WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact

[HalfSmokes]

Hopefully this case will make it harder to appeal the decision for the next upcoming reset. And with MASN expected to increase rights fees for the local cable companies hopefully their will be a bigger pie to split.

No chance MASN goes bankrupt, they are flush even after the arbitration ruling is put into place.

What makes you think masn is flush and what makes you think the pie is going to get bigger?

[machpost]

Whatever they settle on, I hope there's some incentive to update the horrible graphics package they're using. It looked pretty good when they first introduced it, but that was like seven years ago! It all looks so tired and low-res now.

[PowerBoater69]

What makes you think masn is flush and what makes you think the pie is going to get bigger?

The arb panel left MASN with low enough fees to pay both the Nats and Os and still make a profit. It's an awfully big pie.

The contracts MASN has with the local RSNs expires this year and it is expected that the next round of contracts will be for higher fees. Enabling MASN to pay more to the Nats.

[HalfSmokes]

The contracts MASN has with the local RSNs expires this year and it is expected that the next round of contracts will be for higher fees. Enabling MASN to pay more to the Nats.

I wonder how the dodgers or astros feel about recent rights fees negotiations 

[BrandonK]

The arb panel left MASN with low enough fees to pay both the Nats and Os and still make a profit. It's an awfully big pie.

The contracts MASN has with the local RSNs expires this year and it is expected that the next round of contracts will be for higher fees. Enabling MASN to pay more to the Nats.

But is that technically "fair market value" for the Nats? That's the crux of the case for them -- they can argue that $30M-$35M, hell even $60M, is not a fair value, and ask for more in the reset period.

[PowerBoater69]

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=zA51e0IRuIQwKn5t4IqWhw==&system=prod

Nominal and in their capacity as mans's owner.  I doubt that gives the judge jurisdiction over the relationship between mlb and Angelos or between and the Os

This is all correct, I'm not sure if I understand your previous point.

[PowerBoater69]

But is that technically "fair market value" for the Nats? That's the crux of the case for them -- they can argue that $30M-$35M, hell even $60M, is not a fair value, and ask for more in the reset period.

The Nats asked for FMV, MLB gave a much lower award in order to not bankrupt MASN. As MASN's income rises so will fees assuming that profits continue to be set at 5%. (MASN wants 20%.)

[HalfSmokes]

The Nats asked for FMV, MLB gave a much lower award in order to not bankrupt MASN. As MASN's income rises so will fees assuming that profits continue to be set at 5%. (MASN wants 20%.)

Yes can't even get on Comcast - I don't see why reopening negotiations necessarily be good for masn (or any expensive network with terrible ratings)

[PowerBoater69]

Yes can't even get on Comcast - I don't see why reopening negotiations necessarily be good for masn (or any expensive network with terrible ratings)

Ratings for the Nats have to be higher than 5-10 years ago, and the RSNs need live sports to stop the cord cutting.

The MASN market has the third highest number of cable subscribers in the country and a very high level of income. MASN should be able to increase income.

[HalfSmokes]

Ratings for the Nats have to be higher than 5-10 years ago, and the RSNs need live sports to stop the cord cutting.

The MASN market has the third highest number of cable subscribers in the country and a very high level of income. MASN should be able to increase income.

Their ratings are still terrible and providers are fighting cord cutting by trying to hold the line on pricing. Teams that are far more popular than the nats and os are having problems even getting on tv. In LA, people have realized that not having the local team televised isn't the end of the world. MASN may score some wins, but there's no reason to think total revenue increasing is a sure thing

[nats4ever]

Their ratings are still terrible and providers are fighting cord cutting by trying to hold the line on pricing. Teams that are far more popular than the nats and os are having problems even getting on tv. In LA, people have realized that not having the local team televised isn't the end of the world. MASN may score some wins, but there's no reason to think total revenue increasing is a sure thing

They are terrible then why do you watch them? You make us look bad based on your attitude.

[nfotiu]

Ratings for the Nats have to be higher than 5-10 years ago, and the RSNs need live sports to stop the cord cutting.

The MASN market has the third highest number of cable subscribers in the country and a very high level of income. MASN should be able to increase income.

You say RSN.... but I think you mean MSOs.  MASN is an RSN.  HalfSmokes is right in his comments.  MASN is doing well where they are at right now.  They may be able to increase their carriage fees by a tiny bit, but if they push it, they'll be blacked out without much leverage.  Directv/Comcast/Verizon/etc. wouldn't have much issue losing the few people who'd leave their cable/dish co, and would rather save a couple bucks per subscriber.  The days of never ending carriage fee increases for sports networks is over.

HalfSmokes, MASN is on Comcast, aren't they?   I actually remember they were mandated by the fcc or whoever as part of some merger conditions to carry competing sports networks for a fair market price since they are both a cable company and RSN.

[HalfSmokes]

They're on Comcast now, but I think the FCC stance would be different this time around- yes isn't on Comcast in northern Jersey, the Dodgers are having trouble getting providers to carry them in southern California http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-time-warner-cable-sweetens-dodgers-channel-deal-no-takers-20160329-story.html

[PowerBoater69]

You say RSN.... but I think you mean MSOs.  MASN is an RSN.  HalfSmokes is right in his comments.  MASN is doing well where they are at right now.  They may be able to increase their carriage fees by a tiny bit, but if they push it, they'll be blacked out without much leverage.  Directv/Comcast/Verizon/etc. wouldn't have much issue losing the few people who'd leave their cable/dish co, and would rather save a couple bucks per subscriber.  The days of never ending carriage fee increases for sports networks is over.

