WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact

[zimm_da_kid]

This sounds about right and a reasonable compromise on the crappy deal the Nats were forced to take in order to move to DC.  A greater ownership stake for the Lerners rather than fees paid to the Nats might mean more money to the Lerners, right?

Wonder what the holdup is.

we shouldn't have to compromise.  we should get what's fair

[OldChelsea]

we shouldn't have to compromise.  we should get what's fair

...and that can come only through full MASN divestiture of its Nationals rights...get the Orioles and Angelos out of the picture completely, forever.

[comish4lif]

No chance. When you're a legal eagle like Angelos you can do this...all perfectly legal. He was able to extract this deal from the Lords of Baseball - he had a unilaterally declared exclusive zone which included DC and Virginia, and he was threatening litigation to enforce that self-declared exclusivity. Not only was it a matter of the mortal dread that sports leagues generally have of the law courts, but (1) they knew there is no way Angelos can lose in a Maryland court, and (2) there was the threat to force the owners to open their books (something the Orioles don't have to do since lawyers don't have to open their books to anyone) - so they acceeded.

Doesn't mean it doesn't suck though...in an earlier era we used to call this 'blackmail'.

I am not sure you mean or are implying with the term "unilaterally declared exclusive zone" - the territories are prescribed by the franchise agreement MLB and the team (Orioles, in this case). That agreement says that teams have exclusive rights to the town/city/municipality that the team is located in (in this case, Baltimore) and any city/county that is touch by the team's home territory. So, the O's have rights to Howard County, but not PG County. MLB could not put a team in Howard County, or in Balto County, without the Orioles' permission.

The TV rights are a different agreement and I think had MLB stood up to the Orioles and enforced the MLB interpretation of tv territories and the purview that MLB has the right to divvy up the territories, I think that MLB would have prevailed.

[HalfSmokes]

I am not sure you mean or are implying with the term "unilaterally declared exclusive zone" - the territories are prescribed by the franchise agreement MLB and the team (Orioles, in this case). That agreement says that teams have exclusive rights to the town/city/municipality that the team is located in (in this case, Baltimore) and any city/county that is touch by the team's home territory. So, the O's have rights to Howard County, but not PG County. MLB could not put a team in Howard County, or in Balto County, without the Orioles' permission.

The TV rights are a different agreement and I think had MLB stood up to the Orioles and enforced the MLB interpretation of tv territories and the purview that MLB has the right to divvy up the territories, I think that MLB would have prevailed.

the thing is no one knows how a modern court would treat an agreement that absent the anti trust exemption (and that's questionable) is clearly illegal, so you have a game of chicken

[comish4lif]

the thing is no one knows how a modern court would treat an agreement that absent the anti trust exemption (and that's questionable) is clearly illegal, so you have a game of chicken

MLB was so afraid of going to court, opening their books, and losing the anti-trust exemption that they gave Angelo's the keys to the kingdom? That makes sense to me. MLB loses nothing by screwing the Nats. Lerners should sue MLb....

[zimm_da_kid]

That makes sense to me. MLB loses nothing by screwing the Nats. Lerners should sue MLb....

hell yeah they should

[HalfSmokes]

MLB was so afraid of going to court, opening their books, and losing the anti-trust exemption that they gave Angelo's the keys to the kingdom? That makes sense to me. MLB loses nothing by screwing the Nats. Lerners should sue MLb....

you have a terrified MLB sitting between two parties who seem willing to assert their right, I'm sure Selig is pissing himself

[nfotiu]

I'm kind of on the side of hoping for a modest increase.  I can't help but think this whole RSN game is an unsustainable bubble.  The rsns are running up theses rates fees at a rate that isn't going unnoticed.  Sooner or later someone is going to clue in that millions of households are paying over 24$ a year so that less than 1 percent of them can watch the Nats and Os.  As a result of these and other basic cable networks continuing to push this envelope, cord cutting will force a la carte programming sooner than everyone thinks.  The gravy train for these rsns will be over and so will the rights fees.

I like the Nats chances of surviving this bubble a lot better if they they are not counting on some outrageous and unsustainable rights fees that probably won't make it past 5 or 10 years.

[jhuterp]

No way this goes to court, MLB won't let that happen for the same reason they didn't want to go in 2004-2005.  MASN will survive w/a different equity structure, both the Nats and O's get higher rights fees and Angelos will offset the loss in equity with an increase in the next round of carriage fees w/the cable companies earning more $$ per equity share in MASN.  Both the Lerners and Angelos make money while we pay for it in our cable bills.

[eddiejc1]

I am not sure you mean or are implying with the term "unilaterally declared exclusive zone" - the territories are prescribed by the franchise agreement MLB and the team (Orioles, in this case). That agreement says that teams have exclusive rights to the town/city/municipality that the team is located in (in this case, Baltimore) and any city/county that is touch by the team's home territory. So, the O's have rights to Howard County, but not PG County. MLB could not put a team in Howard County, or in Balto County, without the Orioles' permission.

