a lawyer.  I bet he publishes a correction.

 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Beetlejuice said:

Short of signed documents, I’m skeptical.  Somehow I feel as if this understanding is the theory from one of the Nat’s attorneys.  And if there is one thing I’ve learned about attorneys is their theories sound great in both written and oral form.  But then so does the other guy’s attorneys.

Personally, I think Barry got taken by his source, who got it from a lawyer.  I bet he publishes a correction.

 

Well, it will be interesting to see.   I certainly don’t see anything in this document about the Nats’ rights reverting after a sale of the Orioles.   So, in my opinion the only way that’s the “arrangement” is if there is another written agreement I haven’t seen that provides for it — which I doubt.   

The document does say that MLB guaranteed a minimum sales price for the Orioles that only applied to Angelos and no other owner group.  And it does say that if shares of MASN are offered or sold, the Nats have a right of first refusal — but with an express exception if the Orioles are sold and thus the MASN shares are transferred.   So it’s not like the draftsman of the agreement didn’t address issues that could come up if Angelos sold the team.   I don’t see any reason why any “reverter clause” would have been in a separate agreement.  
 

[Beetlejuice]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

  I certainly don’t see anything in this document about the Nats’ rights reverting after a sale of the Orioles

Me neither.  The only thing that the document mentions about rights reverting to the clubs is if MASN fails to pay the owed TV fees, either deliberate or because of insolvency.  Considering MASN has already deposited $100M of escrow to cover the cost of the now appealed RSDC decision, it looks like they’re trying to avoid that from happening.

But what I’m really curious is how they’re going to handle payment to the Os should they lose the appeal.  Because Angelos insisted the Os get paid the same TV rights fees as the Nats (which I can only attribute to hubris), MASN will also owe the Os an identical check.  MASN will have to recover from the Os and Nats a portion of the fees paid to them as MASN’s shareholders, the vast majority having gone to the Os.  But even with this refund, will MASN have enough to pay both sides?  And would MASN be allowed to take on debt to do so?

[spiritof66]

On 4/25/2022 at 3:24 AM, Beetlejuice said:

Do you have a link?  It’s been a long time since I saw it.

No. I have a paper copy. I'll try to remember where I got it, and I'll post the link if I can find it.