Author Topic: WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact (Read 251578 times)

NJ Ave · « **Reply #275 on:** June 25, 2012, 12:46:56 pm »

It's mostly background stuff we all know with little prospective analysis of what will happen. "Other clubs are watching the decision closely..." and all that.

You know it's not a great article because he doesn't even get into the most interesting conflict: the fear the other owners have of Peter Angelos against the fact that a higher figure for the Nats helps them all drive their future deals with their own RSNs.

Will the other owners cowtow to Angelos even when giving the Nats a low figure likely hurts them financially down the road?

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #276 on:** June 25, 2012, 12:50:24 pm »

there is also mets fear of having another large market team in the division

comish4lif · « **Reply #277 on:** June 25, 2012, 03:32:05 pm »

The article does have 1 detail that I hadn't seen before, that the Nats were asking for $100M and that MASN was thinking more along the lines of $64M (a $35M increase).

NJ Ave · « **Reply #278 on:** June 25, 2012, 03:36:34 pm »

That's a mistake that comes from the same Sports Business Journal article that hack Maury Brown poached the rest of the article from. Quote: "MASN said the fee should average about $35 million a year, citing the team’s low TV ratings and tepid fan base."

Not a $35 million increase, as Maury Brown wrote, but $35 million TOTAL. This is what Maury Brown plagiarized: "Fine, the Nationals want a bump, but the increase should be more like $35 million based on how ratings have been in the past and their low attendance. "

Again, never believe a friggin' hack who can't even plagiarize correctly from an article that came out two weeks ago.

The REAL article: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/06/11/Media/MASN-Nationals.aspx

PowerBoater69 · « **Reply #279 on:** June 26, 2012, 09:28:08 pm »

Quote

TV ratings for Nationals broadcasts on MASN, MASN2 and WDCW are up 53 percent year-to-year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/nats-tv-ratings-on-masn-up-53-percent/2012/06/26/gJQAbuhv4V_blog.html

Lintyfresh85 · « **Reply #280 on:** June 28, 2012, 01:16:10 pm »

Doesn't pertain to MASN, but Nats radio ratings are up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/the-nats-radio-audience/2012/06/28/gJQAW0lN9V_blog.html

blue911 · « **Reply #281 on:** June 28, 2012, 01:58:01 pm »

Has anybody stopped to think about what will happen if the the arbitration panel rules against the Lerners?

Kevrock · « **Reply #282 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:00:19 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 01:58:01 pm

Has anybody stopped to think about what will happen if the the arbitration panel rules against the Lerners?

Epic board meltdown.

Lintyfresh85 · « **Reply #283 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:01:01 pm »

Quote from: Kevrock on June 28, 2012, 02:00:19 pm

Epic board meltdown.

A massive sell off of all the team's high priced contracts.

MarquisDeSade · « **Reply #284 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:03:11 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 01:58:01 pm

Has anybody stopped to think about what will happen if the the arbitration panel rules against the Lerners?

I mentioned it a couple of pages ago and was told "no chance."

blue911 · « **Reply #285 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:05:06 pm »

Quote from: Kevrock on June 28, 2012, 02:00:19 pm

Epic board meltdown.

If a top 10 market is only worth $35M per, what is the market for KC worth? The LA market is up for grabs, does anybody expect any ruling that will diminish that payday?

MarquisDeSade · « **Reply #286 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:06:32 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 02:05:06 pm

If a top 10 market is only worth $35M per, what is the market for KC worth? The LA market is up for grabs, does anybody expect any ruling that will diminish that payday?

Define "Top 10 Market".

blue911 · « **Reply #287 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:06:57 pm »

Quote from: MarquisDeSade on June 28, 2012, 02:03:11 pm

I mentioned it a couple of pages ago and was told "no chance."

The ruling won't be about Lerner v MASN, but about MLB v RSN. We will protect our brand, anything else is beyond lunacy.

blue911 · « **Reply #288 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:08:19 pm »

Quote from: MarquisDeSade on June 28, 2012, 02:06:32 pm

Define "Top 10 Market".

