HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

OT: The Orioles/Nationals MASN Dispute

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-27-2014, 12:08 PM
  #1
Hivemind
We're Touched
 
Hivemind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 24,836
vCash: 500
OT: The Orioles/Nationals MASN Dispute

For those uninitiated to the ongoing dispute between the Orioles, Nationals, MLB, and the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, here's the vaguely short version of the story. In 2002, MLB promised the Orioles that no team would be moved to Washington DC without the Orioles' consent. When MLB began to attempt to move the Expos to DC in 2004, the Orioles ownership (Peter Angelos) objected. In the end, MLB agreed to compensate Angelos in the form of allowing all Nationals games to be broadcast on a new television sports network under majority-Orioles (86%) control, the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN). Under that agreement, both teams recieve $29M (in 2011) for their broadcast rights in addition to their share of the total MASN profits. The deal stipulated that starting after 2011, the Orioles and Nationals shall negotiate fair market value of the telecast rites for the following five year periods.

Given that there's a dispute now (2014), you likely already arrived at the fact the Orioles and Nationals were unable to come to an agreement of the fair market value of the Nationals rites during that initial negotiation. The initial agreement stipulated that if an agreement was failed to be reached between the Orioles and Nationals, MLB's Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC) is supposed to arbitrate a solution. MASN cites the Bortz valuation of the Nationals' rights at $34M/year in 2012 ($39.5M in 2014). The Nationals determined their rights to be worth $118M/year (using an undisclosed methodology, supposedly based in-part on what MLB considered to be fair market value for the Dodgers). According to MASN, the RSDC is required to use the Bortz methodology, but despite this the RSDC's ruling essentially split the difference between the two camps, giving the Nationals (and by consequence of the original agreement, the Orioles) roughly $300M over 5 years (~$60M/year on average) for their rights. The Orioles alleged the RSDC broke the original agreement by not using the Bortz valuation and accusing the RSDC of having a conflict of interest (two of the three members of the RSDC, the Rays and Pirates, recieve revenue sharing and increasing the Nats and O's TV revenue would increase what they recieve). There are also concerns regarding MASN's margins (the Nationals' proposal would have bankrupted the station, and the RSDC's deal puts their operating margin at only 8%). So that how we ended up in court, as MASN challenges the arbitration ruling.

Here are some articles on the issue (mostly from Orioles-blogs, but they present an objective opinion, in my estimation):
http://www.camdenchat.com/2014/8/8/5...itration-court
http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2014...situation.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto....html?page=all

How is this applicable to hockey? With the resumed rumors of a new expansion in Toronto, compensation for exisitng teams in the market is an important discussion (as well as shared media coverage). To a lesser degree applicable to Seattle and Quebec as well.

Hivemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2014, 01:14 PM
  #2
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,745
vCash: 500
I think the most relevant aspect to the business board is to see how broadcast rights are valuated, and how leagues can ~potentially~ deal with disputes in shared territories.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2014, 04:45 PM
  #3
JiveTurkey
Registered User
 
JiveTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
Wouldn't the easiest way of determining "market value" for the Nationals local TV rights be to open the bidding up, and then giving MASN the right to match the highest bid.

JiveTurkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2014, 05:19 PM
  #4
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
How is this applicable to hockey? With the resumed rumors of a new expansion in Toronto, compensation for exisitng teams in the market is an important discussion (as well as shared media coverage). To a lesser degree applicable to Seattle and Quebec as well.
Yup. That's how we could/should get HAM/GTA2 into the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiveTurkey View Post
Wouldn't the easiest way of determining "market value" for the Nationals local TV rights be to open the bidding up, and then giving MASN the right to match the highest bid.
Not really, because the terms of the relocation deal were that MASN owns the rights, and it's the fee that up for negotiation, not the rights.

Other companies CAN'T win the rights. So what are they bidding on?

Nothing. It's a farce, so the bids can be a farce. They'd know they're just setting the price for MASN... and they're competitors with MASN... so why wouldn't they pick a number that bankrupts MASN/Orioles, like $7 trillion?

KevFu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2014, 05:27 PM
  #5
JiveTurkey
Registered User
 
JiveTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Not really, because the terms of the relocation deal were that MASN owns the rights, and it's the fee that up for negotiation, not the rights.

Other companies CAN'T win the rights. So what are they bidding on?

