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'
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
The arbitration process has to be fair, otherwise it's null and void. It really matters the circumstance; in this particular case, one's hard-pressed to suggest that the people on the panel didn't have a stake in having TV rights fees be higher. That's pretty open-and-shut.
A 5% profit is nothing to a corporation. You should be doing a lot better than that, so while they could say they're turning a profit, in their eyes that's a step away from bankruptcy. Trust me, there's NOTHING that can be gained for the Orioles if the Nats win this case - NOTHING. The Nationals admitted that their goal is to get their TV rights away from MASN. The value of the network goes way down without having both teams.
Ultimately, when I feel like I'm being screwed over I have no patience for compromise. The way I see things, if I make one penny less than what I contractually should, I've lost. It's all or nothing to me with the amount of money and prestige we're talking about.