Dec 14, 2012, 11:02 AM EST
The Nationals and Orioles have had a longstanding dispute over cable rights fees. Both teams have deals with MASN, but Peter Angelos owns MASN, and he and the network have been fighting with the Nats, who claim that they are getting less money for their broadcast rights than they deserve.
So far negotiations haven’t gone anywhere, but Major League Baseball may have a solution:
Major League Baseball has asked a private investment bank to seek potential new owners for the rights that are now held by the regional sports network controlled by Orioles owner Peter Angelos. Allen & Co., a New York-based investment bank, is seeking buyers to acquire the two franchises’ broadcast rights from the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.
And once they had them, they’d set up a new Nats-only network.
All of this, by the way, is the result of the dealmaking that MLB did with Peter Angelos when they moved the Nationals into the Orioles’ territory, so it makes sense that MLB step in and try to solve this rather than sit back and take its usual passive approach.
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 64
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 22
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Trea Turner’s agent is unhappy his client is in limbo after trade to Nationals 48
- Nexen Heroes accept Jung-Ho Kang posting fee from unidentified MLB team 37
- Giants acquire Casey McGehee from the Marlins 16
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- The United States will seek to normalize relations with Cuba (144)
- Rays, Padres, Nationals agree to 11-player trade (97)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)