MASN dispute update

[Beetlejuice]

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.   

[Frobby]

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.  

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

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

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

[Frobby]

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.  

[eddie83]

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? 

[Frobby]

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.  

[eddie83]

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?

[Es4M11]

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
..."

[Frobby]

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.  
 

[eddie83]

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.  

[spiritof66]

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.

[Frobby]

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.   

[Beetlejuice]

39 minutes ago, Frobby said:

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

If they do so in bad faith, will they be sanctioned?  Abuse of process shouldn’t be tolerated.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

[OriolesMagic83]

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.