Author Topic: WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact  (Read 107162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19633
The redskins have an RSN? I doubt at any time you have a majority of cable subscribers in NC (or any state for that matter) who are willing to pay for any baseball let alone the nationals- people in states without teams have RSNs because the providers don't have a choice

Offline Nats113437

  • Posts: 249
Yes, the Redskins RSN is essentially CSN.  They are getting a ton of money from CSN just for the various Redskins shows and coverage they have.  People watch it in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and NC because the Redskins won and created memories and tradition for their fans.  If the Nats win, there will be opportunities to expand MASN (or whomever's) reach into those areas as well.  The same cable companies that don't want it now, will be dying for it in about 3 years.  They'll be flooded by requests for it by the same people who say they don't want it now.  Just watch. 

Offline Nats113437

  • Posts: 249
Also, there will be huge money from sponsors for things like the 'Davey Johnson" show, and pre and post game shows.  It is ridiculous how much money teams can still get from sponsors for these things.  Even if they don't expand the coverage, the increase in revenue from a DC team winning will be huge.  If Angelos is smart he'll eat the losses (if they happen) in the short term and keep the Nats.

I hope you are right and they freak out and get out of the deal.  I can see him being scared of the losses.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19633
CSN doesn't broadcast redskins games, so crediting any popularity it has with the redskins seems to be a stretch I would think having the ACC in north carolina might matter a little more, even then, how many subscribers actually want it? I know if I had the choice I would drop every RSN other than MASN because I'm not a fan of those sports.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
CSN doesn't broadcast redskins games, so crediting any popularity it has with the redskins seems to be a stretch I would think having the ACC in north carolina might matter a little more, even then, how many subscribers actually want it? I know if I had the choice I would drop every RSN other than MASN because I'm not a fan of those sports.

CSN does broadcast the pre-season games which get very high ratings.  They also broadcast more Redskins related shows than every other channel combined, so I'd say that they are fairly closely tied to the Skins.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
I dont think being a dynasty matters nearly as much as how many cable subscribers you can force to pay for the network, and the FCC has more to do with that than team performance

It's a mix, the big money is in the cable fees, but advertising can bring in a ton of cash as well.  This is where the crappy ratings (9,000 viewers) over the past few years works against the Nats regardless of the recent success.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/06/11/Media/MASN-Nationals.aspx

Quote
But sources say the league has a concern that any decision will lead to a lawsuit from one side or the other.
No crap Selig, should have thought of that before handing the broadcast rights over to Angelos back in 2004.

Quote
Plus, other MLB teams are watching the dispute closely, fearful that a ruling in favor of MASN could set a new lower bar for local TV rights. In the past few years, the market for local baseball rights has been scalding hot, punctuated by deals like the Texas Rangers’ 20-year, $3 billion pact with Fox Sports Net and the San Diego Padres’ 20-year $1.2 billion deal, also with FSN.
This is the best thing we have going for us, the rest of the league has an interest in seeing the Nats get a big deal in order to keep the market moving up.

Quote
The Nationals have told MLB that they should receive an average of more than $100 million a year in media rights, a fee that would put the team on par with other teams in the top-10 media markets.
Anything less than top 10 would be a major set back for the Nats.

Quote
MASN said the fee should average about $35 million a year, citing the team’s low TV ratings and tepid fan base.
This is where going cheap for the first five years is coming back to bite the old man.  With no measurable ratings for several years there is no way that the Lerners can guarantee that the recent improvements will be sustained over the next few years.

Quote
MASN’s offer represents a 20 percent increase over the $29 million a year it now pays the Nationals.
20%, Jesus Christ, Lerner must want to take off his shoe and beat Angelos into a bloody mess over that offer.

Quote
Complicating matters is a parity clause in MASN’s contract requiring that the Orioles receive exactly as much in rights fees as the Nationals. That means if the Nationals wind up with a new deal worth $100 million a year, the Orioles also would get $100 million a year.  Cable industry sources have questioned whether MASN could afford both contracts, given the long-term carriage deals they already have signed with cable and satellite operators.
As has been posted already, the viability of MASN should be completely irrelevant to the Nats deal.  If MASN can't cover the contract they can sell the rights to a company that can.

