668 replies to this topic

[Matt_P]

There was a new set of documents that came out over the weekend. Basically, it turns out that MLB has told the Nationals and Orioles that the RSDC isn't going to touch the case until all of the appeals are done with. Naturally, the Nationals are unhappy about this decision by the MLB so they've decided to file some legal actions against MASN (although not MLB). If this doesn't make sense to you, then you've understood (it does make sense, but it would take a long time to explain it, the explanation is really really boring and has minimal importance).

 

The interesting part is that the Nationals only received $9.6M and not $10.2M suggesting that MASN wasn't as profitable as projected. This could be bad, or could just be random.

 

Finally, the Os/Nats media rights ranked 18th/19th in 2014. This is lower then they should be, but the Court likely received a non-redacted copy of the document and will see that the difference between 5th and 18th isn't that much money.

[RShack]

^^^^^^

 

Matt... thanks for keeping on top of this and passing stuff along...

[Markus]

WaPo:  Orioles VP on the future of MASN and ‘blip’ of a dispute with Nats

[Matt_P]

Camden Depot: http://camdendepot.b...-send-case.html

 

Basically, MASN won another skirmish in the dispute on Monday. Justice Marks agreed that the case shouldn't go back to the RSDC until appeals have been completed. The appeal won't be heard until at least November, and more probably in 2017.

 

It's not a particularly important decision. But it does ask an obvious question about the Nationals' competence. They wasted six months on a point with minimal relevance and have nothing to show for it. Given that this delayed the appeal, it wouldn't have saved them any time if they did win. And a second RSDC arbitration result would simply give MASN more ammo in their appeal. It's hard to see what benefit this could have had for the Nationals. Note that ensuring the case goes back to the RSDC would be a huge win for MLB, as it shows that they're in charge of the process.

 

Meanwhile, Justice Marks further clarified his position to note that MASN isn't forced to go back to the RSDC on any type of accelerated time line. Nor is it clear that they need to go back to the RSDC. He essentially walked back a footnote that the Nationals were leaning heavily on. So, the Nationals lost ground and wasted time.

[RShack]

About the Gnats' motion wasting months and months... that's how it turned out, but there's nothing about filing a motion that takes months and months... what took months and months was just the judge getting around to it... once he got around to it, I expect he didn't take an undue bunch of time pondering it... I'm guessing he processed it quite promptly, just to clear the dang thing off his desk... the delay is mainly about the judge's workload more than anything else...

 

p.s.  Thanks again for keeping up with all this...

[Mackus]

Appreciate your constant vigilance here, Matt, and your ability to translate what's going on into words I can understand assembled into sentences and paragraphs I can mostly grasp.

[Matt_P]

About the Gnats' motion wasting months and months... that's how it turned out, but there's nothing about filing a motion that takes months and months... what took months and months was just the judge getting around to it... once he got around to it, I expect he didn't take an undue bunch of time pondering it... I'm guessing he processed it quite promptly, just to clear the dang thing off his desk... the delay is mainly about the judge's workload more than anything else...

 

I mean, MASN submitted its final documents on June 17th, so it took the judge less than a month to process it. It's not like he was just dawdling for half a year. He can't make a decision before the documents are complete. And he needs to give each side time to prepare documentation. I think he set a reasonably expedited schedule.

 

Legal actions are time consuming. Lawyers need to submit documentation to the court. The Court wants each side to come to an agreement about process. That takes time. It requires significant effort. The Nationals had to understand in advance that this was going to take a significant amount of time regardless of any actions the Court might take.

[Markus]

USA Today:  Manfred predicts O's, Nats will return to MLB committee

 

Commissioner Rob Manfred thinks the Baltimore Orioles eventually will be forced to take their television dispute with the Washington Nationals back to a committee of baseball executives.

 

"The Baltimore club agreed that if they couldn't negotiate a rights fee with the Washington club, it was going to be decided by the RSDC," Manfred said Tuesday. "That's what the contract says. I'm a big believer in contracts, and I am a big believer that whatever flotsam and jetsam goes on in the meantime, that contract is ultimately going to be enforced. That's what they agreed to."

[aurelius]

If it's that straight-forward, why is it taking so long to enforce. What is Manfred missing, I know he has an agenda but....

[Nigel Tufnel]

The whole dispute is basically over what the contract says.  Manfred and the Nats think the contract says that the RSDC can set whatever price they want.  The O's think it says that the RSDC has to use a specific formula to set the fees.  So both sides believe that they're sticking to the contract and it's the other side that's reneging.  I tend to side with the Nats' interpretation, but I don't really know anything.  And I can also see where the O's interpretation could be correct.

[Matt_P]

The whole dispute is basically over what the contract says.  Manfred and the Nats think the contract says that the RSDC can set whatever price they want.  The O's think it says that the RSDC has to use a specific formula to set the fees.  So both sides believe that they're sticking to the contract and it's the other side that's reneging.  I tend to side with the Nats' interpretation, but I don't really know anything.  And I can also see where the O's interpretation could be correct.

 

The contract says that the RSDC has to use its established methodology. Manfred believes that the RSDC can make up anything it wants and call it the established methodology. MASN wants the RSDC to use the methodology it has used in every other case. Basically, MASN wants to be treated the same as everyone else in their situation.

 

So, the RSDC can say that it wants MASN to have only a 5% profit margin. But then MASN wants them to treat YES and NESN the same. And if YES and NESN get 20/33%, then MASN wants that also.

