Photo

O's / Nationals MASN TV Fees (2 of 2)


  • Please log in to reply
655 replies to this topic

#41 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,537 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:34 AM

No. That's my assessment of the Orioles situation based on court and newspaper information.

 

I'm sorry...I think we're missing paths here.  I thought we were both referring to the 5% number out of the article.

 

Orioles claiming that under the Nationals numbers they'd 'only' be left with a 5% profit margin (the % they get to take >$)



#42 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:51 AM

I'm sorry...I think we're missing paths here.  I thought we were both referring to the 5% number out of the article.

 

Orioles claiming that under the Nationals numbers they'd 'only' be left with a 5% profit margin (the % they get to take >$)

 

I was referring to my erroneous calculations based on the fact that the article/court data said 5%. Again, the reason why I got 5% is because I made an error in a calculation. My numbers indicate that if MLBs offer is enforced that the Orioles would receive about an 8 or 9 percent profit margin. This isn't problematic because the 5% profit margin solely from baseball related broadcasting (lower profit margin). 

 

The Nationals numbers weren't enforced. MLB made a compromise. I'm not sure whether the Nationals really did ask for $590 million from 2012 to 2016 or whether they asked for an average of $118 million per year from 2012 to 2031. MLB is giving them about $111 million per year or $262 million from 2012 to 2016. The Orioles offered $197 million from 2012 to 2016. This is in part because MLB isn't making MASN pay extra for 2012/2013.

 

Edit: In 2012 I have a 9% profit for the club while Hal Singer testifies the team has an 8% profit.



#43 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 01:42 PM

The Facebook NY Times data was entered into the court record. Unfortunately (maybe) I wasn't quoted.



#44 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,840 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 12:45 PM

Here's an article that seems to get the facts right (although there's a typo in the second sentence).  It also says there will be a hearing on Monday to decide if the injunction should continue.

 

http://www.washingto...4390_story.html



#45 Greg Pappas

Greg Pappas

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,514 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:55 PM

From everything I've read (admittedly not a GREAT deal), it seems apparent to me that the Orioles are generally in the right. The Nats were allowed to move to the D.C. market from Montreal based on certain concessions, and they recognize those concessions aren't particularly good for them (based on what other teams are getting). So, they're pulling out every stop to get the deal altered. Slick "unbiased" panel maneuver by MLB and the Nats... Angelos and company aren't sitting still for it. I think the injunction will stick.

If I were a Nats fan I'd be disappointed with the deal struck in order to bring the team to D.C., but a deal is a deal. It's a bit ironic that the city the Nats fled from (Montreal) is gearing up to get a team back.

While an O's fan, I'm trying to see this fairly. Am I wrong in my general view on this situation?



#46 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:17 PM

http://www.baltimore...0,6511208.story

 

 

The Baltimore Orioles defied an order from commissioner Bud Selig to appear at a sanctions hearing, another sign of the team's widening rift with Major League Baseball.

 

...

 

The documents also disclose that MASN filed an arbitration claim last month against Major League Baseball seeking $800 million to compensate for damages the network says it would sustain if the panel's decision is allowed to stand.

 

EDIT: Also this...

 

But the Orioles challenged Selig's authority to sanction them in the case, balked at appearing at the hearing and threatened new litigation. The team argued that Major League Baseball's constitution, which says final authority for disputes between teams rests with the league, does not extend to MASN.


@DJ_McCann

#47 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,310 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 13 August 2014 - 09:46 PM

Geez... this is going to get ugly. And clearly, MLB is positioning this for the Orioles to be the losers in the public's eyes.

#48 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 13 August 2014 - 09:49 PM

I wouldn't want to fight the Orioles in a legal battle.
  • DuffMan likes this

#49 Russ

Russ

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,296 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 10:00 PM

Geez... this is going to get ugly. And clearly, MLB is positioning this for the Orioles to be the losers in the public's eyes.

Bud is going to try to hold the AS game over the Orioles' head. It's not going to work.

#50 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 04:04 AM

I was just about to post that article in this thread. If you go back through some of my comments (over the years) on this issue, I've long said that the Nationals' overall goal here was to bankrupt MASN. While the article doesn't come right out and state that, it at the very least makes it very clear that they know that could and probably would be the overall endgame. And to say the least they appear to be totally fine with it.

 

I was shocked to read the part about the guy literally ripping up the proposal and declaring that they'll get more. Seriously, how arrogant and brash can one really be in a business dealing? I agree that MLB is trying to make the Orioles appear to be the loser in the court of public opinion, but speaking for myself I really don't care. I'd rather be the winner in truth. I'm not suggesting that this wasn't a sham of a deal to begin with (in favor of Angelos), however that doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced without MASN being gerrymandered out of the equation.

