Author Topic: WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact (Read 251264 times)

redskinsJB321 · « **Reply #1150 on:** August 18, 2014, 04:52:52 pm »

Twitter reports saying the judge ruled for MASN. If that stands, they should just move the team now and save us the aggravation. No way DC fans put up with a mid-market payroll. Huge loss today for DC sports fans.

blue911 · « **Reply #1151 on:** August 18, 2014, 05:00:52 pm »

Quote from: redskinsJB321 on August 18, 2014, 04:52:52 pm

Twitter reports saying the judge ruled for MASN. If that stands, they should just move the team now and save us the aggravation. No way DC fans put up with a mid-market payroll. Huge loss today for DC sports fans.

The judge said the Nats can't threaten to pull games off MASN. This backs the courts earlier decision that the Nats couldn't demand back payment at the present. NOTHING HAS BEEN DECIDED.

redskinsJB321 · « **Reply #1152 on:** August 18, 2014, 05:04:16 pm »

You are right Blue. I misunderstood. I thought they were saying they did not have to pay ever. I will wait for a story, but it sounds like the judge also ruled against the arbitration award. He at least said that the O's successfully raised the question of it's fairness.

Hogie · « **Reply #1153 on:** August 18, 2014, 05:25:33 pm »

Well this is going to be an awkward call to Charlotte to tell them that we want the team back...

Mr Clean · « **Reply #1154 on:** August 18, 2014, 05:30:58 pm »

Quote from: Hogie on August 18, 2014, 05:25:33 pm

Well this is going to be an awkward call to Charlotte to tell them that we want the team back...

What in the hell are you talking about?

Dave301 · « **Reply #1155 on:** August 18, 2014, 05:35:45 pm »

James Wagner @JamesWagnerWP · 44m
NYC judge grants MASN & Orioles a preliminary injuction against Nats. Essentially MASN can't be forced to pay more for Nats TV rights.

James Wagner @JamesWagnerWP · 41m
Judge raises question about rights fee process/conflicts of interest. "A pause in this process to look at these proceedings is appropriate."

James Wagner @JamesWagnerWP · 39m
Judge Lawrence Marks rules Nats can't threaten to pull games off MASN.

James Wagner @JamesWagnerWP · 27m
MASN still has to post $20 million by Fri., remaining amount owed in MLB panel's ruling. Sides to meet w/ judge Thurs. to decide next step.

James Wagner @JamesWagnerWP · 25m
*$20 million bond

PC · « **Reply #1156 on:** August 18, 2014, 05:40:31 pm »

When were the Nationals proposing to "pull games off MASN"? Now? In the middle of a season?

PowerBoater69 · « **Reply #1157 on:** August 18, 2014, 06:11:02 pm »

Quote from: PC on August 18, 2014, 05:40:31 pm

When were the Nationals proposing to "pull games off MASN"? Now? In the middle of a season?

The court filing from about a month ago, certainly an idle threat, there's no chance that they're going to move to a new network in the middle of a pennant race. This ruling means that the judge agreed that the MLB arbitration panel was biased, not that they were wrong, hence the injunction against anyone doing anything until the case is decided in a courtroom.

Jordanz Meatballz · « **Reply #1158 on:** August 18, 2014, 06:24:36 pm »

Quote from: PowerBoater69 on August 18, 2014, 06:11:02 pm

The court filing from about a month ago, certainly an idle threat, there's no chance that they're going to move to a new network in the middle of a pennant race. This ruling means that the judge agreed that the MLB arbitration panel was biased, not that they were wrong, hence the injunction against anyone doing anything until the case is decided in a courtroom.

Any chance this could allow the judge to rule in favor of what the Nationals originally asked for, Fair Market Value of broadcast fees in 2011, which was probably 120 million?

Any chance this opens Pandora's box for everything that goes through arbitration (player's salaries)? After all, the arbitrators there are biased as well, right?

PowerBoater69 · « **Reply #1159 on:** August 18, 2014, 07:31:10 pm »

Quote from: Jordanz Meatballz on August 18, 2014, 06:24:36 pm

Any chance this could allow the judge to rule in favor of what the Nationals originally asked for, Fair Market Value of broadcast fees in 2011, which was probably 120 million?

Any chance this opens Pandora's box for everything that goes through arbitration (player's salaries)? After all, the arbitrators there are biased as well, right?

Certainly throwing out the arbitration ruling opens the door for a new judgement that could either help or hurt the Nats, I'm not too optimistic about an independent judge giving us more cash than a panel biased in our favor, but on the other hand a judge would be less intimidated by Angelos.

As far as any further fallout from this case I'd have no idea what that would be.

Traded For Mclain · « **Reply #1160 on:** August 18, 2014, 07:50:15 pm »

I'm thinking if this went to trial and Angelos is able to prove bias, which right now the court says he's likely to win, the arbitration award would be vacated and the whole process would have to start over. I'm assuming the court could decide there was bias without specifying $$ regarding the Nats TV rights. Interesting that the bias assertion has held up even though Angelos agreed to this process years ago and the revenue sharing arrangement, which is how he's asserting the panel was biased, has been in place for years. If this is so then the process was "biased" from day one in which case it's difficult to understand how Angelos ever agreed to it in the first place.

Jordanz Meatballz · « **Reply #1161 on:** August 18, 2014, 07:58:42 pm »

Isn't it ridiculous to expect the court system to decide your cash outflows every five years? I have no idea why the court system would even take a case like this.

Traded For Mclain · « **Reply #1162 on:** August 18, 2014, 08:07:13 pm »

I don't think the court will rule on the specific $$, just the fairness of the process. The silly thing here is that it seems any arbitration ruling for the Nats = more revenue sharing dollars for the other teams so effectively any ruling for the Nats is "biased" according to MASN. In the meantime I'm sure MASN is pressing to cut a more favorable deal before this goes to trial, knowing Angelos he probably doesn't really want to post the $20M by Friday.