Nothing. It's a farce, so the bids can be a farce. They'd know they're just setting the price for MASN... and they're competitors with MASN... so why wouldn't they pick a number that bankrupts MASN/Orioles, like $7 trillion?
The idea would be that if MASN thought a bid was a farce... accept it. In my scenario the bids are binding, and MASN could even get a percentage of the rights fee paid by the third party.

JiveTurkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2014, 11:02 PM
  #6
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiveTurkey View Post
The idea would be that if MASN thought a bid was a farce... accept it. In my scenario the bids are binding, and MASN could even get a percentage of the rights fee paid by the third party.
MASN isn't putting an asset they control out there for someone else to bid on. Period.

KevFu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2014, 11:51 PM
  #7
JiveTurkey
Registered User
 
JiveTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
MASN isn't putting an asset they control out there for someone else to bid on. Period.
I'm not saying they would, I'm saying it would be the most sensible and logical solution to the dispute. I understand logical and sensible decisions are not the ones usually used in big business with big egos.

JiveTurkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 12:56 AM
  #8
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiveTurkey View Post
I'm not saying they would, I'm saying it would be the most sensible and logical solution to the dispute. I understand logical and sensible decisions are not the ones usually used in big business with big egos.
How is it sensible for the Orioles and MASN to do that?

The real issue is that "market rate" is impossible to determine because of the massive difference between selling the rights to an outside company (like the The Dodgers are starting at $84 million and escalating 4% a year for 25 years. It's a SEVEN BILLION dollar deal at a $280 million AAV!) and the pittance owners who own their sports network shift from one pocket to the other (Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, etc). And the mid-sized peers of BAL/WAS in the Bay Area and Chicago... who have complicated advertising payouts, partial ownership stakes, and not a straight rights fee.

Here's some background: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodge...-tv-landscape/


Last edited by KevFu: 08-28-2014 at 01:02 AM.
KevFu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 01:40 AM
  #9
JiveTurkey
Registered User
 
JiveTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
How is it sensible for the Orioles and MASN to do that?

The real issue is that "market rate" is impossible to determine because of the massive difference between selling the rights to an outside company (like the The Dodgers are starting at $84 million and escalating 4% a year for 25 years. It's a SEVEN BILLION dollar deal at a $280 million AAV!) and the pittance owners who own their sports network shift from one pocket to the other (Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, etc). And the mid-sized peers of BAL/WAS in the Bay Area and Chicago... who have complicated advertising payouts, partial ownership stakes, and not a straight rights fee.

Here's some background: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodge...-tv-landscape/
Market rates are determined by the market. The reasoning for MASN, is that if they are valuing the rights correctly, the market will bear that out, and they won't be stuck paying an inflated rate decided by an arbitrator. This is the situation they claim to be in now.

Since you mention the Red Sox and Yankees and their ownership of their own networks (or any team with an ownership stake in a sports network), this method would work extremely well for determining the real market value of their local TV rights for revenue sharing purposes. Open the bidding to the market, the highest bid is used for calculations, and if the team feels the bid is ridiculously high, they take the money and run.

Of course, in either scenario, finer points would need to be worked out. Questions like, how much higher than the given valuation would the market bid need to be before it could be accepted? How much of the excess money would go to the Orioles as compensation for the loss of rights?

If the Nationals can actually get $118 million a year while the Orioles place the value at $39.5 million, The Nationals could literally pay the Orioles the $39.5 million to NOT broadcast their games, resell the rights for $118 million and still come out ahead on the deal.

Also, Bud Selig is a dumbass for not forcing a finite indemnification period on the process. Anyone should have seen that this arrangement would eventually become problematic.

JiveTurkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 09:04 AM
  #10
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,105
vCash: 500
This case is a very interesting one, because it really is (unless I'm forgetting one) the most recent/modern example of a team being relocated so closely to another. Look forward to hearing how this goes...

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 10:00 AM
  #11
Hivemind
We're Touched
 
Hivemind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 24,836
vCash: 500
JiveTurkey, you're ignoring the reason why the Orioles control the National's TV rights in the first place. They were promised these rights to counteract the loss in fanbase and revenue that would occur because of the Nationals relocation. 30% of the Orioles fanbase was located in the DC/Northern Virginia area, and it was estimated they'd lose $40-$50M/year in 2004 (likely higher in 2014 money). The television rights deal was designed to help them offset that loss. If they were to sell the Nationals' rights, the revenue generated by MASN would decline. While in the years since its inception MASN has acquired non-baseball sports events to broadcast, the Orioles and Nationals are clearly the flagship portions of the network. It's unclear if the station could survive the loss of the Nationals rights.

Hivemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 10:56 AM
  #12
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
This case is a very interesting one, because it really is (unless I'm forgetting one) the most recent/modern example of a team being relocated so closely to another. Look forward to hearing how this goes...
It's also interesting in that a sliver of light is peering into the not-uncommon arrangement where an owner has stake in both the sports team and the network that broadcasts said team's games. The owner's interest is in maximizing the revenue that goes to the network, as that revenue doesn't have to be shared with the league or the players. Hence the owner wants a very low rights fee to be paid from his network to his team.

The league's interest is somewhat conflicted; some owners don't have this arrangement and would like to increase the value of their rights fees, so it would be in their interest to see the rights fee increase. Other owners would profit via revenue sharing. Finally there are of course some owners who have the same arrangement and have no interest whatsoever in increasing the value of the fees.

The players would obviously want a bright light shone into the box so they can see just how much, if any, revenues are being denied to them via suppression of the rights fees. None of the owners want that, hence there will be a strong interest on both sides to try to settle this before it reaches trial and a courtroom.

optimus2861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 11:56 AM
  #13
Hivemind
We're Touched
 
Hivemind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 24,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
The players would obviously want a bright light shone into the box so they can see just how much, if any, revenues are being denied to them via suppression of the rights fees. None of the owners want that, hence there will be a strong interest on both sides to try to settle this before it reaches trial and a courtroom.
It's already reached the courtroom, though much the evidence has been redacted.

Hivemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 03:29 PM
  #14
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiveTurkey View Post
Market rates are determined by the market. The reasoning for MASN, is that if they are valuing the rights correctly, the market will bear that out, and they won't be stuck paying an inflated rate decided by an arbitrator. This is the situation they claim to be in now.

Since you mention the Red Sox and Yankees and their ownership of their own networks (or any team with an ownership stake in a sports network), this method would work extremely well for determining the real market value of their local TV rights for revenue sharing purposes. Open the bidding to the market, the highest bid is used for calculations, and if the team feels the bid is ridiculously high, they take the money and run.

Of course, in either scenario, finer points would need to be worked out. Questions like, how much higher than the given valuation would the market bid need to be before it could be accepted? How much of the excess money would go to the Orioles as compensation for the loss of rights?

If the Nationals can actually get $118 million a year while the Orioles place the value at $39.5 million, The Nationals could literally pay the Orioles the $39.5 million to NOT broadcast their games, resell the rights for $118 million and still come out ahead on the deal.

Also, Bud Selig is a dumbass for not forcing a finite indemnification period on the process. Anyone should have seen that this arrangement would eventually become problematic.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. It's just not realistic for MASN to risk losing their inventory of 162 Nats games by giving the Nats a $39.5 million buyout clause.

Obviously market rate is set by the market; but the market rate for something that can't hit the market is incredibly difficult to determine.

There's very few, if any peer groups for the Nats/O's rights:
-- The average rights fees are $47 million for 25 other MLB (not counting non-rights fee deals).
-- The average rights fees are $30 million for 13 other MLB teams with no equity stake in the network
-- The average rights fees are $83 million for 7 teams with joint ownership of network/team… but varying percentage of the network.
Washington is a big CSA in between Chicago and the Bay Area… which are the two major areas with non-rights fee deals!

They're bigger than Boston ($60 million / 80% stake) and Texas ($80 million / 10% stake)

The most recent deals have the highest value. The biggest problem is that because these deals are signed for long periods of time, and the biggest markets mostly started their own TV networks; there's no benchmark. All the deals are all over the map.

They need some kind of arbitration.


As for Selig being a dumbass… it was unavoidable. Angelos had all the power because Major League Baseball HAD to come to an agreement with Angelos and get his signature on the Nats relocation or they'd have a massive lawsuit for millions on their laps. Angelos made his money as a high-powered litigator. Suing MLB is the kind of thing he'd do FOR FUN! Baseball would get creamed in the lawsuit. They HAD to buy him off.

KevFu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 10:35 PM
  #15
JiveTurkey
Registered User
 
JiveTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. It's just not realistic for MASN to risk losing their inventory of 162 Nats games by giving the Nats a $39.5 million buyout clause.

Obviously market rate is set by the market; but the market rate for something that can't hit the market is incredibly difficult to determine.

There's very few, if any peer groups for the Nats/O's rights:
-- The average rights fees are $47 million for 25 other MLB (not counting non-rights fee deals).
-- The average rights fees are $30 million for 13 other MLB teams with no equity stake in the network
-- The average rights fees are $83 million for 7 teams with joint ownership of network/team… but varying percentage of the network.
Washington is a big CSA in between Chicago and the Bay Area… which are the two major areas with non-rights fee deals!