You know, what ever the FCC/TV guys say is a top ten market. As far as I can tell,DC falls in that category- just axe Hammonds.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #289 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:12:47 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 01:58:01 pm

Has anybody stopped to think about what will happen if the the arbitration panel rules against the Lerners?

we better like Zimmerman and Werth a lot because everyone else making big money is gone and we're not bringing any white whale in either

comish4lif · « **Reply #290 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:14:51 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 01:58:01 pm

Has anybody stopped to think about what will happen if the the arbitration panel rules against the Lerners?

Legal challenges by the Lerners against Angelos, MASN and MLB would be my guess.

MarquisDeSade · « **Reply #291 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:14:55 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 02:06:57 pm

The ruling won't be about Lerner v MASN, but about MLB v RSN. We will protect our brand, anything else is beyond lunacy.

That wasn't really my intent.

Tyler Durden · « **Reply #292 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:17:47 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 01:58:01 pm

Has anybody stopped to think about what will happen if the the arbitration panel rules against the Lerners?

Need Hoagie to come back and tell us that the future is bleak and the end is nigh.

OldChelsea · « **Reply #293 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:19:16 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 02:08:19 pm

You know, what ever the FCC/TV guys say is a top ten market. As far as I can tell,DC falls in that category- just axe Hammonds.

Not sure what criteria they use, but here is the Nielsen ratings people's assessment based on 'number of TV homes' in 2010:

1 New York 7,493,530
2 Los Angeles 5,659,170
3 Chicago 3,501,010
4 Philadelphia 2,955,190
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,544,410
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,503,400
7 Boston 2,410,180
8 Atlanta 2,387,520
9 Washington, DC 2,335,040
10 Houston 2,123,460

Largest non-MLB market was 19th-ranked Orlando/Daytona/Melbourne at 1,455,620; Baltiless came in 27th at 1,093,170.

blue911 · « **Reply #294 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:20:36 pm »

Quote from: MarquisDeSade on June 28, 2012, 02:14:55 pm

That wasn't really my intent.

I know, but I was on this soapbox and decided I'd rant on, bro.

MarquisDeSade · « **Reply #295 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:22:53 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on June 28, 2012, 02:20:36 pm

I know, but I was on this soapbox and decided I'd rant on, bro.

Keep preaching.

PowerBoater69 · « **Reply #296 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:30:55 pm »

Quote from: OldChelsea on June 28, 2012, 02:19:16 pm

Not sure what criteria they use, but here is the Nielsen ratings people's assessment based on 'number of TV homes' in 2010:

1 New York 7,493,530
2 Los Angeles 5,659,170
3 Chicago 3,501,010
4 Philadelphia 2,955,190
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,544,410
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,503,400
7 Boston 2,410,180
8 Atlanta 2,387,520
9 Washington, DC 2,335,040
10 Houston 2,123,460

Largest non-MLB market was 19th-ranked Orlando/Daytona/Melbourne at 1,455,620; Baltiless came in 27th at 1,093,170.

Orlando and Daytona are one media market? They're further apart than DC and Baltimore.

OldChelsea · « **Reply #297 on:** June 28, 2012, 02:35:42 pm »

Quote from: PowerBoater69 on June 28, 2012, 02:30:55 pm

Orlando and Daytona are one media market? They're further apart than DC and Baltimore.

That does look rather strange indeed, but I think it may be because Nielsen has historically used VHF telly service areas (how retro!) as the principal definition of a television market, and Daytona may not have any (until the 1960's it wasn't that big a town), and they may have historically gotten Orlando over-the-air telly in pre-cable days (I think Jacksonville is even farther away than Orlando).

RobDibblesGhost · « **Reply #298 on:** July 03, 2012, 05:01:34 pm »

June 1 came and went, and now July 1 has come and gone. Anyone know anything?

MarquisDeSade · « **Reply #299 on:** July 03, 2012, 05:15:37 pm »

Quote from: RobDibblesGhost on July 03, 2012, 05:01:34 pm

June 1 came and went, and now July 1 has come and gone. Anyone know anything?

I stand by my statement that this won't ever be released. Can you imagine the asspounding (i.e. penalty and fines) MLB would dish out to any dipcrap that leaks the results of this deal? I still think Blue is right - this is going to end up being MLB vs. RSNs (i.e. house of cards) and MLB isn't going to lose.