The Post has an article now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/03/14/masn-appeals-hearing/
Really a terrible article. Only noting two questions from the judges, which was the point of the hearing, the Q&A. The request from the Os for the dispute to be mediated by the American Arbitration Association instead of the MLB RSDC was laid out in their appeal 13 months ago, hardly news.
The Nationals countered that MLB is impartial — and that if the court didn’t affirm MLB’s ruling, it would be a “recipe for just having this litigation continuing and continuing in never-ending fashion.”
That was not the Nationals argument, that MLB was impartial. They argued that the panel was agreed upon by the original contract and that MLB clubs were uniquely qualified to analyze disputes between member clubs.
In 2012, the Nationals challenged the rights fee payments they were set to receive for the next five seasons — around $200 million, or $40 million per year.
This is 100% wrong, the Nats and Os went to the RSDC as set in the MASN agreement, at that time there were no rights fees set for the Nats to challenge.
But MASN sued, arguing MLB was not an impartial arbiter. The Orioles won their case in a New York court because MLB had given a loan to the Nationals and the entities had shared legal counsel.
1) The Os initially sued based on the Nats reps Proskauer having a conflict of interest, they switched to all of MLB having a conflict of interest during the appeal process. 2) It was stated explicitly during the hearing that the Os won the original case due solely to Proskauer. The loan was not a factor in the decision.
--------
The hearing seemed to go well for the Nats.
Questions for the Os included: 1) Whether the NY court even has the authority to force the teams to change the forum for arbitration, noting that this would be unusual. 2) What grounds would there be for a change since the only noted conflict of interest Proskauer had been removed for the second hearing. 3) Do the Os expect the court to rule that the case must go to an outside arbitor or should the case be kicked back down to a lower court with the note that the lower court has the authority to force the sides to outside arbitration. 4) The prior commissioner appeared to be partial to the Os, did their issue with MLB bias only appear when the new commissioner had a different bias. 5) The original case that forced the replacement of Proskauer was due to the appearance of a conflict of interest, not that the conflict affected the monetary decision of the original panel. 6) Did the original contract call for the RSDC to determine valuation, not arbitrate the dispute and provide a binding decision?
That last item came up again with the Nats. Kind of a left field question. Both sides clearly felt like the RSDC was an arbitration panel and while both agreed that the contract could be interpreted in that manner neither seemed eager to pursue that direction.
The first questions for the Nats weren't really questions, just agreements with their arguements, it started out nicely: 1) The MLB RSDC was created explicity for these types of disputes. 2) The arbitration forum should not be thrown out based on one representative having a conflict of interest. 3) Did the comments from Mansfred show a bias against the Os? 4) Do the terms of the contract not apply if the arbitration panel is found to be unfair? 5) If the panel does what the Nats want and enforces the ruling from the original case, doesn't that just open a secondary case to determine the value of the "offsets" and "profit-sharing"?
Here again that last question is the big one. The judges were asking the Nats whether they wanted the court to participate in the determination of the final payout amount. Great question because the Os indicated repeatedly that they will sue again to resist making payments, this time based on the actual payment owed after the higher fees get offset against lower profit sharing once the fees have been retroactively increased. It would seem to make sense that the Nats would agree to this offer, delay the final decision but determine the payoff amount. My feeling on why the Nats emphatically declined the offer, accepting the threat of a second lawsuit from the Os was because they want the injunction removed that bars them from breaking away from MASN. The original judge in this case placed an injunction against the Nats and MLB from taking any actions until after the case is settled. My guess is that the Nats value breaking away from MASN higher than timely collection of past due fees.
-----------
The Os rep kept claiming that if the court granted their request to force a move to an outside arb panel that it would lead to a rapid end to the case. The Os would bring no further lawsuits or objections. Strangely that didn't seem to persuade anyone. After the case this quote from the Os rep to the Post really showed the Os true colors: “Once you get a neutral arbiter, we’re done — unless MLB tried to bribe one of the arbitrators. Though it’s more likely the Nationals would do it.” In other words, trust me, give us what we want and it will work out best for you, oh and by the way we consider you to be criminal low lifes.
Bottom line was that both sides agreed that this was just the first lawsuit, the dispute will continue.
