Author Topic: WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact  (Read 107313 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 7736
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
What a difference between the 2 newspapers on this

Interesting to compare the Post story with the Baltimore Sun's.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-masn-appeal-20170713-story.html

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
And WTF happens if MASN goes off the air or bankrupt? I just want to see Nats baseball for 6 months.

Watch the road feed.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 7574
  • From the best seat in the house at Nationals Park
Short term, probably a bunch. Long term, it'd be a rather progressive move, I think.
How many customers get alienated if the Nats go internet only? I know many, including myself, have ditched cable altogether.

As long as I've got Charlie and Dave and my season ticket, I've got baseball.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 12504
  • Troll So Hard University
I canceled cable and just listen to C&D.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22094
Ratings up 12%. #1 in the market on days their games play. This makes them pretty much like every other team in MLB, finally.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2017/08/24/nats-tv-ratings-juggernaut/

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12572
    • Twitter
If the Nats win the case this year I assume they will pay 21% in Federal taxes instead of 35% for the back payment, a nice bonus for waiting.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 9108
  • Team America 2018
If the Nats win the case this year I assume they will pay 21% in Federal taxes instead of 35% for the back payment, a nice bonus for waiting.
There is no winning.

This case is the Nats Vietnam. Their very own quagmire. Our leaders are caught in a long slog against Ho Chi Angelos where there is no victory, only a continuation of a fight because you've already lost so much.

Hopefully we can eventually reach some peace with honor. But I won't buy that victory is an option.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25629
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
I would say that any win is Pyrrhic if it comes too late to keep Harper, Murphy, and Rendon.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12572
    • Twitter
The amount in dispute for 2012-2016 is $100 million total, the Nats were awarded about $55M/year and MASN is paying them $35M/year. If the Nats won the dispute today MLB would take 34% of that $100M as part of the revenue sharing tax on local TV rights, so just $66M to the Nats. But the Nats have been receiving an additional $6M a year from their equity stake in MASN, a number that would evaporate with the higher rights fees, leaving $35-40M. MLB loaned the Nats $25M during the time when Selig was trying to keep the dispute of of court, resulting in about a $10-15M gross payment before taxes and legal fees. Hardly a major windfall.

The bigger factor now will be the determination of the fees for 2017-2021.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 4331
  • Smooth Jazz Nyan Cat - Blue Raspberry Edition
The amount in dispute for 2012-2016 is $100 million total, the Nats were awarded about $55M/year and MASN is paying them $35M/year. If the Nats won the dispute today MLB would take 34% of that $100M as part of the revenue sharing tax on local TV rights, so just $66M to the Nats. But the Nats have been receiving an additional $6M a year from their equity stake in MASN, a number that would evaporate with the higher rights fees, leaving $35-40M. MLB loaned the Nats $25M during the time when Selig was trying to keep the dispute of of court, resulting in about a $10-15M gross payment before taxes and legal fees. Hardly a major windfall.

The bigger factor now will be the determination of the fees for 2017-2021.

I think it shows enough that most of the "player burns" in Free Agency in the past few years were more due to players wanting to play in a certain place, and money wasn't the issue. From what I can think of, the only contract I see the Nats being burned on about money was Heyward, and that was a great deal the Nats didn't make. Zobrist wanted to play for Maddon again. O'Day, Cespedes, and Jansen all wanted to go back to their respective teams. The Nats still got Scherzer, Strasburg extended, and even Wieters without the MASN money. Certain players won't like the deferrals, but when the numbers are that high, it doesn't seem to matter much to some. For guys who take the deferred money, they essentially have a really nice insurance policy if they never own up to their contract.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12572
    • Twitter
I think it shows enough that most of the "player burns" in Free Agency in the past few years were more due to players wanting to play in a certain place, and money wasn't the issue. From what I can think of, the only contract I see the Nats being burned on about money was Heyward, and that was a great deal the Nats didn't make. Zobrist wanted to play for Maddon again. O'Day, Cespedes, and Jansen all wanted to go back to their respective teams. The Nats still got Scherzer, Strasburg extended, and even Wieters without the MASN money. Certain players won't like the deferrals, but when the numbers are that high, it doesn't seem to matter much to some. For guys who take the deferred money, they essentially have a really nice insurance policy if they never own up to their contract.

I've never seen the deferred money as being directly related to the MASN dispute, my thought is that it's an accounting trick that saves the team money and gives the player a bigger total number. I doubt if the deferred contracts will end after the MASN case has been decided.

Offline LoveAngelos

  • Posts: 908
i wonder how long before Angelos starts floating the idea of moving the Orioles out of Baltimore.  I'm guessing the team isn't very profitable anymore.


