WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact

[mitlen]

Like when there's a natural disaster and they're screaming for federal funds to clean it up.

IMHO, there's a difference between a "natural disaster" and building million dollar homes on barrier islands.   I'm cool with helpin' out fellow Americans in their time of need.     However, Ft. Jackson; Shaw AFB; Charleston AFB; Parris Island, etc., all the contractors; related jobs; Corps of Engineer projects; farm subsidies; nuke plants   ....   can all get quite expensive.

[wj73]

I was going to add, disasters frequently caused/exacerbated by weak local and state laws. 

[HalfSmokes]

Flood insurance underwritten by the federal gov. - it's the only feasible way to build on barrier islands otherwise, with private insurers, you'd be pricing in total losses every decade or so making flood insurance impossible

[GburgNatsFan]

So I have an idea....

Flood insurance underwritten by the federal gov. - it's the only feasible way to build on barrier islands otherwise, with private insurers, you'd be pricing in total losses every decade or so making flood insurance impossible

[mitlen]

Flood insurance underwritten by the federal gov. - it's the only feasible way to build on barrier islands otherwise, with private insurers, you'd be pricing in total losses every decade or so making flood insurance impossible

Another way to save money.    Don't underwrite it.

[HalfSmokes]

Another way to save money.    Don't underwrite it.

Florida is both a swing state and utterly dependant on it- it'll get cut the same time ethanol stops being subsidized over Iowa's objection

[mitlen]

Florida is both a swing state and utterly dependant on it- it'll get cut the same time ethanol stops being subsidized over Iowa's objection

I really pissed off the neighbors when I suggested eliminating the mortgage interest deduction.   

[lylelgreen]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2016/06/01/masn-update-mlb-wants-its-panel-to-decide-nationals-tv-rights-again/

MASN update: MLB wants its panel to decide Nationals’ TV rights again

By James Wagner June 1 at 3:46 PM

The dispute between the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network and the Nationals drags on and the legal wrangling continues. According to last week’s New York Supreme Court filings, MLB initiated the process for a new panel hearing for the Nationals’ television rights.

Joseph Shenker, MLB’s attorney, wrote in a May 27 letter to the other attorneys in the case that “absent a judicial order preventing MLB from convening such proceedings, a hearing to determine the Nationals’ and Orioles’ rights fees for the 2012-2016 period will be held” before the new panel beginning the first week of August.

According to a court-filed copy of a May 27 memo from MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred to all teams, the composition of the MLB panel — known as the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee — will change to Brewers owner Mark Attanasio, Mariners President Kevin Mather and Blue Jays President Mark Shapiro.

Earlier this year, the sides tried mediation to figure out a course of action but that failed, according to court filings. In early May, MASN, which is controlled by the Baltimore Orioles, filed a motion to prevent the dispute from being sent back to the MLB panel.

In court filings, the Nationals have sought more than $100 million annually in rights fees from the network. The Orioles and MASN argued they should give $35 million. The Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee ruled in June 2014 that the Nationals should earn about $60 million annually from 2012 to 2016. In November 2015, a New York Supreme Court judge that tossed out that award, mainly because of questions of conflict of interest involving a law firm that represented MLB, the MLB panel members and the Nationals.

Without a clear direction from the judge, the sides continue arguing over how to handle the disagreement. The sides appealed the judge’s ruling, and MASN wants the dispute heard by an outside arbiter, arguing the MLB process is tainted. MLB has maintained it has resolved any potential conflicts of interest and wants the case heard again by its panel.

[HalfSmokes]

Somehow I think Landis or kuhn would have used the best interests clause to settle this long ago (if nothing else threatening to kick a franchise out of the league would settle it real quick)

[BrandonK]

before the new panel beginning the first week of August.

Just after the trade deadline, of course 

[HalfSmokes]

It's not like whatever decision won't be appealed for the next few years

[BrandonK]

It's not like whatever decision won't be appealed for the next few years

Do we have any lawyers here? The way I read it, if the court allows the panel, it would be a reversal from their previous decision, which could then be appealed, but probably issued a stay pretty quickly?

[phil219]

I am a lawyer,  but hell if I can understand what is going on with this nonsensical clusterf* of epic proportions. Typically only "final" judgments can be appealed, not orders about whether or not to have hearings in the middle of a case. However, requests for injunctive relief (ie. please don't make us go to a hearing, we are mere whiny sissies) might be immediately appealed on an interlocutory basis.

The bottom line is that with two sides to a dispute that are both well funded, this could drag on for infinity. The best way it can be resolved is with a compromise somewhere in the middle. If Angelos doesn't want to compromise, then Lerner should crush him with all impunity.

