668 replies to this topic

[Nigel Tufnel]

Wow, would MASN really owe the Nats an extra $59 million just for 2012-2014?  I didn't realize that the fees had been increased by that much - I was thinking MASN had been paying roughly $34M and the panel upped that to $40M.

[Matt_P]

Wow, would MASN really owe the Nats an extra $59 million just for 2012-2014?  I didn't realize that the fees had been increased by that much - I was thinking MASN had been paying roughly $34M and the panel upped that to $40M.

 

On the simplest level, yes. And the Orioles would also receive another $59 million. That's for all three years combined -- not for each one.

 

MASNs offer included 7.7% annual raises. So, MASN offered 34 million in 2012 and 39.5 million (34*1.077^2) in 2014.

[Nigel Tufnel]

On the simplest level, yes. And the Orioles would also receive another $59 million. That's for all three years combined -- not for each one.

 

MASNs offer included 7.7% annual raises. So, MASN offered 34 million in 2012 and 39.5 million (34*1.077^2) in 2014.

 

Hmm...  not sure where I got $40 million from.  Now I see - the RSDC awarded each team $53.1M for 2012, compared to the $34M that MASN paid.  So about $20M per year, adding up to $59M over the three years.

[RShack]

But so much of it is in the public domain that I don't know why MLB would care. 

 

Oh, MLB (the entity) wouldn't care... but the constituents who MLB serves (the owners) most certainly would care... it would reveal to the public exactly how much of the TV money each of them (including PA) is pocketing in lieu of plowing it back into the franchise that actually earns that money.  

 

The union would *love* for that to happen, as it would make it even more obvious that, while the players might not deserve crazy megabucks, the owners don't deserve it even more than the players don't.

 

Now, just because it would make PA look bad, whether that would stop him from using it as a hammer is a very different matter...  

[Matt_P]

it would reveal to the public exactly how much of the TV money each of them (including PA) is pocketing in lieu of plowing it back into the franchise that actually earns that money.

 

I doubt that the data wouldn't be redacted. But honestly, I've looked into the TV data for the Angels. I've found what they were making in their previous deal. I've seen what they're making in their current deal. And I've seen their financial documents leaked to Deadspin. I'm pretty sure I know how much the Angels have received in TV money from about 2005 to 2032 within a few million for each year.

 

CSN Houston went bankrupt earlier this year. The amount that the Astros are receiving for the next twenty years was pretty much twitted by Dave Barron. I'm having trouble getting the numbers to work exactly but I'm probably right within a few million for that deal also. But I'm an amateur. Anyone who matters was at the court case and knows how everything there is to know.

 

That leaves the Rangers, Rays and Marlins. The amount the Rays received was already in the RSDC decision. I can't say I know the Rangers and Marlins for sure but lots have been said about both.

 

That data probably wouldn't come out in the MASN case. And it's easy enough for the public to find it in any event. I bet it would take you about two or three hours to figure out the Angels situation just using google.

[Matt_P]

The long-standing MASN dispute creates some uncertainty for the Nationals. If MLB’s arbitration ruling holds up in a court case that may end next March, MASN would owe the Nationals $42.25 million in back pay for 2012 and 2013 and an additional $25.35 million for this season. That’s a substantial amount of money that, if allowed by ownership, could be spent on the baseball side.

 

http://www.washingto...ionals-payroll/

 

That's interesting because it's clearly wrong. The back pay is inaccurate. The additional amount is inaccurate. Wagner and Kilgore have both written articles that have basic facts incorrect. Is the Washington Post just making errors or are they lying on purpose?

[Markus]

As one who kinda stopped following this, oh of curiosity, how are the numbers inaccurate?

[Matt_P]

As one who kinda stopped following this, oh of curiosity, how are the numbers inaccurate?

 

MASN offered $34 million with 7.7% annual increases. The Washington Post has decided that MASN just offered $34 million a year for the five year period. 34*1.077^2~ 39.5M. Therefore, instead of MASN potentially owing the Nationals $20 million, they claim it's $25 million. Ironically, the Post did get this right earlier in the year. I'm not sure why they've changed but I've seen the documentation showing that it's $20M.

 

The second thing that the Post is doing wrong is that they're simply ignoring the fact that MLB has paid the Nationals for 2012 and 2013 and MASN is supposed to pay back MLB (if MLB wins in court).

 

Usually, the Post has been making an error in favor of the Nationals in all their articles that's arguably inconsequential. Does it really matter if MASN owes the Nationals or MLB $20 or $25M? Does it really matter if the Nationals will control 30 or 33% of MASN? But this article is getting to the point where the errors are consequential.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Whenever I read a newspaper article that deals with any semi-complicated subject that I actually know something about (it's a short list of subjects, but I occasionally see something), there are always a surprising amount of errors.  It scares me to think that there are probably similar errors in every other article, but I don't know enough to find them.

[Matt_P]

New documents are up.

 

It turns out that MLB wanted the Orioles and Nationals to sell MASN to Comcast. The Nationals demanded payment from MASN in order to even consider the idea. Originally, MLB wanted MASN to pitch in $7.5M to make a deal but then decided that they'd pay the amount if MASN just paid the normal 2013 distributions. MASN claims they knew about the loans but not the terms... and it makes sense they wouldn't have agreed to it if they did know the terms.

