Jump to content

MASN loses in NY Court of Appeals


Frobby

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

However, MASN’s petulant behavior once the award was made has been pitiful in my opinion.  



 

I think the petulant behavior stemmed from the fact that they believed they had the Nats crammed down their throats in the first place, and MLB was just scheming ways to make the O’s miraculously merge into a single Nats market. They thought the RSDC was a puppet of the commissioner. So it has, and always will be, a chip on shoulder, existential grind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, backwardsk said:

That’s not entirely correct. The agreement back in 2005 was that the Nationals would get a certain percentage of the rights fees (maybe there is a more precise term) and each year they would get an additional 1% until 2012.  Then in 2012 the two sides would negotiate the rights fees for 2012-2016.  Then repeat that process every five years.  That was the agreement for the Nats to move in.

In 2012, they could not agree on a fee. The Nationals said that they were owed, for illustrative purposes, $400.  The Orioles said, “No way. Have you seen how shitty this MASN product is? You are owed $100.”  As the 2005 agreement stated, they were to go before an arbitration panel created by MLB.  That panel said, “Nationals, that $400 number is way too high, you’re not getting that.  But, Orioles, $100 is way too low.  The rights fees awarded to the Nats for 2012-2016 is $200.”

I can't locate if anyone after you corrected this, but I believe you are getting two point comingled and this article here talks about them https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/nationals/timeline-never-ending-nationals-orioles-masn-dispute --  1)  the "additional 1% per year" thing is that the National get 1% more of ownership in the network each year, for a certain amount of time.  The Nats started with 10% ownership of the network and starting in 2009 they got an additional 1% equity until their equity/ownership capped at 33%    2)  what I think you're referring to regarding "until 2012" was that the network's right payments to each team were $20 million each in 2005 and 2006, rose to $25 million in 2007 and then had $1 million annual increases through 2011".  In the article I just mentioned as well

Also, everyone remember that whatever rights fee the Nationals get, the Orioles get the same rights fee.  In the deal.  Parity.    While that is somewhat moving money from one pocket to the other for the family, its still going to affect MASN and with decreasing carriage fees due to cord cutting, MASN could be on the verge of bankruptcy (or at least poor financial footing) in the near future.  Oh well. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

For anyone who would like to read it, here is the Court’s Opinion.  It gives an excellent recap of everything that happened previously in the case and is reasonably easy to follow.   

 

If I'm reading this correctly, the Orioles trying to appeal and re-arbitrate this cost them 6 million a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hallas said:

 

If I'm reading this correctly, the Orioles trying to appeal and re-arbitrate this cost them 6 million a year?

Are you talking about interest?   I think that issue remains to be decided by AAA arbitrators.  The lower court had entered a judgment that included some interest but the Court of Appeals tossed that part of the ruling and said any disputes about collection have to be resolved by AAA arbitrators.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2023 at 9:40 AM, MCO'sFan said:

Thanks for staying on top of this Frobby. I have a strange question. Do you know under the terms of the MASN deal who actually owns the TV rights to the Nats. For instance, could MASN sell or outsource the broadcast rights to another RSN? 

I’ve looked at the main MASN agreement that is the source of all this litigation.  The teams are required to license MASN to broadcast their games.   The contract says nothing specific about whether MASN could assign or sublicense it’s right to another entity.  However, the contract does contemplate that there will be a separate license agreement between each team and MASN that will contain “customary terms and conditions, including, without limitation,the MLB Local Telecast Regulations Required Language for Local Telecast Agreements.”   So, there may be language in that separate license agreement that either permits or restricts MASN’s ability to assign or sublicense the rights to a third party.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I noticed reading the agreement is that if MASN receives a notice that it is delinquent on payment and doesn’t pay within 30 days, the Nats can exercise various remedies including terminating the broadcast license.  So, it may be risky for MASN to try to string this out further now that the court has ruled.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

Are you talking about interest?   I think that issue remains to be decided by AAA arbitrators.  The lower court had entered a judgment that included some interest but the Court of Appeals tossed that part of the ruling and said any disputes about collection have to be resolved by AAA arbitrators.  

It looked like the RSDC's first arbitration amount was in the 53-55 million range, and the 2nd amount (an arbitration hearing that the Orioles forced because the Nats used a lawyer retained by MLB and other clubs on the RSDC) was 59 million.  Am I reading it wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hallas said:

It looked like the RSDC's first arbitration amount was in the 53-55 million range, and the 2nd amount (an arbitration hearing that the Orioles forced because the Nats used a lawyer retained by MLB and other clubs on the RSDC) was 59 million.  Am I reading it wrong?

Yes.  The 5-year total went down from $298.1 mm to $296.8 mm.  Also, the old award was trending up year-by-year while the second award was flatter.  So, the second methodology will probably be lower in future awards than the original methodology.  

On the other hand, MASN must have spent many millions of dollars in legal fees on this.   
 

Edited by Frobby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’ve looked at the main MASN agreement that is the source of all this litigation.  The teams are required to license MASN to broadcast their games.   The contract says nothing specific about whether MASN could assign or sublicense it’s right to another entity.  However, the contract does contemplate that there will be a separate license agreement between each team and MASN that will contain “customary terms and conditions, including, without limitation,the MLB Local Telecast Regulations Required Language for Local Telecast Agreements.”   So, there may be language in that separate license agreement that either permits or restricts MASN’s ability to assign or sublicense the rights to a third party.  

Thanks Frobby. I hope you know the impact you have on this board and the folks like me who rely on your insight and detail oriented posting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

Anyone catch Angelo's on MSNBC?

Right now, nothing.

The Orioles, MASN and MLB declined to comment. Meanwhile, the Nationals did not respond to several requests for comment.

John Angelos, chairman and CEO of the Orioles, could not be reached.

9 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

MASN: What happens next in TV rights dispute involving Orioles, Nationals? - The Baltimore 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are the Baltimore Orioles, Mid-Atlantic Sports Network and Washington Nationals saying about the ruling?

Right now, nothing.

The Orioles, MASN and MLB declined to comment. Meanwhile, the Nationals did not respond to several requests for comment.

John Angelos, chairman and CEO of the Orioles, could not be reached.

Several weeks before the decision came down, Angelos appeared on “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, where he was asked if the dispute will ever be resolved.

Angelos did not directly answer the question. He instead spoke about the intent of the settlement agreement, which was to provide financial compensation in perpetuity to the O’s for an MLB team moving in 38 miles away from Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

“So it’s really not so much a dispute between two teams,” Angelos said. “It’s just an assurance for the city of Baltimore.”

“This issue is assuring for the city of Baltimore, the state of Maryland and the Orioles that there is some permanent compensation from the league to the Orioles,” he added. “Because we’re the only team that’s had that happen to us.”

Edited by Going Underground
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...