HalfSmokes, MASN is on Comcast, aren't they?   I actually remember they were mandated by the fcc or whoever as part of some merger conditions to carry competing sports networks for a fair market price since they are both a cable company and RSN.

Yeah, local cable providers, wrong acronym.

There is an expectation that the MASN fees will rise, this isn't new, we heard about this years ago, probably comments buried somewhere in this thread. Also in Lawyerball there is a reference that MASN expects to raise the fees for next year, I can't remember if that was written by the author or quoted from the court documents. With this area having the third highest number of cable subscribers there is a reasonable expectation that MASN will be able to increase their revenue from what they negotiated ten years ago.

http://www.talknats.com/2016/04/01/6144/

[HalfSmokes]

Because in the modern cable environment I'd totally expect cable companies to be fine with paying one of the highest per subscriber fees to one of the lowest rated networks. If Comcast can hold the line against the Yankees in New Jersey, the can do the same with the nats in North Carolina

[nfotiu]

Because in the modern cable environment I'd totally expect cable companies to be fine with paying one of the highest per subscriber fees to one of the lowest rated networks. If Comcast can hold the line against the Yankees in New Jersey, the can do the same with the nats in North Carolina

Also, don't forget that cord cutting or trimming is real.   Espn lost 10% of their subscribers in tbe last 3 years http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ESPN-Has-Lost-10-Million-Viewers-Since-2013-to-Cord-Trimming-137087   .   MASN would be on all the same bundles as ESPN, so I would assume they've lost 10% as well, and that is a trend that is only going to get worse.

[PowerBoater69]

Also, don't forget that cord cutting or trimming is real.   Espn lost 10% of their subscribers in tbe last 3 years http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ESPN-Has-Lost-10-Million-Viewers-Since-2013-to-Cord-Trimming-137087   .   MASN would be on all the same bundles as ESPN, so I would assume they've lost 10% as well, and that is a trend that is only going to get worse.

Live sports is the the only thing keeping many people from dropping cable. The bubble might burst but it hasn't yet.

[OldChelsea]

[...]In LA, people have realized that not having the local team televised isn't the end of the world.[...]

Sure as heck isn't (although in their case I'll admit it won't be the same with Vin Scully gone - heck, I used to listen to him back when my age was still in single digits)...but as long as I've got Charlie and Dave I've got baseball; no telly necessary.

[nfotiu]

Live sports is the the only thing keeping many people from dropping cable. The bubble might burst but it hasn't yet.

It's a double edged sword that cuts harder the other way though.  Having to pay for expensive sports channels they don't watch is driving people away from cable.  Disney's stock has taken a big hit already from ESPN lost and projected to be lost subscribers.   The fundamental reason it is all going to fall apart eventually is that only 1-2% or MASN subscribers actually watch the channel, and all of them pay $25/year for it.   

[Monarch]

Sure as heck isn't (although in their case I'll admit it won't be the same with Vin Scully gone - heck, I used to listen to him back when my age was still in single digits)...but as long as I've got Charlie and Dave I've got baseball; no telly necessary.

while I do like charlie and dave, watching baseball in HD on a big screen is pretty sweet IMO. I'd hate not to have the option to do it...just like everyone else, they are going to have to offer the opportunity to stream the games. right now you can only stream games out of your viewing area and its pretty expensive.

[DPMOmaha]

while I do like charlie and dave, watching baseball in HD on a big screen is pretty sweet IMO. I'd hate not to have the option to do it...just like everyone else, they are going to have to offer the opportunity to stream the games. right now you can only stream games out of your viewing area and its pretty expensive.

I know it's not an option for those of  you in the DC market, but MLB.TV (which allows you to watch the broadcast and overlay the radio) + netflix + OTA is a lot cheaper than cable and I get to see everything I want to watch. Throw in Sling and it's still cheaper than cable.

[comish4lif]

I know it's not an option for those of  you in the DC market, but MLB.TV (which allows you to watch the broadcast and overlay the radio) + netflix + OTA is a lot cheaper than cable and I get to see everything I want to watch. Throw in Sling and it's still cheaper than cable.

When you get past that initial $99 intro and they start tacking on fees and jacking up the prices, it's hard to justify paying for cable.

My 2-year Cox contract (here in CT), ends in 9 days. Dropping it, going with a high speed connection for ~$60, OTA, Netflix, HULU, and maybe MLBTV. And OOMA VOIP  for 2 lines at $9.99/mo.

[BrandonK]

When you get past that initial $99 intro and hey start tacking on fees and jacking up the prices, it's hard to justify paying for cable.

My 2-year Cox contract (here in CT), ends in 9 days. Dropping it, going with a high speed connection for ~$60, OTA, Netflix, HULU, and maybe MLBTV. And OOMA VOIP  for 2 lines at $9.99/mo.

As long as you aren't in the blackout area, MLB.tv is the way to go.

[comish4lif]

As long as you aren't in the blackout area, MLB.tv is the way to go.

Yeah - with Cox in CT, I currently get the Mets, Yanks, Sawx and the ESPN games.  I'd lose the Mets with MLB.TV.

[Mattionals]

I get a heavy discount for cable because of who I work for. That being said, since I'm moving to Pennsyltucky in about 3 months, I'm dropping cable entirely and going with straight internet. I already have Hulu and my GF has Netfilx. For the past year I've relied solely on MLB.TV for games and all of my movies are on Google Play.

Even with the heavy discounts, I will end up saving close to 100 dollars. I honestly can't beat saving 100 bucks a month.