Who will pay Burnes $400M this offseason?

[Sports Guy]

37 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Hold up a second.

I'm not stating that an impact hasn't resulted from the relocation.

I'm stating that Baltimore had no case for keeping the Nationals out of DC and that the market can (and does) support two teams.

The ownership of the Orioles got a heck of a bribe with MASN, which should have resulted additional monies that would have lessened the monetary impact of the Nationals.  I'm sure it did to some extent even if he network was underutilized.

 

They absolutely had a case.  It was going to decimate their attendance and market share.

Now, that said, obviously the area can have 2 teams…I’m not saying it can’t.

But it was an enormous financial hardship to the Os when it happened, which is why the MaSN deal was set up the way it was and why the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They absolutely had a case.  It was going to decimate their attendance and market share.

Now, that said, obviously the area can have 2 teams…I’m not saying it can’t.

But it was an enormous financial hardship to the Os when it happened, which is why the MaSN deal was set up the way it was and why the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.

Why would the Nats have lost?

What precedent would have been cited?

The AFL-NFL merger?  But wait that's Football so that's a stupid comparison.

Let me guess, I should just google it?

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Why would the Nats have lost?

What precedent would have been cited?

The AFL-NFL merger?  But wait that's Football so that's a stupid comparison.

Let me guess, I should just google it?

Who cares bout precedent?  There was an agreement that should have been upheld. 

[AlbNYfan]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They absolutely had a case.  It was going to decimate their attendance and market share.

Now, that said, obviously the area can have 2 teams…I’m not saying it can’t.

But it was an enormous financial hardship to the Os when it happened, which is why the MaSN deal was set up the way it was and why the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.

I believe there was a wink, wink to the Nats that basically said, "Don't worry we'll take care of this later."

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Who cares bout precedent?  There was an agreement that should have been upheld. 

What agreement?

Honest question.

The Orioles moved into a territory that they shared with a ML team from Washington.

Are you saying that MLB made an agreement with Baltimore after DC lost their team to never move a team back?

If they did that's the dumbest thing ever.  Why would they do that?  What did Baltimore give up for that concession?

I've never heard of this, I am waiting eagerly for this story.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What agreement?

Honest question.

The Orioles moved into a territory that they shared with a ML team from Washington.

Are you saying that MLB made an agreement with Baltimore after DC lost their team to never move a team back?

If they did that's the dumbest thing ever.  Why would they do that?  What did Baltimore give up for that concession?

I've never heard of this, I am waiting eagerly for this story.

The MASN agreement and the arrangement they had in terms of percentages 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The MASN agreement and the arrangement they had in terms of percentages 

The MASN agreement?

That was the bone MLB threw Angelos to avoid court.

That has nothing to do with what would have happened if it had gone to court.

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The MASN agreement?

That was the bone MLB threw Angelos to avoid court.

That has nothing to do with what would have happened if it had gone to court.

 

I don’t think you are following what I’m saying.

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

I don’t think you are following what I’m saying.

It's hard.

 

You said "the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.".

I want to know why you think that MLB (the Nats) shouldn't have won from a legal standpoint. 

 

Or are you just saying they shouldn't have won because it was unfair to the O's? 

Is that the disconnect?

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's hard.

 

You said "the Os were right to fight them in court and why the Nats should have never won.".

I want to know why you think that MLB (the Nats) shouldn't have won from a legal standpoint. 

 

Or are you just saying they shouldn't have won because it was unfair to the O's? 

Is that the disconnect?

I’m saying the Os had an agreement with MLB and that should have held up.  Been pretty clear about that. 

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m saying the Os had an agreement with MLB and that should have held up.  Been pretty clear about that. 

What agreement?

The agreement you are talking about happened as a result of the move.  The MASN agreement would not have existed if Angelos had gone to court to block the move.