 

But this is largely irrelevant to the current bit. Arbitrators are allowed to be wrong, so it's besides the point which side is correct about this point. The main question is whether the RSDC panel has been partial to one side or the other. If MASN can prove this (they were successful once and may need to do so a second time), then a new panel will judge this case. Any fair panel will agree that MASN deserves to be treated like every other RSN. 

[Nigel Tufnel]

The contract says that the RSDC has to use its established methodology. Manfred believes that the RSDC can make up anything it wants and call it the established methodology. MASN wants the RSDC to use the methodology it has used in every other case. Basically, MASN wants to be treated the same as everyone else in their situation.

 

So, the RSDC can say that it wants MASN to have only a 5% profit margin. But then MASN wants them to treat YES and NESN the same. And if YES and NESN get 20/33%, then MASN wants that also.

 

But this is largely irrelevant to the current bit. Arbitrators are allowed to be wrong, so it's besides the point which side is correct about this point. The main question is whether the RSDC panel has been partial to one side or the other. If MASN can prove this (they were successful once and may need to do so a second time), then a new panel will judge this case. Any fair panel will agree that MASN deserves to be treated like every other RSN. 

 

Yeah, I hear you, but why wouldn't the O's have insisted that the contract specifically mention the Bortz formula?  'Established methodology' seems kind of nebulous.

 

Anyway, I was just replying to aurelius to explain why the situation wasn't as simple as Manfred made it out to be.  Looks like I forgot to quote him, though.

[RShack]

Yeah, I hear you, but why wouldn't the O's have insisted that the contract specifically mention the Bortz formula?  'Established methodology' seems kind of nebulous.

 

Well, that's the crux of it, right there... maybe they couldn't get that language in... maybe they erroneously thought the contract's language meant Bortz unless/until some new standard replaced it (if so, then they should have had the contract say exactly that)...

 

Either way, the contract's language turned out to be a major freaking disaster... I expect that PA is kicking both himself and somebody else about it...

[Matt_P]

Yeah, I hear you, but why wouldn't the O's have insisted that the contract specifically mention the Bortz formula?  'Established methodology' seems kind of nebulous.

 

Anyway, I was just replying to aurelius to explain why the situation wasn't as simple as Manfred made it out to be.  Looks like I forgot to quote him, though.

 

Because the point wasn't that MASN would get a 20% profit margin. It's that MASN would be treated the same as every other RSN. Hence "established methodology". 

 

At the moment, the RSDC uses Bortz for every other team-owned RSN. But suppose they changed to a comparable analysis? Or they said a 10% or 50% profit margin was good? That's not Bortz. But it would be fine to make that change to MASN also because it's being applied to every other case. 

 

But just saying Bortz.... well that locks everyone in. That's fine for a few years, but at some point Bortz is going to be obsolete. Or what happens if Bortz goes out of business? Or what if they start charging $10M because you have to use them. Having Bortz in the contract wouldn't make sense. 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Because the point wasn't that MASN would get a 20% profit margin. It's that MASN would be treated the same as every other RSN. Hence "established methodology". 

 

At the moment, the RSDC uses Bortz for every other team-owned RSN. But suppose they changed to a comparable analysis? Or they said a 10% or 50% profit margin was good? That's not Bortz. But it would be fine to make that change to MASN also because it's being applied to every other case. 

 

But just saying Bortz.... well that locks everyone in. That's fine for a few years, but at some point Bortz is going to be obsolete. Or what happens if Bortz goes out of business? Or what if they start charging $10M because you have to use them. Having Bortz in the contract wouldn't make sense. 

 

Seems like it would have been pretty easy to clarify that Bortz was the current methodology, but the formula used for MASN would change if something other than Bortz were used for all other teams.  I doubt they would have even needed a full sentence to do that.  The whole point of writing a contract is to make the terms clear to both sides, so I don't see how this wasn't a fail all around.

 

Anyway, if it's so clear, then why do the O's seem to lose on everything but the procedural stuff?

[RShack]

Anyway, if it's so clear, then why do the O's seem to lose on everything but the procedural stuff?

 

Because arbitrators can do pretty much whatever they want...  you can't get them for being unfair or inconsistent or illogical or anything like that... instead, you gotta prove that they're up to no good...

[Matt_P]

Seems like it would have been pretty easy to clarify that Bortz was the current methodology, but the formula used for MASN would change if something other than Bortz were used for all other teams.  I doubt they would have even needed a full sentence to do that.  The whole point of writing a contract is to make the terms clear to both sides, so I don't see how this wasn't a fail all around.

 

Anyway, if it's so clear, then why do the O's seem to lose on everything but the procedural stuff?

 

I mean, that's what established methodology means. But an arbitrator doesn't have to be right, just reasonable on the face. 

 

I'm not sure how they could do what you say. If they did say that Bortz is the current methodology, then there would need to be something in the contract discussing how to change it. Or why it's changed. Does MASN have a say in the matter? I feel like anything could have a loophole punched through it.

 

In any event, MASN hasn't lost a single thing since the RSDC decision was awarded. And that RSDC decision has been vacated and no longer exists. It's true that Justice Marks, correctly, ruled that the arbitrator can define established methodology as they'd like. If an arbitration panel wants to screw you, it's pretty simple for them to do so. 

[aurelius]

Maybe there's a way they can come down with a decision that would equally piss off both sides. No favoritism. An arbitrator's dream scenario.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Baltimore: Nats-Orioles TV Dispute Has Appellate Court Hearing March 14
http://baltimore.cbs...aring-march-14/

[BSLChrisStoner]

ESPN: Washington Nationals-Baltimore Orioles TV hearing reset for March 31