 

What's interesting is that one document discusses how much the Nationals received from the deal and how much of that money went to revenue sharing. It's clear that these payments turn the Nationals into a team that receives revenue sharing money (or would if they were in a smaller market) into a team that would pay it. Someone with more knowledge on the subject than myself could use those numbers to determine exactly how much revenue the Nationals are earning.

 

It also indicates that the Nationals are about at the mean for revenue but have a payroll in the top ten... Strongly suggests that they're losing money to keep the core together for a run.

[Matt_P]

MASN and MLB were in court today. According to Eric Fisher on the Sports Business Journal, the judge ordered MLB to give MASN all documents related to the RSDC deliberations in this case. MASN will receive documents discussing the role of Manfred in preparation of the RSDC decision but won't get documents that discuss the deliberations of the three RSDC arbitrations.

 

Fisher claims that it's technically not a complete victory for MASN but it seems that MASN definitely won the upper hand.

[aurelius]

How can they be assured that all communications between MLB to RSDC will become available to these proceedings. I'm just guessing if there's any type of incriminating communication going on, it will somehow get "lost" somewhere along the way. Hey if the IRS can get away with it....

[Nigel Tufnel]

James Wagner ‏@JamesWagnerWP  1m1 minute ago

The partial discovery decision is a minor victory for MASN/Os. Judge thinks there's enough to question about process he wants to learn more.

[RShack]

MASN and MLB were in court today. According to Eric Fisher on the Sports Business Journal, the judge ordered MLB to give MASN all documents related to the RSDC deliberations in this case. MASN will receive documents discussing the role of Manfred in preparation of the RSDC decision but won't get documents that discuss the deliberations of the three RSDC arbitrations.

 

Fisher claims that it's technically not a complete victory for MASN but it seems that MASN definitely won the upper hand.

 

Well, MASN won't get all the docs yet... but all they need to do is find something in the docs they do get that provides a basis for asking for the rest of them. This could go on for a long time...

[BSLChrisStoner]

Some additional discussion of this at OH:
http://forum.orioles...he-MASN-Dispute

[BSLChrisStoner]

Camden Depot: Why CSN-Mid Atlantic Can't Be Compared to MASN

http://camdendepot.b...e-compared.html

[RShack]

Camden Depot: Why CSN-Mid Atlantic Can't Be Compared to MASN

http://camdendepot.b...e-compared.html

 

In other words, Comcast is paying Comcast because they can stick it to customers who have no choice due to gov't sanctioned monopolies...another example of why it's time to update the idea of trust-busting... 

[Matt_P]

Sort of. It's really more like Care First deciding to buy all of the hospitals in the area. Either they can decide to not allow other insurance companies to sell insurance at these hospitals (and force them out of business) or merely make them pay egregious fees.

 

Meanwhile, they can agree to pay the hospitals any rate they choose and simply charge you higher premiums because they make a profit either way. Admittingly, it's different because it's not life and death by Comcast but it's the same idea.

 

I'd argue that this is worse than a mere monopoly.

[RShack]

Sort of. It's really more like Care First deciding to buy all of the hospitals in the area. Either they can decide to not allow other insurance companies to sell insurance at these hospitals (and force them out of business) or merely make them pay egregious fees.

 

Meanwhile, they can agree to pay the hospitals any rate they choose and simply charge you higher premiums because they make a profit either way. Admittingly, it's different because it's not life and death by Comcast but it's the same idea.

 

I'd argue that this is worse than a mere monopoly.

 

It is worse... because the gov't is on it...

 

Because of all the bogus pro-business/anti-gov't propaganda, too many people have been suckered into thinking crap like this is a fine idea...

[PatrickDougherty]

It is worse... because the gov't is on it...

 

Because of all the bogus pro-business/anti-gov't propaganda, too many people have been suckered into thinking crap like this is a fine idea...

I'm only here to nitpick because yay economics, but the government sanctions plenty of monopolies. They're identified as natural monopolies and generally show up as utilities: electricity, water, and also, unfortunately, cable television providers. In addition to being "essentials," the thinking is that it doesn't make sense to allow 4 or 10 or 20 different companies to lay their own pipes or grid because it would create a significant expense to residents to do so, while they'd never see any of the benefit. Moreover, it doesn't make any effing sense.

 

So, no, government-sanctioned monopolies are not, in and of themselves, a bad thing. Just stupid ones are.

 

IMO, the cable television provider monopoly could be/could have been alleviated by running a big-ass conduit underground and letting multiple companies and Baltimore City run their own cable and fiber lines through them. It would allow for adding or removing services and technologies later, and would create plenty of choice for consumers.

 

OH and if you're looking for a way around government-sanctioned and government-run natural monopolies on things like water, check out France, who has contracted out (or, essentially, privatized) the service of municipal water lines... interestingly, to the sister company of the one that won Baltimore City's contract to service a number of bus lines, the Charm City Circulator. Hooray, learning!

 

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...