You would think that considering the way they troll for DC baseball fans ( I thought there were none?) with billboards on every tree they can find.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12572
    • Twitter
i wonder how long before Angelos starts floating the idea of moving the Orioles out of Baltimore.  I'm guessing the team isn't very profitable anymore.

That's not a bad option for Angelos. If he leaves he still owns the Nats TV rights, so he keeps the DC and Baltimore markets. Plus he adds a new market in Portland or Vegas or Mexico.

Offline LoveAngelos

  • Posts: 908
Angelos is going on 89 and Big Ted is 92.
Iz true only the good die young. Just ask Billy Joel.

In Angelos's case when he does go to that big bank vault in the sky, I do hope he does take it all with him



Hey hon, where dem Orioles go dere????????????????????????????

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12572
    • Twitter
Angelos is going on 89 and Big Ted is 92.
Iz true only the good die young. Just ask Billy Joel.

In Angelos's case when he does go to that big bank vault in the sky, I do hope he does take it all with him



Hey hon, where dem Orioles go dere????????????????????????????

WNFF needs a Like feature just for LoveAngelos, I don't know how to respond, but I like it.

Offline LoveAngelos

  • Posts: 908
WNFF needs a Like feature just for LoveAngelos, I don't know how to respond, but I like it.

 :) I hear that from Mrs. Angelossux.....I mean Mrs. LoveAngelos, all the time

Offline Jordanz Meatballz

  • Posts: 4994
Just goes to show you should never sign a vague contract. What a waste of time, money, and hot air.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12572
    • Twitter
Just goes to show you should never sign a vague contract. What a waste of time, money, and hot air.

This is correct, the methodology was left intentionally vague by MLB so that the new owners could sort it out with Angelos. It was the DC city council that signed the deal. Really sux for the Lerner family, the franchise value has only increased by $100 million per year, just think how much richer they'd be with the TV rights.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 23623
  • Monsters of da Midway
This is correct, the methodology was left intentionally vague by MLB so that the new owners could sort it out with Angelos. It was the DC city council that signed the deal. Really sux for the Lerner family, the franchise value has only increased by $100 million per year, just think how much richer they'd be with the TV rights.

They only realize that gain if and when they sell.  Think Ted's departure may lead Mark to selling and reaping the windfall...

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 7574
  • From the best seat in the house at Nationals Park
As of Friday of last week it has been exactly six years since this thread was launched...and thus far, no incredible impact.

Thank goodness I've still got my charter season ticket plus Charlie and Dave.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33165
  • Hell yes!
They only realize that gain if and when they sell.  Think Ted's departure may lead Mark to selling and reaping the windfall...

There's no reason for him to sell, is there?

Only if he needed the cash, or had a better alternative investment opportunity, otherwise not.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25629
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
There's no reason for him to sell, is there?

Only if he needed the cash, or had a better alternative investment opportunity, otherwise not.
to diversify?  Even for the Lerners, the team is a high % of their assets.  Cash flow?  If interest rates spike, then you could see real estate crashing the same time attendance drops and it is tougher to finance the team.  If they need cash (thankfully for them, probably not for estate taxes  :? ) , you could see them scrambling a bit.

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3239
to diversify?  Even for the Lerners, the team is a high % of their assets.  Cash flow?  If interest rates spike, then you could see real estate crashing the same time attendance drops and it is tougher to finance the team.  If they need cash (thankfully for them, probably not for estate taxes  :? ) , you could see them scrambling a bit.

If they've made it (and thrived, actually) so far in the shopping mall business as it's completely tanked, I have faith that they can make it through more downturns. I doubt they keep themselves leveraged to the hilt like a Trump or something.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12572
    • Twitter
to diversify?  Even for the Lerners, the team is a high % of their assets.  Cash flow?  If interest rates spike, then you could see real estate crashing the same time attendance drops and it is tougher to finance the team.  If they need cash (thankfully for them, probably not for estate taxes  :? ) , you could see them scrambling a bit.

I'm not sure, but I believe that they've been going in the opposite direction, buying out minority owners. They bought out Kasten. When the team was tanking I think that the Lerners used the opportunity to buy out their partners at bargain prices.

If they wanted to realize some of the gains they could certainly sell shares. But I've never heard any indication of that.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25629
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Oh, I don't think it is likely they'll sell anytime in the next 15 years.  I think Mark and his generation want to keep the team.  It would be something like divorces among that generation, family fights, or estate planning for them that'll drive a sale.  I was just speculating as to why they might do something I don't expect them to do.