Author Topic: The Nats are...For Sale?!?  (Read 25257 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Senatorswin

  • Posts: 1647
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #750: January 31, 2023, 04:36:05 PM »
I’ll point back to the Post as I recall putting out interestingly-timed cautionary stories for Warner on the bonds right at the critical juncture, which I think played to Warner not wanting anything attached to him leading into his pursuits of further office. The problem was that had he signaled that it was an issue at any previous time, Virginia’s state-established stadium authorityreportedly had other options for pivoting, which resurfaced during the whole lease negotiation issues first and early 2005 and then later in 2006 (when Kaine was governor).

Why I don’t see him as a hero is because he didn’t have the pull that appeared to have been portrayed, which led to compromises and deals with the likes of Evans who could’ve very easily gotten a ballpark at the RFK stadium site which could’ve help keep the team viable rather than this shoehorned Metro-dependent ballpark width a litany of issues as far as viability that would not have been faster than RFK Stadium site. Case in point was the ridiculous claims that the RFK Stadium site could not be used because of national park service and contamination issues, yet the second they were bidding for the Redskins, it suddenly went back on the table.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080129171813/http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2008/1/23/ChiSox-owner-Nats-new-site-was-a-mistake

“Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, who was intimately involved with selecting Washington as a baseball city, had some second-guessing to do Tuesday on where the team will be located.

“Speaking at George Washington University, Reinsdorf recalled how Commissioner Bud Selig asked him and a group of other owners to select a city to relocate the Montreal Expos. “Whatever you do, don’t give me Washington,” he said Selig told him.

“That’s exactly what they did, although Reinsdorf said the decision had “nothing to do with my love for D.C.” (he got his bachelor’s degree from G.W. in the ’50s) but was “strictly business.

“Nevertheless, he said he preferred Northern Virginia over downtown due to its “better fan base.” Then he told the crowd, which included Nats principal owner Mark Lerner, that he “would have requested a different location” in the city.

““We were sold on the idea that there would be enough parking,” he said. “I’m afraid that’s not the case. I would have insisted on [the RFK site].””

I think if Warner had agreed to build the stadium as Williams did they absolutely would of picked Northern Virginia over DC. But MLB wanted the stadium paid for by the city because they didn't want to set a precedent of MLB paying for the stadium.

I think the only way the stadium went through was the sell that it would greatly help in the revitalization of that area which was a toilet at the time.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #751: February 07, 2023, 08:12:14 PM »
LAC 8)

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 62944
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #752: February 07, 2023, 08:26:56 PM »
I guess we can locl this now . . . ?

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 62944
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #753: March 29, 2023, 05:28:14 PM »
https://twitter.com/sbj/status/1641107794580439043

Quote
According to sources, the
@Nationals
 sale process has officially been paused.

The Lerner family had hoped for a league-record sale price, surpassing $2.4B.

:lmao:

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39014
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession

Offline IanRubbish

  • Posts: 444
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #755: March 29, 2023, 05:45:04 PM »
Worse news than the Cavalli injury.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 17634
  • babble on
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #756: March 29, 2023, 06:08:10 PM »
"Welcome to Depreciation Field at Navy Yard!"

Online imref

  • Posts: 42091
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #757: March 29, 2023, 11:55:16 PM »
I wonder if Lerner received offers with deferred money?  Maybe Philly ends up buying the team?

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25451
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #758: March 30, 2023, 07:08:00 AM »
This really is terrible news.  Although not unexpected.  Did they really think they would get that much having sold off the stars and the MASN deal unresolved?  And throw in deferred money owed and shootings near the park.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21557
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #759: March 30, 2023, 07:34:47 AM »
So now we have a disinterested ownership group unable to sell? Awesome

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 62944
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #760: March 30, 2023, 07:39:32 AM »
Yea, the question is now what? Seems pretty obvious that Ted Lerner was the driving force behind spending and attempting to win.

Hope everyone enjoyed 2019 ...

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 22268
  • Let's drink a few for Mathguy.
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #761: March 30, 2023, 08:01:15 AM »
Ugh.

Online imref

  • Posts: 42091
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #762: March 30, 2023, 08:19:10 AM »
until the MASN issue is settled (if it ever is) there's no way to value this team, thus no way to sell unless the Lerners are willing to take a lowball deal.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21557
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #763: March 30, 2023, 08:44:51 AM »
until the MASN issue is settled (if it ever is) there's no way to value this team, thus no way to sell unless the Lerners are willing to take a lowball deal.

That's why I was surprised that they were selling in the first place

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5675
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #764: March 30, 2023, 10:12:46 AM »
until the MASN issue is settled (if it ever is) there's no way to value this team, thus no way to sell unless the Lerners are willing to take a lowball deal.


It's telling that the Nats lawyers didn't seem like they were pushing for any "money owed" and would much rather just see the MASN deal torn apart. The Orioles must be making a good deal of money from Nats TV rights.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21557
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #765: March 30, 2023, 10:36:21 AM »
until the MASN issue is settled (if it ever is) there's no way to value this team, thus no way to sell unless the Lerners are willing to take a lowball deal.

There is no settling it. MASN owns the nats rights and has to pay them based on vague language an amount that resets regularly. There is no reason to think that there won't be litigation at every reset.