Quote
MASN gets about $2.14 a subscriber per month, according to figures from SNL Kagan. That’s higher than only a handful of RSNs.
Holy God that is a pile of cash.  How many cable subscribers live in Maryland, Virginia, and DC?  Millions and millions coming in every month.

Quote
MLB created an ad hoc committee of owners from the New York Mets, Pittsburgh Pirates and Tampa Bay Rays to come to a decision. Rob Manfred, MLB executive vice president for labor relations and human resources, is leading the committee.
They really need a completely independent arbitrator.  Beyond the fact that the losing side will sue, the loser is bound to hold a lifelong grudge against the owners who sided against them.  So the Mets, Pirates, and Rays owners are faced with making an enemy out of one of the small number of member clubs no matter how they decide on this issue.  And a compromise will likely as not end up leaving the deciding clubs with two teams that will not be inclined to back them on future moves.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 12504
  • Troll So Hard University
Great post, PB.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Yeah that was a very good post.  Busting up MASN would be a huge victory for the Nats, but a loss for Cholula hot sauce.

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 22494
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/06/11/Media/MASN-Nationals.aspx
...They really need a completely independent arbitrator.  Beyond the fact that the losing side will sue, the loser is bound to hold a lifelong grudge against the owners who sided against them.  So the Mets, Pirates, and Rays owners are faced with making an enemy out of one of the small number of member clubs no matter how they decide on this issue.  And a compromise will likely as not end up leaving the deciding clubs with two teams that will not be inclined to back them on future moves.



The Mets have a conflict of interest.  As an NL-East rival, they have an incentive to cause Washington to have as little as money as possible, to deter the Nationals from acquiring better players that enables them to defeat the Mets.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19038
The Mets have a conflict of interest.  As an NL-East rival, they have an incentive to cause Washington to have as little as money as possible, to deter the Nationals from acquiring better players that enables them to defeat the Mets.

Which is exactly what Orioles fans are saying about the Rays.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2870
  • Too Stressed to care.
The Mets and Rays both seem to have a conflict of interest. Classic MLB. They could have Chosen 3 west division teams, but no. They chose 2 in-division teams out of the 3.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 7574
  • From the best seat in the house at Nationals Park
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/06/11/Media/MASN-Nationals.aspx
No crap Selig, should have thought of that before handing the broadcast rights over to Angelos back in 2004.[...]

Angelos basically blackmailed the Lords of Baseball into the deal, at the time he hinted broadly that in any lawsuit the owners would be forced to 'open their books' (something the Orioles wouldn't have to do since law firms are not required to open their books).

Nothing less than the complete de-Angelosising of the Nationals will suffice...get Angelos completely out of our television-coverage ownership/distribution picture, fire absolutely everyone currently working on the Nats telecasts and put them on banning orders from Nats Park, take down that Cal Ripken quote on that sign that one passes on the escalator between centre-field plaza and the Scoreboard Walk, and kick Edward Bennett Williams out of the Washington Hall of Stars (why is the man who kept baseball out of Washington for 25 years honoured there? His Redskins ownership is already duly recognised at FedEx Field).

The only time there should be any Orioles presence at Nats Park is when we play that team. We are a legitimate MLB team in our own right...we need to start acting that way.

Online tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33165
  • Hell yes!
As has been posted already, the viability of MASN should be completely irrelevant to the Nats deal.  If MASN can't cover the contract they can sell the rights to a company that can.

This doesn't really work.  If MASN is locked into long term contracts for a certain amount of revenue, committing to pay out more than they take in would render them non-salable.  Who buys guaranteed losses?  Nobody.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19633
This doesn't really work.  If MASN is locked into long term contracts for a certain amount of revenue, committing to pay out more than they take in would render them non-salable.  Who buys guaranteed losses?  Nobody.

It would render MASN non-salable; the rights to the Nats and Os would still have value in a bankruptcy proceeding. I really don't see how the fact the the Os (smaller, less valuable market) were guaranteed equal rights fees should have any bearing on what the fair market value of the nationals rights fees are

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
This doesn't really work.  If MASN is locked into long term contracts for a certain amount of revenue, committing to pay out more than they take in would render them non-salable.  Who buys guaranteed losses?  Nobody.

CSN could possibly produce the games at a lower cost and bring in higher ad revenue to make up the difference.  Also bringing in the Nats would be expected to increase ratings for the other shows on the network which would justify lower profit margins.