BigMeech · « **Reply #1163 on:** August 19, 2014, 12:52:42 pm »

This kind of crap is why the Nationals' TV rights should be allowed to hit the open market.

PowerBoater69 · « **Reply #1164 on:** September 24, 2014, 05:31:42 pm »

All of the Os court filings just went public.

PebbleBall · « **Reply #1165 on:** September 24, 2014, 05:40:41 pm »

Quote from: PowerBoater69 on September 24, 2014, 05:31:42 pm

All of the Os court filings just went public.

Link?

PowerBoater69 · « **Reply #1166 on:** September 24, 2014, 08:58:28 pm »

Quote

Eric Fisher @EricFisherSBJ

MASN says MLB used that improper promise of redo of deal to command then-record $450M sale of club to Lerner family.

Big claim in latest MASN petition: RSN says MLB had "buyers remorse" w '05 deal w Angelos, promised Nats bidders agreement would be redone

One other nugget: John Henry wanted MLB to play "good cop/bad cop" w Angelos to improve terms of MASN settlement for league

Among new MASN docs: minutes showing that in '05, sev owners on MLB exec council wanted some end point to deal w Angelos & not perpetuity

Orioles: "the actions that Manfred personally took, or failed to take, are at the heart of the [MASN] dispute."

Orioles argue MASN dispute must be moved to neutral arbitration, and say they cannot get a fair hearing under MLB commish-elect Manfred

Big document dump in MASN case as RSN, Orioles lay out legal case why MLB award for Nats should be vacated

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #1167 on:** September 24, 2014, 09:37:38 pm »

Hopefully Selig's last act is to kick out Angelos for revealing confidential information

Jordanz Meatballz · « **Reply #1168 on:** September 24, 2014, 09:39:11 pm »

Ugh, those tweets are backwards. My brain just flipped

PebbleBall · « **Reply #1169 on:** September 24, 2014, 10:19:51 pm »

I don't get this one:

Quote

Big claim in latest MASN petition: RSN says MLB had "buyers remorse" w '05 deal w Angelos, promised Nats bidders agreement would be redone

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #1170 on:** September 25, 2014, 11:22:58 am »

Quote from: PebbleBall on September 24, 2014, 10:19:51 pm

I don't get this one:

they gave him too sweet of a deal, which is what a number of posters here say, realized it was depressing the price, and made the promise to get the price up.

Thing I don't get is that the Lerners have lawyers and could have figured out the terms themselves if it was so lock-solid. I doubt a promise alone would be enough to command a bidding war.

Traded For Mclain · « **Reply #1171 on:** September 25, 2014, 12:43:06 pm »

Interesting that this is playing out as a more of a Orioles vs. MLB thing than Orioles vs. Nats....Over time I think this plays in the Nats favor. The worst case scenario w/the MASN deal was always the possibility of having MLB tell the Nats to deal with it and basically side w/Angelos. The way this thing has gone down I don't think MLB will ever look kindly on Angelos/MASN again. I suspect that even if Angelos were to somehow get a favorable ruling this round, MLB can come back w/changes to revenue sharing rules (which drive the Bortz method) or other moves "in the best interest of baseball" that will chip away at MASN. This business arrangement is not sustainable, it's not a question of MASN living in perpetuity, it's only a question of when and how it dies.

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #1172 on:** September 25, 2014, 01:02:51 pm »

Quote from: Traded For Mclain on September 25, 2014, 12:43:06 pm

Interesting that this is playing out as a more of a Orioles vs. MLB thing then Orioles vs. Nats....Over time I think this plays in the Nats favor. The worst case scenario w/the MASN deal was always the possibility of having MLB tell the Nats to deal with it and basically side w/Angelos. The way this thing has gone down I don't think MLB will ever look kindly on Angelos/MASN again. I suspect that even if Angelos were to somehow get a favorable ruling this round, MLB can come back w/changes to revenue sharing rules (which drive the Bortz method) or other moves "in the best interest of baseball" that will chip away at MASN. This business arrangement is not sustainable, it's not a question of MASN living in perpetuity, it's only a question of when and how it dies.

I would want to see the contract and see if the "Bortz method" rolls with changes over time or is frozen as of the date of the settlement. I'd be surprised if Angelos would sign onto a method that gave someone else the power to change it.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #1173 on:** September 25, 2014, 01:10:16 pm »

Quote from: JCA-CrystalCity on September 25, 2014, 11:22:58 am

they gave him too sweet of a deal, which is what a number of posters here say, realized it was depressing the price, and made the promise to get the price up.

Thing I don't get is that the Lerners have lawyers and could have figured out the terms themselves if it was so lock-solid. I doubt a promise alone would be enough to command a bidding war.

it depends on what form the promise takes- if it's explicit enough (i doubt it would be, but knowing the arrogance of sports leagues, who knows), this may end up being MLB's problem not the nats or the Os

Traded For Mclain · « **Reply #1174 on:** September 25, 2014, 04:26:49 pm »

Quote from: JCA-CrystalCity on September 25, 2014, 01:02:51 pm

I would want to see the contract and see if the "Bortz method" rolls with changes over time or is frozen as of the date of the settlement. I'd be surprised if Angelos would sign onto a method that gave someone else the power to change it.

My understanding is it only refers to the Bortz method indirectly (read this somewhere). It specifies the formula is consistent with those used for "revenue sharing" which currently happens to be the Bortz method. If the formula for calculating revenue sharing changes, I would think the the Bortz method is out.