MASN had no positive value in sales agreement

[Orioles West]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

The Orioles essentially gain two advantages through the MASN arrangement:

1.  A majority share of the profits, and 

2.  A guarantee that the O’s will be paid rights fees equal to the Nats.  

The only way the MASN deal can be unwound is if the Orioles are compensated somehow for the loss of those two advantages.   It couid be done, but might take a bit of creativity.  
 

The first advantage seems to be dwindling with the shrinking cable market. 

The second advantage is worth fighting for, and I understand that. I know Peter Angelos has well earned the ire of O's fans, but his insistence of equal rights fees after MLB parks the Nats in our back yard is the least the league could do. So when Manfred is suggesting the Nats leave MASN, I hope he is including the idea of keeping the equal rights fees clause of the original agreement in any new agreement.

[SteveA]

43 minutes ago, jrobb21613 said:

Moreover, Comcast’s contract withMASN is set to expire at the end of February. Ifa deal is not reached, the TV provider would no longer broadcast Nationals and Orioles games. MASN, which has already undergone cost-cutting measures, would also lose out on valuable income.
 

So does that mean since I have Comcast I won’t be able to watch games this year?

Yes, if:

   1) They don't make a deal before the deadline.   The majority of these situations get settled at the last minute before the deadline, but when you have an Angelos-owned entity on one side of the negotiation, who knows.   I would like to think that whenever Rubenstein takes over control of MASN, he would not allow the Orioles not to be shown on a major local cable survivor that literally hundreds of thousands of O's fans still use.

  2) If you live in the Orioles footprint (MD, VA, NC, maybe a little of PA & Del) where games are blacked out by MLBTV.

  3) You have Comcast as your provider.

If all those things are true, there will be no legal way for you to watch Oriole games on MASN after February 29.

[Warehouse]

45 minutes ago, Orioles West said:

The second advantage is worth fighting for, and I understand that. I know Peter Angelos has well earned the ire of O's fans, but his insistence of equal rights fees after MLB parks the Nats in our back yard is the least the league could do. So when Manfred is suggesting the Nats leave MASN, I hope he is including the idea of keeping the equal rights fees clause of the original agreement in any new agreement.

The second advantage could actually become less important going forward, as market changes could make the Orioles’ local tv rights as valuable as the Nats.  

In the legacy economic structure where most money is made from cable subscribers that pay MASN fees despite never actually watching the channel, the Nats are advantaged on the basis of having 2.5 million households in DC DMA vs. 1.15 million in the Baltimore DMA.  

As Rob Manfred put it: “It’s a great business model when a whole bunch of people pay for something they don’t really care if they have or not, which is what the cable bundle did for us. ”

However, that model is ending with cord cutting.  In the future, local media revenue may be more tied to the actual number of households tuning into the games (e.g., people that subscribe to special cable packages, pay monthly streaming subscriptions, eyeballs for ads).  The Orioles had nearly 50k households per game last year while the Nats had closer to  20K.  Some of that is that the Nats are rebuilding but the Os had more viewers in recent peak year of 2016 than Nats in their peak year of 2019.
 

This article explains why large market teams have the most to lose from cord cutting.  https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/03/how-would-mlb-teams-fare-in-a-direct-to-consumer-world/ 

[Satyr3206]

It will never happen but I would like to see MLB take over the production and broadcasts for every team. How to split the revenue would be the problem.

[Orioles West]

15 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

The second advantage could actually become less important going forward, as market changes could make the Orioles’ local tv rights as valuable as the Nats.  

In the legacy economic structure where most money is made from cable subscribers that pay MASN fees despite never actually watching the channel, the Nats are advantaged on the basis of having 2.5 million households in DC DMA vs. 1.15 million in the Baltimore DMA.  

As Rob Manfred put it: “It’s a great business model when a whole bunch of people pay for something they don’t really care if they have or not, which is what the cable bundle did for us. ”

However, that model is ending with cord cutting.  In the future, local media revenue may be more tied to the actual number of households tuning into the games (e.g., people that subscribe to special cable packages, pay monthly streaming subscriptions, eyeballs for ads).  The Orioles had nearly 50k households per game last year while the Nats had closer to  20K.  Some of that is that the Nats are rebuilding but the Os had more viewers in recent peak year of 2016 than Nats in their peak year of 2019.
 

This article explains why large market teams have the most to lose from cord cutting.  https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/03/how-would-mlb-teams-fare-in-a-direct-to-consumer-world/ 

Very interesting stuff. I have to think Rubenstein and crew have done or are doing their due diligence on the best way to move forward (with or without the Nats — or with or without MASN). 

[ChipTait]

17 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

It will never happen but I would like to see MLB take over the production and broadcasts for every team. How to split the revenue would be the problem.

The NFL has a very successful model for this scenario.