MASN non agreement may be one of the factors holding up a sale of the Nationals

[Going Underground]

 

[Going Underground]

But there is an albatross the new owner may have to contend with: MASN. Mid-Atlantic Sports Network broadcasts the Nationals’ games. While most other baseball teams sell their local TV rights to a regional cable network, the Nationals’ rights are bound to MASN, a contentious arrangement put in place when the team moved from Montreal in 2005. And the network is controlled by the Baltimore Orioles.

“I don’t think you’d be able to close on a sale without a resolution one way or another [on MASN],” said Robert Malandro, a managing partner at Whitecap Sports Group, an investment bank that has consulted with major league teams on sales. “If someone is going to spend $2 billion, I would think they would need some certainty on the media rights.”

[Going Underground]

I guess it also would be helpful for a sale of the Orioles as well, if a resolution was found 

[Moose Milligan]

Don't care about MASN dispute and I sure don't care about the Nats and whatever hiccups are in their potential sales process.

Someone wake me up when the Angelos family sells the team.  If the MASN dispute holds that up, well so be it, I'm confident that someday, somehow the team will be sold. 

[Number5]

2 hours ago, Going Underground said:

And the network is controlled by the Baltimore Orioles.

I don't believe this is accurate.  The Orioles don't own MASN, as I understand it.  The Orioles' owners do.  There is a difference.

[interloper]

This is why I don't understand people who think the Orioles are just going to be sold at the drop of a hat when the Angleos lawsuit resolves.

This stuff takes yeaaaarrrrrrrrrrssssssssssssss

And especially when it's the Orioles and all their ridiculous complications. I don't really buy that the organization will even be better off if the Angelos group sells. I second @Moose Milligan, just wake me up if it ever happens. Anyone banking on it happening in the next... 3-5 years? is causing a lot of unnecessary stress for themselves. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by interloper

[Frobby]

To be clear about something, the legal dispute could be over pretty soon.  The case is before New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, and is fully briefed.   Actually, it appears two amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs were filed this week in support of MASN and the Orioles’ position.  All that remains to happen is an oral argument and a decision.  If the decision is in favor of the Nats, the case is over.  If in favor of the Orioles and MASN, however, the case would have to go to a third arbitration, this time before a non-MLB arbitration panel.  I personally believe that MASN and the Orioles should lose this appeal, but I’ve been wrong in predicting how this litigation will go so many times that I really have no idea what will happen.  

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

To be clear about something, the legal dispute could be over pretty soon.  The case is before New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, and is fully briefed.   Actually, it appears two amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs were filed this week in support of MASN and the Orioles’ position.  All that remains to happen is an oral argument and a decision.  If the decision is in favor of the Nats, the case is over.  If in favor of the Orioles and MASN, however, the case would have to go to a third arbitration, this time before a non-MLB arbitration panel.  I personally believe that MASN and the Orioles should lose this appeal, but I’ve been wrong in predicting how this litigation will go so many times that I really have no idea what will happen.  

At this point I'm actively rooting for the Nats so we can end the damn thing. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

To be clear about something, the legal dispute could be over pretty soon.  The case is before New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, and is fully briefed.   Actually, it appears two amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs were filed this week in support of MASN and the Orioles’ position.  All that remains to happen is an oral argument and a decision.  If the decision is in favor of the Nats, the case is over.  If in favor of the Orioles and MASN, however, the case would have to go to a third arbitration, this time before a non-MLB arbitration panel.  I personally believe that MASN and the Orioles should lose this appeal, but I’ve been wrong in predicting how this litigation will go so many times that I really have no idea what will happen.  

Out of curiosity, who filed those amicus briefs?

[NCRaven]

14 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Out of curiosity, who filed those amicus briefs?

Was wondering if Frobby had read the briefs and what they contained.

[spiritof66]

6 hours ago, Number5 said:

I don't believe this is accurate.  The Orioles don't own MASN, as I understand it.  The Orioles' owners do.  There is a difference.

I've read frequent references here to the effect that the Angeloses (and others), rather than the team, own the majority interest in MASN. The court papers consistently say that the Orioles own that share. Maybe the ownership of the network was different at some earlier, pre-Nats time. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Out of curiosity, who filed those amicus briefs?

The City of Baltimore and Ken Feinberg, who is a famous arbitrator/mediator who among other things decided the division of the compensation fund for the 9/11 cleanup workers.

[interloper]

40 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The City of Baltimore and Ken Feinberg, who is a famous arbitrator/mediator who among other things decided the division of the compensation fund for the 9/11 cleanup workers.

I know nothing about law. Does this mean Feinberg has some kind of interest in the case? If so, why?

[spiritof66]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

I know nothing about law. Does this mean Feinberg has some kind of interest in the case? If so, why?

It means that he has an argument or a point of view about the issue(s) in the case that he wants to express and believes would be useful to the court -- a pretty low standard.  These two briefs aren't available yet but will be next week. I'll try to take a look at them. I could guess what Feinberg's point is, but next week I'll know.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

It means that he has an argument or a point of view about the issue(s) in the case that he wants to express and believes would be useful to the court -- a pretty low standard.  These two briefs aren't available yet but will be next week. I'll try to take a look at them. I could guess what Feinberg's point is, but next week I'll know.

The Feinberg brief was available.  He was largely agreeing with the dissenting judge from the previous appeal to the NY Court of Appeals.