The Great Cornholio
Posted 27 January 2015 - 06:10 PM
It's fascinating though. MLB put together a whole bunch of documents discussing how the Orioles would benefit if they sold MASN. And every single one of them has insane assumptions that can't be serious. They're including money that the Orioles would receive from selling MASN in the calculations while ignoring the Orioles equity value in MASN if they don't sell MASN.
Whatever.
What would that mean to the judge looking over the case. Help the O's or Natinals/MLB?
Lemme get two claps and a Ric Flair
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 27 January 2015 - 10:10 PM
What would that mean to the judge looking over the case. Help the O's or Natinals/MLB?
It would demonstrate that MLB was stacking the deck in the numbers they put together....
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
HOF
Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:11 AM
What would that mean to the judge looking over the case. Help the O's or Natinals/MLB?
Camden Depot: Two New Developments in the MASN Dispute
It would probably help the Os if MLB agreed argued that MASN needs to pay higher rights fees than a network owned by Comcast and that a network owned by Comcast deserved a 30%+ profit margin but not MASN.
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:42 AM
Camden Depot: Two New Developments in the MASN Dispute
It would probably help the Os if MLB agreed argued that MASN needs to pay higher rights fees than a network owned by Comcast and that a network owned by Comcast deserved a 30%+ profit margin but not MASN.
Thanks for all that...
It will be interesting to see how MLB (and the Gnats) justify this to the judge...
Do you know if, among the various paper trails the O's want, they'd be likely to learn who all was involved in putting those tilted responses together?
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
HOF
Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:53 AM
It will be interesting to see how MLB (and the Gnats) justify this to the judge...
Do you know if, among the various paper trails the O's want, they'd be likely to learn who all was involved in putting those tilted responses together?
The Nats are currently on Mars. They're still arguing that SportsNet LA is actually an example of a successful media station and it shows that RSNs are willing to face huge deficits in order to get valuable programming. They're also upset that MLB and the Orioles simply didn't include them in any discussions. It's almost as if there is a connection.
MLB justified the differences by stating that a 20 year deal is more risky than a 5 year deal and that Comcast should be allowed to pay less because they're putting money up front to buy MASN. It's hard to tell which argument is more ridiculous.
The documents are clearly from MLB and the Orioles know that Manfred was the one who wrote them. This isn't necessarily problematic. Manfred wasn't allowed to write the RSDC decision but does have the right to discuss possible solutions with the Orioles. It does show that there's a lot of overlap between the RSDC and MLB. It also shows that MLB could overturn the RSDC decision.
Here, I'll quote what Bevilacqua wrote.
Because of this, he asserts, my calculation cannot be the fair market value for the telecast rights, because no RSN would pay so much money for telecast rights that it would bankrupt itself. But the recent deal between Time Warner Cable and the Los Angeles Dodgers – the economics of which are currently resulting in the non-carriage of Dodgers games by DirectTV and other carriers –shows that certain market participant RSNs are willing to do exactly that.
HOF
Posted 29 January 2015 - 02:37 PM
A big thank you to Matt Perez of the Camden Depot who was kind enough to forward some documents on the National/Orioles/MASN RSN situation. A letter from MLB confirming that MASN, not the Nationals, are required to pay back the $25 million loan MLB gave the Nationals. Another document shows that using a bottom-up approach to derive a 20% operating margin on baseball-related revenue, MASN would pay the Nationals a rights fee of $34 million in 2012 which would increase 7% annually. In yet a third document, Chris Bevilacqua of Helfant Ventures testified that rights fees for comparable MLB RSNs typically increase 4% annually.
http://www.forbes.co...ioles-in-court/
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 29 January 2015 - 07:21 PM
I make a point to follow what Frobby has to say about this issue. Don't know if he's right, but he's more likely to be right about it than I am.
http://forum.orioles...653#post3727653
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 05 February 2015 - 11:35 AM
ESPN: Manfred talks dispute, predicts resolution
Just vague mumble-mumble about how everythng's gonna be fine... and both cities can have an AS game...
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
HOF
Posted 05 February 2015 - 12:25 PM
It might all be code for "if the O's drop the lawsuit, they can have the 2017 AS game."
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 05 February 2015 - 12:41 PM
It might all be code for "if the O's drop the lawsuit, they can have the 2017 AS game."
Well, he also tossed in a line about how MLB considers the 2 cities to be separate markets...
