Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
668 replies to this topic

#61 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:21 AM

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the established methodology is to develop a formula based on current market conditions, and not just to blindly use the out-of-date Bortz formula.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  At some point it will be too out of date to use - why isn't that now?

At some point it will be out of date. But the fact is that in 2011 (which is when the reset was to take place so everything is retroactive to that time) and now, it's the established methodology. When that's the way it's been done with every team and the contract states "established methodology," the Nats can't just come out with some witch doctor formula and argue that this is the way that baseball does things


@DomenicVadala

#62 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:25 AM

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.

 

So I've said this before, but the funny thing is...I have to believe the Orioles do better financially across the region WITH the Nationals than without.  The Orioles weren't leveraging the whole region in any meaningful way when DC finally got the Nats.  Much easier for Angelos to leverage regional success with Nationals tied to MASN

 

The Orioles/Angelos wound up with an irrationally good deal (orders of magnitude better than most were initially expecting) and that's a great position to bargain from.

 

...but this is about winning, not win-win.  

So while there's some greed somewhere in there, I'd guess this is more about ego.



#63 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:28 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'

 

 

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.


@DomenicVadala

#64 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,978 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:33 AM

At some point it will be out of date. But the fact is that in 2011 (which is when the reset was to take place so everything is retroactive to that time) and now, it's the established methodology. When that's the way it's been done with every team and the contract states "established methodology," the Nats can't just come out with some witch doctor formula and argue that this is the way that baseball does things

 

Right, that's the other side of the argument (and the side I actually agree with).  I'm just pointing out that there's an argument to be made for the other side.  If it were completely black and white, then the MLB arbitration panel wouldn't have ruled against the O's (unless you believe they're corrupt).



#65 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:35 AM

Right, that's the other side of the argument (and the side I actually agree with).  I'm just pointing out that there's an argument to be made for the other side.  If it were completely black and white, then the MLB arbitration panel wouldn't have ruled against the O's (unless you believe they're corrupt).

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not sure there was a handshake deal between the league and those parties, but the fact is that they stood to benefit by the decision they rendered. At the very least, it submits a reasonable doubt as to their motives.


@DomenicVadala

#66 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:45 AM

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.

 

...this says a lot....and not in a good way.



#67 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:52 AM

It says that you should hold people accountable. I do believe in compromise, but when pushed I get to the point to where I have no urge to give on anything.


@DomenicVadala

#68 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 August 2014 - 09:22 AM

It says that you should hold people accountable. I do believe in compromise, but when pushed I get to the point to where I have no urge to give on anything.

 

Has Angelos been accountable to Oriole fans?



#69 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 09:28 AM

Has Angelos been accountable to Oriole fans?

What exactly do you mean by "accountable?" Was attendance not low when the team stank? But how would you suggest fans do to hold him accountable? It's not as if they can take him to court. So if you're talking accountability in terms of money spent going to games, maybe he was held accountable. But we're talking about two different things; the general public can always send a message by how they spend their money. Going to court to enforce a contract is a totally different type of accountability.


@DomenicVadala

#70 Markus

Markus

    The Great Cornholio

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,363 posts
  • LocationIn-N-Out Sucks, CA

Posted 14 August 2014 - 10:18 AM

What exactly do you mean by "accountable?" Was attendance not low when the team stank? But how would you suggest fans do to hold him accountable? It's not as if they can take him to court. So if you're talking accountability in terms of money spent going to games, maybe he was held accountable. But we're talking about two different things; the general public can always send a message by how they spend their money. Going to court to enforce a contract is a totally different type of accountability.

 

Free The Birds 2  :D


Lemme get two claps and a Ric Flair


#71 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,978 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 10:34 AM

Interesting.

 

In court papers filed last night, the Nationals asserted MLB's arbitration panel award was $38M closer to the Orioles' proposal than theirs.

 

By the math the Nats used in their filing and what's already public, MLB's panel awarded the Nats about $55 million in rights fees.



#72 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 10:51 AM

Free The Birds 2  :D

Sorry, I think that was a low point in that it spoke more about the disdain of one person towards the owner than it did about the owner himself. That aside, I highly doubt that you're going to get people to stage a walkout of any fashion at a game to protest the owner while the team is winning.


@DomenicVadala

#73 aurelius

aurelius
  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:00 AM

The MLB broadcast agreement needs to be re-worked to where it's more like the NFL, where teams more or less share TV money equally. Probably never happen, but I've always thought that MASN should provide a framework (for at least one region) where TV money is equally shared. I think the problem is the Orioles negotiated too good of a deal for themselves.

 

I don't think the Orioles want to be in a position where they're fighting all of MLB on this. You have to think they can find a middle ground somewhere. But this is Peter Angelos we're talking about.



#74 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 12:02 PM

The only trump card that I think is in MLB's arsenal seems to be the "Donald Sterling route." Selig threatened that previously, but the question is whether the league would follow through on that. And if they did I think there'd still be some legal avenues Angelos could use to counter.


@DomenicVadala

#75 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

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

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:09 PM

The only trump card that I think is in MLB's arsenal seems to be the "Donald Sterling route." Selig threatened that previously, but the question is whether the league would follow through on that. And if they did I think there'd still be some legal avenues Angelos could use to counter.

 

Fortunately, there's essentially no way that could happen.

 

Sterling had a long history of public issues, both involving his franchise and outside it, before the final nail of the taped conversations. There was also a threat of a very public player revolt, possibly league-wide, in addition to the direct damages in the loss of fan and sponsor revenue.

 

This is simply a dispute between franchises. The commissioner (whether Selig or Manfreid) would have no legal bounds to remove either owner, and Angelos would burn the sport down if they tried it. That doesn't even take into account the other owners doing everything in their power to prevent removal, both because they wouldn't want such a precedent set on such weak reasoning, and they won't want to be called before a judge or even depositions and have information (especially economic information) released publicly.


@DJ_McCann

#76 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,590 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 07:57 AM

Sports Illustrated: Report: MLB orders O's to pay Nats $55-$60M

http://www.si.com/ml...asn-rights-fees



#77 Domenic

Domenic

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 717 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 08:48 AM

Fortunately, there's essentially no way that could happen.

 

Sterling had a long history of public issues, both involving his franchise and outside it, before the final nail of the taped conversations. There was also a threat of a very public player revolt, possibly league-wide, in addition to the direct damages in the loss of fan and sponsor revenue.

 

This is simply a dispute between franchises. The commissioner (whether Selig or Manfreid) would have no legal bounds to remove either owner, and Angelos would burn the sport down if they tried it. That doesn't even take into account the other owners doing everything in their power to prevent removal, both because they wouldn't want such a precedent set on such weak reasoning, and they won't want to be called before a judge or even depositions and have information (especially economic information) released publicly.

I think the commissioner has the power to do it, but I agree with you in that they wouldn't try. I think that comment was just a warning shot, and probably one that was ignored by both sides at that. But again I agree that Angelos would challenge the very fabric of the league if it ever came to that.


@DomenicVadala

#78 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,590 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 08:39 AM

Camden Chat: Where does the O's case stand for Monday's hearing?

http://www.camdencha...fees-court-case


  • Greg Pappas likes this

#79 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,590 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 08:43 AM

Baltimore Sun: MASN says reserves would dip to 'virtually zero' if league decision stands

http://articles.balt...ngton-nationals



#80 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:47 PM

Can you disband MASN and then just each have their own network? Is that a viable option?

This is going to get really really ugly.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=