 

The thing that really would suck to me is that if the Nationals are allowed to do what they're trying to do here, on paper the part of the deal that would have basically killed MASN and thus financially strapped the Orioles would be the part about the two teams getting the same in rights fees. All of the work Angelos did to protect the Orioles would have directly and specifically added to their losses. There isn't one person who follows the O's that should be okay with that, which is why we should all have a stake in the Orioles winning this legally. 


  • Greg Pappas likes this
@DomenicVadala

#51 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 14 August 2014 - 06:40 AM

It's amazing that the 2 sides can't come to some sort of agreement. Greed is a terrible thing.

#52 DuffMan

DuffMan

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts
  • LocationLinthicum, MD

Posted 14 August 2014 - 06:45 AM

I wouldn't want to fight the Orioles in a legal battle.

This, one of the few times I'm happy that Angelos is the owner.



#53 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:29 AM

It's amazing that the 2 sides can't come to some sort of agreement. Greed is a terrible thing.

If I'm Angelos I have no reason to come to any sort of "agreement." I want what's written and signed on paper.


@DomenicVadala

#54 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,840 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:39 AM

If I'm Angelos I have no reason to come to any sort of "agreement." I want what's written and signed on paper.

 

Well, yes and no.  I think there's just enough gray area in the contract - it says established methodology instead of specifically referencing the formula - that he might have to give a little.  And the stakes are high enough here that a compromise is far, far better than a loss.  But from what I can tell, the Nats also have no interest in a compromise, so it looks like we're headed for court.



#55 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,537 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:50 AM

If I'm Angelos I have no reason to come to any sort of "agreement." I want what's written and signed on paper.

....to be clear, you want what you believe is written and signed on paper.....because the arbitration resolution process is written and signed by Angelos also.  

 

Angelos is litigating against what he signed now.



#56 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:53 AM

Well given that the established methodology is the Bortz formula, it seems pretty clear to me without actually specifying the specific formula. (It's kind of like saying we'll go fishing so long as the weather's good, but the other party says that to them good weather is windy and cold.) I don't have the actual quote, but I believe the Bortz people said that the ruling the Nats got was unprecedented in TV rights. So in their minds they probably think that they've actually changed the "established methodology." If it were me I'd allow no compromises on this; I'd go after all of it to ensure the livelihood of both of my companies (MASN and the Orioles) in perpetuity. 


@DomenicVadala

#57 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:56 AM

....to be clear, you want what you believe is written and signed on paper.....because the arbitration resolution process is written and signed by Angelos also.  

 

Angelos is litigating against what he signed now.

Well the contract specifies that the arbitration is legally binding, unless there's proven corruption. One would be hard-pressed to argue that the panel didn't have a stake in seeing the Nationals win this. Plus the contract itself was violated before it even got to arbitration because the accepted methodology was not used to reset the rights fees. So there are breaches all over the place, mostly by the Nationals.


@DomenicVadala

#58 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,840 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:05 AM

Well given that the established methodology is the Bortz formula, it seems pretty clear to me without actually specifying the specific formula. 

 

Is it clear?  If I'm the Nats, I argue that the established methodology is to develop a formula based on current market conditions, and not just to blindly use the out-of-date Bortz formula.  I don't think anyone would argue that there's been a huge change in TV rights fees since the Bortz formula was developed.

 

Will MLB still be using the Bortz formula in 20 years?  10?  At some point it will be too out of date to use - why isn't that now?



#59 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:05 AM

When I was working for the Orioles, they were of the belief that DC would never get a team.

 

Their heads were buried in the sand over it and they felt that if they did get a team, that it would ruin the Orioles and cause them a ton of financial downfall.

 

They are obviously still scared of this and thus they want to keep what they feel is rightfully theirs.  

 

They will not accept anything that will cost them a ton of money..they are afraid to do that.

 

This could be what gets PA to sell.



#60 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,537 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:12 AM

While I don't specifically disagree with what you said about Bortz....the fact is you'd be all for the arbitration decision if it was in your favor.  There's always an angle to be unhappy about when you lose.  If you'd won, you'd be more like....'hey, arbitration is arbitration and we both agreed to it'

 

 If it were me I'd allow no compromises on this; I'd go after all of it to ensure the livelihood of both of my companies (MASN and the Orioles) in perpetuity. 

 

So this has little to do with it because the financial success of both the Orioles and MASN isn't defined only by raping the Nationals.

 

In fact, since Angelos doesn't leverage MASN profits for the Orioles, in many ways, if the Nationals won, it would (at least publicly) show the Orioles making more money through their TV deal....which in theory benefits the Orioles.

 

You talk about bankrupting MASN, but Angelos isn't arguing it bankrupts MASN, he's arguing the profit margins get chopped down to 5%....and he wants a bigger profit margin on the MASN side.

 

....back to what Rob said a couple posts ago......there's plenty of room in this deal for compromise 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=  width=