[BrandonK]

I am a lawyer,  but hell if I can understand what is going on with this nonsensical clusterf* of epic proportions. Typically only "final" judgments can be appealed, not orders about whether or not to have hearings in the middle of a case. However, requests for injunctive relief (ie. please don't make us go to a hearing, we are mere whiny sissies) might be immediately appealed on an interlocutory basis.

The bottom line is that with two sides to a dispute that are both well funded, this could drag on for infinity. The best way it can be resolved is with a compromise somewhere in the middle. If Angelos doesn't want to compromise, then Lerner should crush him with all impunity.

Was the decision to deny the panel's opinion the injunctive relief?

The thing is, even a fair compromise (the $50-$60M suggested originally) could, and probably would, bankrupt MASN. Pete has no choice if he really wants to keep broadcast rights, I think. He should accept a buy-out from the team/league, before the next panel agrees on a higher amount ( & the backpay involved), which would be even more devastating for their crappy channel.

[PowerBoater69]

Somehow I think Landis or kuhn would have used the best interests clause to settle this long ago (if nothing else threatening to kick a franchise out of the league would settle it real quick)

Too late, that would have had to be done before this went to court, the judge isn't giving up jurisdiction now. And Angelos would have sued in any case, so it wouldn't have mattered. Angelos suing MLB was probably inevitable from the day he bought the team.

[PowerBoater69]

It's not like whatever decision won't be appealed for the next few years

Chances are very high that the panel will come to the same decision (they sure won't give Angelos money and they don't want to give the judge reason to review their findings again), then the Os will refuse to pay, the Nats will demand payment and declare MASN in default, leading to MASN filing for another stay of the arbitration panel's decision while they appeal. The difference is that the judge is unlikely to grant the stay as the Nats have complied with his instructions. So Angelos will be forced to pay up rather than forfeiting his hold on the Nats TV rights. The end is in sight for the 2012 reset.

[PowerBoater69]

Was the decision to deny the panel's opinion the injunctive relief?

The thing is, even a fair compromise (the $50-$60M suggested originally) could, and probably would, bankrupt MASN. Pete has no choice if he really wants to keep broadcast rights, I think. He should accept a buy-out from the team/league, before the next panel agrees on a higher amount ( & the backpay involved), which would be even more devastating for their crappy channel.

Nope, the arbitration panel picked the highest possible rights fees that will not bankrupt MASN. The teams will receive nearly equal shares and MASN will have a higher incentive to improve profitability.

[OldChelsea]

According to an old edition of the Guinness Book of World Records, the longest litigation in history was one in India, over the right of precedence at certain festivals, which was settled sometime in the mid-20th century some 700 years after it was originally filed.

I could easily see this case breaking that record.

[BrandonK]

Nope, the arbitration panel picked the highest possible rights fees that will not bankrupt MASN. The teams will receive nearly equal shares and MASN will have a higher incentive to improve profitability.

What are the Nats being paid right now, if they never reset (as they agreed upon when they moved to DC...)?

[PowerBoater69]

What are the Nats being paid right now, if they never reset (as they agreed upon when they moved to DC...)?

The Nats are receiving the $35 million (and rising) per year as proposed by MASN, plus a one time loan from MLB for $25 million. Plus the Nats are receiving about ten million per year in profit sharing. MLB gets a third of the rights fees and none of the profit sharing. The Os get over 80% of the profits. Under the arbitration decision profits will drop from 20% to 5%.

Once this decision is finalized the accountants will need to determine the new profit shares per year after the higher rights fees.

[HalfSmokes]

Too late, that would have had to be done before this went to court, the judge isn't giving up jurisdiction now. And Angelos would have sued in any case, so it wouldn't have mattered. Angelos suing MLB was probably inevitable from the day he bought the team.

The Os aren't a party to the case

[HalfSmokes]

The Nats are receiving the $35 million (and rising) per year as proposed by MASN, plus a one time loan from MLB for $25 million. Plus the Nats are receiving about ten million per year in profit sharing. MLB gets a third of the rights fees and none of the profit sharing. The Os get over 80% of the profits. Under the arbitration decision profits will drop from 20% to 5%.

Once this decision is finalized the accountants will need to determine the new profit shares per year after the higher rights fees.

Once this is decided, they get to file for the next time period (this one is for fees ending in 2016). Still hoping the interest on this ruling kills masn

[PowerBoater69]

The Os aren't a party to the case

They are, they are listed as a party to the case in every filing.

[PowerBoater69]

Once this is decided, they get to file for the next time period (this one is for fees ending in 2016). Still hoping the interest on this ruling kills masn

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.

[HalfSmokes]

They are, they are listed as a party to the case in every filing.

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