In any case the collapse of MASN would be a problem for Angelos to worry about, one way or the other there is too much money involved for the Nats to not be on TV so the team will be fine as long as MLB doesn't go with the $40 million insult.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
Angelos basically blackmailed the Lords of Baseball into the deal, at the time he hinted broadly that in any lawsuit the owners would be forced to 'open their books' (something the Orioles wouldn't have to do since law firms are not required to open their books).

Nothing less than the complete de-Angelosising of the Nationals will suffice...get Angelos completely out of our television-coverage ownership/distribution picture, fire absolutely everyone currently working on the Nats telecasts and put them on banning orders from Nats Park, take down that Cal Ripken quote on that sign that one passes on the escalator between centre-field plaza and the Scoreboard Walk, and kick Edward Bennett Williams out of the Washington Hall of Stars (why is the man who kept baseball out of Washington for 25 years honoured there? His Redskins ownership is already duly recognised at FedEx Field).

The only time there should be any Orioles presence at Nats Park is when we play that team. We are a legitimate MLB team in our own right...we need to start acting that way.

"de-Angelosising", I like that.  I need to remember to spit on that Ripken quote next time I'm at the park, haven't done that in a while.

As far as Angelos demanding the broadcast rights and Selig giving them to him, I can't blame those guys, they were acting in their own best interests.  Anthony Williams was supposed to represent the city in the deal and he signed off on the MASN atrocity.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 7733
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Nice roll Chelsea.  What Cal Ripken quote are you referring to ?

Angelos basically blackmailed the Lords of Baseball into the deal, at the time he hinted broadly that in any lawsuit the owners would be forced to 'open their books' (something the Orioles wouldn't have to do since law firms are not required to open their books).

Nothing less than the complete de-Angelosising of the Nationals will suffice...get Angelos completely out of our television-coverage ownership/distribution picture, fire absolutely everyone currently working on the Nats telecasts and put them on banning orders from Nats Park, take down that Cal Ripken quote on that sign that one passes on the escalator between centre-field plaza and the Scoreboard Walk, and kick Edward Bennett Williams out of the Washington Hall of Stars (why is the man who kept baseball out of Washington for 25 years honoured there? His Redskins ownership is already duly recognised at FedEx Field).

The only time there should be any Orioles presence at Nats Park is when we play that team. We are a legitimate MLB team in our own right...we need to start acting that way.


Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
Nice roll Chelsea.  What Cal Ripken quote are you referring to ?

On the back wall of the Red Porch, facing the escalator.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
This is where going cheap for the first five years is coming back to bite the old man.  With no measurable ratings for several years there is no way that the Lerners can guarantee that the recent improvements will be sustained over the next few years.

On the flip side, this situation is the first one where it's a good thing the Lerners are in control.  If there's one thing we know about them, it's that they'll fight tooth and nail for every dime if they think they're getting a bad business deal. 


Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35048
  • Champs!
I'm worried/paranoid that this ends with the Nats off tv for most of the 2013 season while this is in litigation.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2870
  • Too Stressed to care.
I'm worried/paranoid that this ends with the Nats off tv for most of the 2013 season while this is in litigation.

Too much money involved for that to happen. No doubt, someone gets an injunction to let the Nats stay on MASN or air their games on CSN or DC50.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2870
  • Too Stressed to care.
It would render MASN non-salable; the rights to the Nats and Os would still have value in a bankruptcy proceeding. I really don't see how the fact the the Os (smaller, less valuable market) were guaranteed equal rights fees should have any bearing on what the fair market value of the nationals rights fees are

Wouldn't it be great that the caluse that Angelos (no doubt) threw in to guarantee revenue parity is the clause that caused the demise of MASN? If the Nats prevail, and get, say $100M, and MASN must then pay the O's their $100M, I hope it bankrupts MASN.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
I'm worried/paranoid that this ends with the Nats off tv for most of the 2013 season while this is in litigation.

They'll just have to put us on ESPN every night. 

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12566
    • Twitter
On the flip side, this situation is the first one where it's a good thing the Lerners are in control.  If there's one thing we know about them, it's that they'll fight tooth and nail for every dime if they think they're getting a bad business deal. 



Sure, except that the rights fees don't matter much unless the cheap bastards actually spend the extra cash to bring in more talent.