MASN dispute update

[Can_of_corn]

21 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

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

While I don't think it is likely, they might sell the team and keep the RSN.

(They should have sold high on the RSN years ago)

[Beetlejuice]

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

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.

Huh?  What are these set-offs?

[Beetlejuice]

11 hours ago, Frobby said:

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."

Nice summary.  The key point each side was trying to nail home was the degree of the RSDC’s “evident partiality”.  Phillips claimed that the entirety of the first RSDC was evident partial. Several of the judges were skeptical and asked why changing council didn’t cure the issue.  Phillips claimed Marks said it was more than the Prosker representation but did not elaborate.  When the Nationals lawyer Schaffer took his turn one of the judges asked if the RSDC was still impartial despite the Prosker cure.  He cited the Marks decision that stated Prosker was the only issue that needed addressing. Phillips however, implied the first and second RSDC is still partial because of Manfred’s prediction the second RSDC’s will be similar to the first, and the fact the amounts were about a 1% from each other as proof.  One of the judges was like, so what?  He asked if they use a similar methodology should they get similar results?  The judge basically stated the position by the National’s attorney was making that Manfred was referring to the process the RSDC uses and not any unfair bias.   Phillips summarized that the Mark’s decision said the evident partiality was so entrenched in the RSDC that you couldn’t “unring that bell” so you must use another arbitration venue.  Schaffer said the decision specifically singled our Prosker, and since that was cured there is no issue with the second RSDC or their decision.  Most of the judges seemed to be skeptical of Phillip’s argument.  I believe they acquainted themselves with the previous appeal and took the majority view.  However, one judge seemed to ask, “what do we do if the RSDC is impartial.  How do we handle this?”  He was asking the question seemingly to understand what action they should take **if** the RSDC is impartial.  He was playing what if should they overrule.  I suspect they’ll be studying the appeal again. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Beetlejuice said:

Huh?  What are these set-offs?

Essentially, the teams already received distributions of rights fees and then profits.  So, it’s not as simple as saying: “you were paid $200 mm in rights fees but it should have been $300 mm, so you’re owed $100 mm.”   You have to figure out what was paid out in profits, what those profits would have been if the rights fees had been higher, etc. and untangle all that.  There are also questions about what interest should be paid.   The RSDC has no express authority to decide any of that.  Their sole authority is to decide what the rights fees should have been.   Now, I don’t think any of that should be very complicated, but knowing the O’s, they’ll find a way to make it complicated.  

[Beetlejuice]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

You have to figure out what was paid out in profits, what those profits would have been if the rights fees had been higher, etc. and untangle all that.

Like setting up a spreadsheet showing every payment that was made and when.  Then add a column for what that payment should have been, and calculate the difference.  Keep a running total and calculate compounding interest based on the historical rate.  So that $100M becomes $106M, and then calculate interest on that amount from the date of the start of the lawsuit until today.

I can see how the Os can argue and nickel & dime over everything from what the interest rates should be used to how interest compounds.  Seems to me that the RSDC might have some opinion on the matter because they have to collect similar fees from the clubs, no?

 

 

 

[Frobby]

55 minutes ago, Beetlejuice said:

Like setting up a spreadsheet showing every payment that was made and when.  Then add a column for what that payment should have been, and calculate the difference.  Keep a running total and calculate compounding interest based on the historical rate.  So that $100M becomes $106M, and then calculate interest on that amount from the date of the start of the lawsuit until today.

I can see how the Os can argue and nickel & dime over everything from what the interest rates should be used to how interest compounds.  Seems to me that the RSDC might have some opinion on the matter because they have to collect similar fees from the clubs, no?

If I understood the oral argument, the MASN agreement only gives the RSDC authority to decide what the rights fees should be, and nothing else.  So even if the RSDC easily could do these other steps and issue a decision about the net amounts to be paid, they don’t have the contractual authority to make those decisions.   Honestly, it’s not complicated and, as I said earlier, grown-ups could quickly resolve the remaining issues once the rights fee issue is decided.   But we’re not dealing with grown-ups here.  

[TradeAngelos]

https://twitter.com/HalfStreetHeart/status/1638253213466996737?s=20

[TradeAngelos]

Let's try this way instead since we can't put basic twitter links up.

 

Quote

 

james wood enthusiast

@HalfStreetHeart

·

5m

Finally listened to the MASN oral argument. The most important part was the last thing the Orioles attorney said: if they don’t win, they’ll make sure the case stays in court “in perpetuity”

 

 

[TradeAngelos]

Tell you what maybe I will just manually type out the tweet word for word since nothing else works.

"Finally listened to the MASN oral argument. The most important part was the last thing the Orioles attorney said. "If they don't win, they will make sure the case stays in court "in perpetuity"

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

Tell you what maybe I will just manually type out the tweet word for word since nothing else works.

"Finally listened to the MASN oral argument. The most important part was the last thing the Orioles attorney said. "If they don't win, they will make sure the case stays in court "in perpetuity"

It came off almost like a threat.  

[interloper]

Does this check out @Frobby?

Edited March 21, 2023 by interloper

[Ohfan67]

17 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It came off almost like a threat.  

Frobby and the other legal eagles on the board: Is part of the problem that the original agreement was poorly written, overly vague, etc.? I'm amazed at how long the Orioles can drag this out. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

Frobby and the other legal eagles on the board: Is part of the problem that the original agreement was poorly written, overly vague, etc.? I'm amazed at how long the Orioles can drag this out. 

Yes, the contract was vague in certain respects.  And sometimes, that’s intentional.  I can’t say if that was the case here.   

[Going Underground]

Washington Post said might be a ruling in the case this week or next. One side or the other will probably apoeal.

Also Ted Leonsis made an offer for the  Nationals and MASN.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Going Underground

[Going Underground]

15 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

Washington Post said might be a ruling in the case this week or next. One side or the other will probably apoeal.

Also Ted Leonsis made an offer for the  Nationals and MASN.

Leonsis also expressed interest in buying MASN late last year, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation who said the Orioles told him the network was not for sale. A MASN spokesman did not reply to a request to comment.