Online imref

  • Posts: 42091
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #766: March 30, 2023, 12:04:54 PM »
There is no settling it. MASN owns the nats rights and has to pay them based on vague language an amount that resets regularly. There is no reason to think that there won't be litigation at every reset.

the only thing that would end it is if the Angelos family decides to sell the O's and the league forces them to divest the Nats' rights from MASN to gain league approval for the sale, or if MASN goes bankrupt.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39014
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #767: March 30, 2023, 12:25:51 PM »
If masn has cash flow problems, then the Os might settle by giving the Nats greater freedom in exchange for having to pay back money. Of course, the Lerners would want to dollarize any litigation outcome either by collecting from Angelos/masn or making it up in sale price. I could see Masn collecting a % of any new Nats broadcast deal in exchange for the Nats getting their rights back. A 10-15% skim would be a good kicker towards the Os via Masn.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25451
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #768: March 30, 2023, 12:50:21 PM »
the only thing that would end it is if the Angelos family decides to sell the O's and the league forces them to divest the Nats' rights from MASN to gain league approval for the sale, or if MASN goes bankrupt.
No one will want to buy them with it unsettled. Too much potential liability. So to me that is the only hope of bringing the Angelos family to the table.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 5023
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #769: March 30, 2023, 01:00:28 PM »
Way back around 2011-12, there was a settlement offer from the Os that started low (around $40-50 million) but escalated to 100 million by end of 20 years.

The Nats should have obviously taken that deal.   On the surface it might have sounded like a bad deal with big tv contracts being signed all over the place, but it was easy to see RSNs were going to be a bubble and I'd guess there was some short sighted greed mixed in with some pride and stubborness that kept them from taking that.

They could still easily work out a settlement that just paid the Nats something like 40% of the revenue with no ownership stake and everyone could move on.

Freeing themselves from MASN without much backpay would be a bit of a disaster for the Nats.   There is 100s of millions of unsettled money from the past decade they should get, and if they get out of MASN, they have nothing but Leonsis's channel left to go to.    It's probably worth something to Leonsis, but it would be tough for him to monetize adding the Nats to the point where they would be willing to pay more than 20-30 million and that might be a stretch.   

The ufortunate truth is, at least for the short/mid term, MASN brings in exponentionally more revenue with carriage agreements in place, than anywhere else the Nats could go.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5675
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #770: March 30, 2023, 03:39:53 PM »
Way back around 2011-12, there was a settlement offer from the Os that started low (around $40-50 million) but escalated to 100 million by end of 20 years.

The Nats should have obviously taken that deal.   On the surface it might have sounded like a bad deal with big tv contracts being signed all over the place, but it was easy to see RSNs were going to be a bubble and I'd guess there was some short sighted greed mixed in with some pride and stubborness that kept them from taking that.

They could still easily work out a settlement that just paid the Nats something like 40% of the revenue with no ownership stake and everyone could move on.

Freeing themselves from MASN without much backpay would be a bit of a disaster for the Nats.   There is 100s of millions of unsettled money from the past decade they should get, and if they get out of MASN, they have nothing but Leonsis's channel left to go to.    It's probably worth something to Leonsis, but it would be tough for him to monetize adding the Nats to the point where they would be willing to pay more than 20-30 million and that might be a stretch.   

The ufortunate truth is, at least for the short/mid term, MASN brings in exponentionally more revenue with carriage agreements in place, than anywhere else the Nats could go.


The thing is we all know the top bidder is Leonsis, and he would absolutely want the Nats under his network. I think the Nats would settle for no back pay if they could get out of the MASN deal and sell the team for closer to their asking price to Leonsis.

Offline catocony

  • Posts: 739
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #771: March 30, 2023, 04:46:06 PM »
A couple of things:

1) Is MLB still paying/loaning the Nats what everyone but Angelos feels is a fair sum on the usage rights?  That all of the back money is, in a way, owed to MLB and not the Nats?

2) A fair solution would be for MLB to allow Leonsis or whoever to buy both the Orioles and Nats, then transfer full rights to the Nats, and then sell off whichever team they want.  Or MLB buys both teams. 

What was the exact mechanism on the ownership trade with the Marlins and Expos back in the day?  MLB bought the Expos from Loria, then John Henry sold Loria the Marlins, then John Henry bought the Red Sox? 

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11473
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #772: March 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM »
I was a pretty big Lerner defender, but obviously they're over this franchise and ready to move on. COVID-19 hit Lerner Enterprises hard and they're obviously and understandably angry about MASN.

There's no positive way out of this situation.

They should give Rizzo and Martinez 1-year extensions through next season so they can have some reason to care about the long term health of the franchise.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21557
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #773: March 30, 2023, 05:18:01 PM »
A couple of things:

1) Is MLB still paying/loaning the Nats what everyone but Angelos feels is a fair sum on the usage rights?  That all of the back money is, in a way, owed to MLB and not the Nats?

2) A fair solution would be for MLB to allow Leonsis or whoever to buy both the Orioles and Nats, then transfer full rights to the Nats, and then sell off whichever team they want.  Or MLB buys both teams. 

What was the exact mechanism on the ownership trade with the Marlins and Expos back in the day?  MLB bought the Expos from Loria, then John Henry sold Loria the Marlins, then John Henry bought the Red Sox? 

The problem is that it’s nearly impossible to value the Nats or the Os at this point

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39014
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: The Nats are...For Sale?!?
« Reply #774: March 30, 2023, 05:19:20 PM »
I was a pretty big Lerner defender, but obviously they're over this franchise and ready to move on. COVID-19 hit Lerner Enterprises hard and they're obviously and understandably angry about MASN.

There's no positive way out of this situation.

They should give Rizzo and Martinez 1-year extensions through next season so they can have some reason to care about the long term health of the franchise.
tbh, for the amount of money Rizzo and Martinez would command for longer commitments, it would not hurt the club if they each were given 3 year extensions. New folks can fire them anyway, but it combined I don't think they make $5 million a year.