MASN dispute update

[Going Underground]

7 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

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.

As part of the 2005 agreement, the Orioles agreed to pay the Nationals fair market value for their share of local broadcast revenue, and the deal further mandated that the sides reassess that value every five years. Those reassessments have been contentious. A dispute over what that value should be for 2012 to 2016 has been in the courts for years, and a ruling on the latest Orioles appeal of an MLB committee’s decision to award the Nationals $100 million in rights fees for that period could come from a New York state appellate judge as soon as this week.

 

The Washington Post] Ted Leonsis offered Lerner family at least $2 billion to buy Nationals
Ted Leonsis offered Lerner family at least $2 billion to buy Nationals

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/04/19/ted-leonsis-washington-nationals/

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Going Underground

[sportsfan8703]

2 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

As part of the 2005 agreement, the Orioles agreed to pay the Nationals fair market value for their share of local broadcast revenue, and the deal further mandated that the sides reassess that value every five years. Those reassessments have been contentious. A dispute over what that value should be for 2012 to 2016 has been in the courts for years, and a ruling on the latest Orioles appeal of an MLB committee’s decision to award the Nationals $100 million in rights fees for that period could come from a New York state appellate judge as soon as this week.

$100 million in 2023 isn't worth what it was in 2016.  So even if we eventually lose, we're still winning somewhat.  It would be nice win this and not have this as a concern/excuse with future payrolls.  

[Beetlejuice]

5 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

$100 million in 2023 isn't worth what it was in 2016.  So even if we eventually lose, we're still winning somewhat. 

The Nationals and MLB (who has a revenue sharing interest) are not naive.  They’ll motion for Judge Marks to include interest. 

[Frobby]

6 hours 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.

I don’t have any idea where the Post is getting information that there could be a ruling on the MASN case as soon as this week.  Courts don’t normally provide information, either formally or informally, about when their rulings may be forthcoming, and it would be a little unusual to get a ruling 4-5 weeks after oral argument in a non-emergency type appeal.  So, I’ll be interested to see if their reporting on that is correct, and won’t be surprised if it’s wrong.  

[Frobby]

54 minutes ago, Beetlejuice said:

The Nationals and MLB (who has a revenue sharing interest) are not naive.  They’ll motion for Judge Marks to include interest. 

There’s an issue about this in the case, because the $100 mm in past rights fees will be partially offset by the Nats receiving smaller profits, so they won’t be due $100 mm net.  MASN also was arguing, as I recall, that the RSDC has no authority under the contract to award interest or to calculate the share of the profits to which the Nats are entitled.  They contend only an arbitrator from AAA can those disputes, under a separate clause of the MASN contract.  Some of this was before Justice Marks before when the Nats argued that MASN’s appeal bond should be increased to cover accruing interest.  Justice Marks declined to increase the bond, so he may think there is merit to MASN’s argument on this point.  

[Billy F-Face3]

10 hours ago, Going Underground said:

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.

Maybe they meant MASN is not "ACTIVELY" for sale. There's a big difference in that subtle verbage.

[Beetlejuice]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

They contend only an arbitrator from AAA can those disputes, under a separate clause of the MASN contract.

And maybe the Nationals/MLB are fine with this.  An arbitrator can calculate the net present value of $100M that should have been paid on X at a rate of Y.  The AAA has an entire module on Accounting, which should surprise no one.  I would hope the arbiter is given the power to sanction parties for bad faith conduct.

As you’ve alluded to a couple of times already, if the adults sat down and did the math they could hammer this out in short order.  But as you also mentioned, the Os seem to find a way to complicate things, and I expect they will cut every corner possible.  It’s in both parties interests to put this issue to bed, because no one will buy either team until it’s settled.

[Beetlejuice]

21 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

Maybe they meant MASN is not "ACTIVELY" for sale. There's a big difference in that subtle verbage.

Who knows what they meant or even who is their source?  We (well Froby and I) already caused the Post to post a correction because they couldn’t source one of their claims.

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Beetlejuice said:

Who knows what they meant or even who is their source?  We (well Froby and I) already caused the Post to post a correction because they couldn’t source one of their claims.

And, their claim was absolutely wrong.