They're bigger than Boston ($60 million / 80% stake) and Texas ($80 million / 10% stake)

The most recent deals have the highest value. The biggest problem is that because these deals are signed for long periods of time, and the biggest markets mostly started their own TV networks; there's no benchmark. All the deals are all over the map.

They need some kind of arbitration.


As for Selig being a dumbass… it was unavoidable. Angelos had all the power because Major League Baseball HAD to come to an agreement with Angelos and get his signature on the Nats relocation or they'd have a massive lawsuit for millions on their laps. Angelos made his money as a high-powered litigator. Suing MLB is the kind of thing he'd do FOR FUN! Baseball would get creamed in the lawsuit. They HAD to buy him off.
You're completely correct that it isn't a realistic solution, just a sensible one IMO.

If the Orioles are getting as screwed as they say they are, this mechanism would actually save them money. What happens if the next arbitration decision puts MASN under? They don't even have the Option to walk away from the rights (with some monetary compensation of course).

You're right about Selig though. The blame should be more directed at MLB's territorial bylaws. They're poorly written, short sighted, and are currently causing more headaches is SF/Oakland/SJ. Angelos was also definitely not the type of guy to not squeeze every drop "for the good of the game".

I wonder if the end game for the Giants owners is forcing the A's to move, and then getting the same deal the Orioles got if/when another team moves to the bay area.

JiveTurkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2014, 10:20 AM
  #16
dcsfanatic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 212
vCash: 500
This may be more hockey related than anyone realizes.

The Lerners (Nationals owners) are minority owners in Ted Leonsis' group. Leonsis has stated wanting to start his own network. Its a sure bet that the Lerners would join in this network if they could get free from MASN.

This would add greatly to Leonsis/Caps bottom line.

dcsfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2015, 01:54 PM
  #17
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,777
vCash: 500
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...-secret-763335

Federal judges, reluctantly, stepping in after "private" mediators accused of fraud, conflict of interest, etc.

Quote:
TV Broadcaster Challenges MLB's Secret $25 Million Deal With Washington Nationals

MASN — which was set up to soothe Angelos' qualms over another team moving into his team's TV market — is attempting to vacate an arbitration ruling that would result in the Nationals getting $20 million more each year as "fair market value" for televised games. Normally, federal judges are loath to upset what happens in private arbitration, but in this instance, the arbitrators were composed of top executives from the New York Mets, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Tampa Bay Rays. MASN has accused MLB of "corruption" and "fraud" and asserted that the arbitration was tainted.
The motion to vacate the arbitration ruling is largely premised on the role that Proskauer Rose played. The law firm represented the Nationals during the arbitration, but allegedly has conflicts — it has been involved in many MLB matters including the antitrust lawsuit over TV deals that is about to be presented to the 2nd Circuit. It represented the Mets in the Bernie Madoff affair, the Tampa Bay Rays in salary disputes with players, and much more.
Fugu -- this one on your "popcorn eating while following" list yet?

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2015, 03:51 PM
  #18
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,745
vCash: 500
^^^

Oh, I like. Our old friends from Proskauer Rose.

Quote:
Next week, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will consider the league's attempt to appeal a judge's refusal to stop an antitrust lawsuit that takes aim at the way that games are packaged and distributed for television.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2015, 04:34 PM
  #19
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
I will motivate you!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Best NHL reference I could find on short notice - (See 3.6.2 Sales of Television Rights to Winnipeg Jets Ice Hockey Games Blackout Rights Included?)


Scroll up one page for entire 3.6.2

https://books.google.com/books?id=oS...page&q&f=false

Quote:
Re Jets Hockey Ventures and Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd recently posed the question: did or didn't Jets Hockey Ventures ("Ventures"), the owner of the NHL's Winnipeg Jets ("Jets"), sell "blackout rights" to respondent Molson, owner of the NHL's Montreal Canadians <mine: Canadiens>, under a 1982 agreement ("Agreement")? Ventures argued no, Molson argued yes. Ventures sought a court declaration from the Manitoba Queen's Bench on the issue.

...

In 1984, the NHL's President issued a Memo ("Memo") restating the NHL policy on broadcasting rights under the NHL's Constitution: (1) no NHL club can restrain or prevent the broadcasting of any game, except its home games; (2) based on a 30 year course of conduct and policy, no NHL team can broadcast its games into another NHL team's territory on the day the latter is playing at home, without its consent.