The TV rights are a different agreement and I think had MLB stood up to the Orioles and enforced the MLB interpretation of tv territories and the purview that MLB has the right to divvy up the territories, I think that MLB would have prevailed.

It's true that P.G. and Montgomery County are not part of the Orioles' official territory---but they aren't Nationals territory either. If they WERE, the Bowie Baysox would have to become a Nationals affiliate. The only official territory of the Nationals that is north of the Potomac River is the District of Columbia.

Washington Nationals: District of Columbia; and Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William Counties, and all independent cities bordering such counties, in Virginia.

Baltimore Orioles: City of Baltimore; and Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Howard, Carroll and Harford Counties in Maryland;

http://bizofbaseball.com/docs/MLConsititutionJune2005Update.pdf

[HalfSmokes]

No way this goes to court, MLB won't let that happen for the same reason they didn't want to go in 2004-2005.  MASN will survive w/a different equity structure, both the Nats and O's get higher rights fees and Angelos will offset the loss in equity with an increase in the next round of carriage fees w/the cable companies earning more $$ per equity share in MASN.  Both the Lerners and Angelos make money while we pay for it in our cable bills.

Unless the other owners bridge the difference,  I'm not sure they can stop it,  a $75 million per year difference is worth fighting over

[jhuterp]

Unless the other owners bridge the difference,  I'm not sure they can stop it,  a $75 million per year difference is worth fighting over

I agree re: bridging a difference, I think it's possible MLB may sweeten the pot for one or both parties out of the general fund in exchange for some movement on this.

[eddiejc1]

One of the things that MLB might do to sweeten the offer enough for Angelos to accept it is to award Baltimore the All-Star Game.

[PANatsFan]

My media and sports group is also named Bortz

[Tyler Durden]

One of the things that MLB might do to sweeten the offer enough for Angelos to accept it is to award Baltimore the All-Star Game.

They last had it in 93.  DC last had in 1969.

[PANatsFan]

It's true that P.G. and Montgomery County are not part of the Orioles' official territory---but they aren't Nationals territory either. If they WERE, the Bowie Baysox would have to become a Nationals affiliate. The only official territory of the Nationals that is north of the Potomac River is the District of Columbia.

Washington Nationals: District of Columbia; and Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William Counties, and all independent cities bordering such counties, in Virginia.

Baltimore Orioles: City of Baltimore; and Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Howard, Carroll and Harford Counties in Maryland;

http://bizofbaseball.com/docs/MLConsititutionJune2005Update.pdf

Interesting - especially because Angelos thinks that he owns Central PA even.

[HalfSmokes]

One of the things that MLB might do to sweeten the offer enough for Angelos to accept it is to award Baltimore the All-Star Game.

I don't think a all star game comes closer to being worth the kind on money they're fighting over

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Interesting - especially because Angelos thinks that he owns Central PA even.

I know some folks who grew up in York who are die-hard Os fans, as are their kids in Lancaster.

On top of that, they make great pretzels.

[NatsDad14]

I don't think a all star game comes closer to being worth the kind on money they're fighting over

Maybe Bud can get Angelos first dibs on the next ambulance chasing asbestos lawsuit.

[eddiejc1]

They last had it in 93.  DC last had in 1969.

I know, but I read somewhere that Baltimore is asking to host it again and that Bud Selig is considering awarding it to them to get Angelos to accept some sort of deal that would give the Nats more money. MLB also awarded Wrigley Field the All-Star Game as an incentive to Chicago lawmakers to pass laws enabling the Cubs to install lights in their ballpark.

[NationalHeat]

When is DC supposedly in the running for the game? 2015?

[OldChelsea]

When is DC supposedly in the running for the game? 2015?

I'd say 2017 at the earliest is more realistic - the Marlins were all but promised the next NL-hosted ASG whenever they got their new ground completed so I'd say the Marlins get 2015.

[PebbleBall]

Happy Thanksgiving Mr. Angelos

Fox Sports could pay at least $6 billion to retain the Dodgers’ television rights, three parties familiar with the negotiations said Sunday.

The deal could be worth three times what the Dodgers’ new owners paid for the team and almost 20 times the value of the Dodgers’ current television contract.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-dodgers-fox-sports-6-billion-tv-deal-20121125,0,4821671.story

[Tyler Durden]

This has dragged on basically a full year.  The original article cited in the first page of this thread is from last January and cites the Nats possible pursuit of Prince Fielder.

[welch]

I'd say 2017 at the earliest is more realistic - the Marlins were all but promised the next NL-hosted ASG whenever they got their new ground completed so I'd say the Marlins get 2015.

First, I would say that MLB would be ashamed to put the ASG in the new Miami ballpark...except that, second, Bud Selig and MLB are immune to shame. Loria. Loria. Loria.