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
MVP
Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:11 PM
It might all be code for "if the O's drop the lawsuit, they can have the 2017 AS game."
Yeah. I took it more as "they can both have an ASG [in nonconsecutive years after PA has given in or passed on and the Nationals have truckloads of cash]"
Posted 06 February 2015 - 10:45 AM
About a month ago I mentioned how it would be a good deal for both sides to make both teams essentially equal partners in MASN. I still firmly believe that, and I say that as one of the most hard-core orioles fans around. I have no real use for the nationals, but they are here to stay. They need to come up with something that works and obviously the nats (rightly so IMO) feel they are getting a raw deal. Yes I know they signed the deal. Of course they signed it. What else were they going to do? Does all fairness goes out the window from that point? Maybe so in a normal business but not in sports league where weakening your "competition" doesn't necessarily help you.
I was glad to see that Angelos at least offered to accelerate the 33% split. And I'm glad that some folks within MLB are at least prposing a more equal split a part of the negotiation.
The thing everyone needs to realize (especially the orioles) is if the MASN deal collapses as a result of the ongoing bitterness it will hurt the orioles a lot. I'm sure the nats feel it will hurt them a lot less. They are putting numbers out there like 590M for 2012-2016. All it will take is an arbitrator who thinks they are not getting a fair shake.
HOF
Posted 06 February 2015 - 10:51 AM
About a month ago I mentioned how it would be a good deal for both sides to make both teams essentially equal partners in MASN. I still firmly believe that...
The funny thing is, if the Nats were to become 50% partners in MASN, they would suddenly agree with the O's that the Bortz formula is the way to go.
Posted 06 February 2015 - 10:56 AM
Exactly and it would not even matter how they calculate the rights fee if they were equal partners.
MVP
Posted 06 February 2015 - 11:09 AM
Exactly and it would not even matter how they calculate the rights fee if they were equal partners.
Well, it would matter in the context of the rest of the league, right? They might agree to an equal rights fee or proportional rights fees, but one formula over the other could change how much their rights fees are (and by extension their possible payroll) compared to their competition.
HOF
Posted 06 February 2015 - 11:09 AM
The funny thing is, if the Nats were to become 50% partners in MASN, they would suddenly agree with the O's that the Bortz formula is the way to go.
I don't think they would. They seem to think that their rights are considerably more valuable than they actually are. I think they want to regain their own rights so that they can try to start their own network which will fail miserably.
They are putting numbers out there like 590M for 2012-2016. All it will take is an arbitrator who thinks they are not getting a fair shake.
The RSDC proposed $300M for 2012-2016. Allen and Co proposed $230M for 2012-2016. MASN proposed $200M for 2012-2016. And the Nationals proposed $590M for 2012-2016. Which one looks like the outlier to you?
Look, there's a reason why MLB is simply ignoring the Nationals. They claimed the Nationals expert was making up numbers. They didn't even discuss sale terms with the Nationals. There is a zero percent chance that an unbiased arbitrator is going to decide that the Nationals didn't get a fair shake. There is a zero percent chance that an unbiased arbitrator is going to return a result that will make MASN insolvent. Not even a biased arbitrator will do that.
I think we've had most of this discussion already.
Posted 06 February 2015 - 11:35 AM
I'm guessing at some point all this will be turned on its head whenever the time comes that the entire RSN business model collapses. Hopefully at that point MLB will have its out-of-date broadcast agreement rearranged to something more suitable for the 21st century.
HOF
Posted 06 February 2015 - 12:01 PM
The reason why MLB goes with the RSN business model is because RSNs are willing to subsidize sports with money from non-sports fans. I mean, the Nationals have an average viewership of 61,000 households per game in the DC DMA. If they have 300k fans that would be willing to pay money to watch the Nationals then each fan would need to pay some $150 per year just for Nationals games to receive what MASN is offering them in rights fees (because there will be some expenses).
As long as bundling is required (and people continue to subscribe to cable) then the current model is ideal for sports teams. When that changes then teams will be more willing to come to a compromise about places like Iowa.
HOF
Posted 06 February 2015 - 12:20 PM
I don't think they would. They seem to think that their rights are considerably more valuable than they actually are. I think they want to regain their own rights so that they can try to start their own network which will fail miserably.
Yeah, you're right - the Nats clearly want to break away from MASN. That's their primary goal in all of this. But, assuming that the O's and Nats were to come to an agreement where they each owned 50% of MASN, then I do think that the Nats would immediately want to lower their rights fees.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