The Agreement, said the court, was subject to the custom and undertakings existing within the NHL.
(Summary wrap up)

Quote:
The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court without much comment.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2015, 07:26 PM
  #20
Glacial
Registered User
 
Glacial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiveTurkey View Post
I wonder if the end game for the Giants owners is forcing the A's to move, and then getting the same deal the Orioles got if/when another team moves to the bay area.
If the Giants manage to push the A's out of the Bay Area, they will not be letting another team in. They want to have the Bay Area all to themselves. Their influence & power is why the A's have been stuck in Oakland since the late 2000s. They never should've had the San Jose rights since they ended up not building their ballpark there. And if the A's leave, I don't think another ballpark gets built in the East Bay area. The only place a team could arrive 'there' I think and get past any Giants' objections is Sacramento.

The big variable about the A's is the Oakland stadium plans. There's only enough room for one team if it's privately funded as they need the rest of the real estate development to generate revenue to pay for it and the one team doesn't want to split the revenue with another team and wants to use the land for their stadium for further development. Raiders seem to be the ones all in on doing this in Oakland. A's owner Lew Wolff was not in on those talks. Of course, this plan will be affected if Kroenke (St. Louis Rams) continues to push through on his Inglewood stadium plan. I think some article I read said Manfred pushed Oakland to give the A's a 10 year lease last year or else MLB would deem them free to leave immediately and if the Raiders stadium plan is approved, it would entail bulldozing the Coliseum, which means the A's would have to go somewhere, which may bring the San Jose issue to a head.

Glacial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2015, 07:36 PM
  #21
rkhum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 1,990
vCash: 500
This whole case is baseball corruption at its worst.
The Orioles are big bullies and babies.
They cry about being a small market that can't compete with NY or Boston, then they pump their chests acting like they are great baseball market when in fact the only time they were a big deal was when DC had no team and Baltimore had no football team.

Angeles had no right to the DC market, a market more than double that of Baltimore. If you ask me, MASN should be disbanded, Nats games available in the DC market, Orioles in Baltimore only.
This is not NY, Chicago, LA, or the Bay Area, these are completely separate markets with their own TV media.

It's the equivalent of the San Dieho Chargers wanting compensation for a team in LA. Complete ********.

rkhum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2015, 08:20 PM
  #22
Glacial
Registered User
 
Glacial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckr View Post
This whole case is baseball corruption at its worst.
The Orioles are big bullies and babies.
They cry about being a small market that can't compete with NY or Boston, then they pump their chests acting like they are great baseball market when in fact the only time they were a big deal was when DC had no team and Baltimore had no football team.

Angeles had no right to the DC market, a market more than double that of Baltimore. If you ask me, MASN should be disbanded, Nats games available in the DC market, Orioles in Baltimore only.
This is not NY, Chicago, LA, or the Bay Area, these are completely separate markets with their own TV media.

It's the equivalent of the San Dieho Chargers wanting compensation for a team in LA. Complete ********.
Note quite true. Part of the time the Orioles were great, DC was on their 2nd team (of the 20th Century), the Senators (now-Rangers). And they had the Colts, who actually beat the Orioles to Baltimore by about 7 months. And the Colts were still there when the Orioles last won the World Series (1983), although months away from their infamous move, though that time was a full decade after DC lost their MLB team. The issue is not quite like LA-San Diego. LA-San Diego are 121 miles apart, Baltimore-DC is 39 miles. That's why the Orioles had some weight behind their argument as opposed to passively claiming a distant vacant market like the Chargers do.

I understand the background to getting the Nationals to DC and having to bribe Angelos to allow it, though the Orioles controlling the Nationals' tv rights is backward, invoking ownership of two teams (something MLB banned after those owners used one team as the farm team for another, which included the very successful predecessor Orioles, the team that popularized the Baltimore chop back in ancient days). They should've built in a time limit for the Orioles' "rights" there. Seeing how the Nationals developed and came into their own, 10 years looked about right.

One possible solution is combining the 2 DMAs for cable rights purposes, like New York, LA, Chicago, meaning Orioles are on in DC and Nationals are on in Baltimore. Another possibility, although a bit corrupt, is Orioles lose control of Nationals' tv rights but Orioles games get to be carried in DC metro while the Orioles still get to protect Baltimore from infringement. They keep the territorial status quo but lose sticking it monetarily to the Nationals.

