New court filings for
MASN's ongoing media-rights battle against MLB and the Nationals show the net has taken particular aim at a $25M advance MLB made to the Nationals in August ’13. The advance, to be repaid by the Nationals after a ruling in the case by MLB’s Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee, had been previously disclosed. And in prior court filings with the N.Y. Supreme Court, MLB described the advance as a necessary step to aid settlement discussions between the parties. But in the new documents,
MASN argues the advance represents further evidence of a tainted RSDC process that ruled in favor of the Nationals. The Orioles-controlled RSN said the advance also presents another reason why its bid to conduct discovery into the RSDC’s decision-making and MLB Commissioner-elect Rob Manfred’s role in it should be granted. “MLB had a vested financial interest in the arbitration’s outcome,”
MASN’s filing reads in part. “MLB acquired a direct financial stake in the award and with it a powerful incentive to ensure that the RSDC would return an award more favorable to the Nationals.” The RSDC earlier this year ruled to increase the Nationals’ annual rights fee payments from $41M to about $60M, a ruling
MASN is now seeking to have vacated and for the duration of the legal case is enjoined from taking effect.
TERMS OF ADVANCE SPELLED OUT: MASN as part of its latest filings also submitted a previously undisclosed document between Manfred and Nationals partner Ed Cohen laying out the specific terms of the advance. The agreement, dated Aug. 23, 2013 and 10 months before the RSDC ruling was formally issued, mandates that the league must first be paid back from any RSDC ruling or sale of the RSN, along with associated interest costs, before the Nationals keep any money. The agreement also makes reference to a potential “Comcast transaction,” as at the time, the parties were discussing a possible deal in which the Comcast-owned NBC Sports Group would buy the broadcast rights to the Orioles and Nationals. That transaction ultimately did not happen. MASN also sought to rebut MLB’s assertion that Manfred only a played a role akin to a “law clerk” advising the RSDC, and not a more substantive position. “If that is so, they were akin to a law clerk who takes it upon himself to decide which of the parties’ communications and objections to present to the decision-maker in matters where the law clerk has a direct, sizable and undisclosed financial stake in the outcome,” the filing reads. “However MLB chooses to frame its role -- administrator, counsel or law clerk -- discovery is need to nail down MLB’s actual conduct and prevent MLB from changing its story any further.” The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the discovery request on Dec. 15, with full oral arguments in the case slated for March 2.
