MASN loses in NY Court of Appeals

[Chavez Ravine]

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.

[baloriole4]

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. 

 

[Frobby]

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.   

[Hallas]

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?

[Frobby]

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.  

[Frobby]

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.  

[Frobby]

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.   

[Hallas]

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?

[Frobby]

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 April 26, 2023 by Frobby

[MCO'sFan]

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.  

[Going Underground]

Phoenix Suns and the WNBA ream  are going away from the RSN  and showing all their games on local tv for free. Their RSN went bankrupt. 

[Going Underground]

cordcuttersnews.com
https://cordcuttersnews.com/bally-sports-loses-rights-to-phoenix-suns-nba-games-as-fans-can-now-watch-the-suns-for-free-on-broadcast-tv/

[Going Underground]

Anyone catch Angelo's on MSNBC?

MASN: What happens next in TV rights dispute involving Orioles, Nationals? - The Baltimore Banner
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/sports/orioles-mlb/what-we-know-new-york-court-of-appeals-opinion-masn-orioles-nationals-RTJ7FEG6DBDR3HUTEQMCT6STLU/

[Going Underground]

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 May 5, 2023 by Going Underground

[Beetlejuice]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:15 AM, Sports Guy said:

Now, the Os are just supposed to bend over and take it without a fight?

No, they fought and lost.  Now they can take it.