This may only get solved if/when Angelos sells and an agreement is imposed on the new owner as a term of sale, similar to the new Astros owner having to agree to the Astros switching to the American League to get his ownership of the team approved.

Glacial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2015, 03:40 PM
  #23
Hivemind
We're Touched
 
Hivemind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 24,836
vCash: 500
Some of the additional accusations that have come forth with the filing of new papers from MASN, the Orioles, and the Nationals.
Quote:
Of perhaps greater significance – although buried in MASN’s brief – the network also contends that MLB manipulated the arbitration process in order to ensure that the panel reached the league’s desired outcome. This argument is based on an allegedly secret agreement reached between the Nationals and MLB in 2013, in which the league agreed to pay the Nationals nearly $25 million, with the team agreeing to repay the league out of any award it received in the MASN arbitration.

MASN argues that MLB was motivated to ensure that the arbitration outcome would allow the league to recover its $25 million. For example, the network points to evidence indicating that Rob Manfred selectively decided which materials would be passed on to the arbitrators, in some cases withholding some of the Orioles/MASN’s submissions from the panel. MLB then allegedly wrote the final arbitration decision itself, on the panel’s behalf.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/new-a...-masn-dispute/

Quote:
In addition to this possible conflict, a former Proskauer partner, Dan Halem, who is now MLB's Executive Vice President of Labor Relations, served some kind of role in the process. MASN does not know what it is, as MLB claims his involvement is privileged. They believe that he helped to draft the RSDC decision. Manfred is alleged to have admitted to a couple of Orioles-connected attorneys that he and his staff wrote the award themselves.

[...]

One reason that the whole process has taken over two years to play out is that MLB spent a good chunk of that time trying to persuade the Orioles to sell MASN to an existing cable provider like Comcast. If they had reached some kind of sale agreement, it would not have been approved until someone paid back MLB the $25 million. This created a situation where MLB had a direct financial stake in the outcome of the case taking place under their auspices.
http://www.camdenchat.com/2015/1/14/...dc-rob-manfred

Some speculation that the MASN dispute played a role in the Orioles not being awarded the 2016 All-Star Game, as well. With San Diego hosting, 2016 will be the first time since 2007 that the same league has hosted the ASG two years in a row (Cincinatti is hosting in 2015).
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/0...ver-baltimore/


Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckr View Post
This whole case is baseball corruption at its worst.
The Orioles are big bullies and babies.
They cry about being a small market that can't compete with NY or Boston, then they pump their chests acting like they are great baseball market when in fact the only time they were a big deal was when DC had no team and Baltimore had no football team.

Angeles had no right to the DC market, a market more than double that of Baltimore. If you ask me, MASN should be disbanded, Nats games available in the DC market, Orioles in Baltimore only.
This is not NY, Chicago, LA, or the Bay Area, these are completely separate markets with their own TV media.

It's the equivalent of the San Dieho Chargers wanting compensation for a team in LA. Complete ********.

Why shouldn't the Orioles have some say in a team arriving less than an hour away from them? If you think Baltimore and Washington are truly two separate markets, you're completely out of your mind. The TV markets heavily overlap (Comcast Sportsnet Mid-Atlantic covers both DC and Baltimore teams, for instance), and the DC/Northern Virginia area was a large part of the Orioles fanbase and revenue. Drawing borders between the two regions would be impossible.

The Chargers will likely protest other franchises moving to Los Angeles.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...on-other-teams
And for the record, LA and San Diego is three times the distance between DC and Baltimore.


Last edited by Hivemind: 01-16-2015 at 03:59 PM.
Hivemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2015, 05:27 PM
  #24
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
They should've built in a time limit for the Orioles' "rights" there. Seeing how the Nationals developed and came into their own, 10 years looked about right.

One possible solution is combining the 2 DMAs for cable rights purposes, like New York, LA, Chicago, meaning Orioles are on in DC and Nationals are on in Baltimore.
MASN owns the TV rights to the Orioles and Nationals.

The Orioles and Nationals co-own MASN.

The dispute basically stems from the fact that it's not an even split. The Nats started at like 10% ownership, and get a 1% increase every year.

So, if the Nats & Orioles were 50-50 owners, the issue is moot.

But by keeping the rights fees low while the Nats only own 18% of MASN, the O's are withholding revenue.

KevFu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2015, 02:21 PM
  #25
Hivemind
We're Touched
 
Hivemind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 24,836
vCash: 500
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/orioles...2833--mlb.html

Closing arguments were made a few days ago. Just waiting on the written statement now. No timetable for the ruling.

Hivemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.