So.... are you saying that Les gave up on/or that he and Comcast can still sell rockets proprietary and original media content to other channels and let Comcast and the others black out the rest?? That would make sense..... Let the others feed as they will.... The problem is.. Comcast is a greedy b**** that Willy-nilly charges what ever it thinks it can per month to any costomer and is soon to be sued LIKE Microsoft.
No **** Sherlock. The Astros want to get more money. Everyone on all sides of this deal does. Welcome to Business 101. That says very little to what the fair value would be. Are the Astros simply being greedy and asking for a disproportionate rate, or do they have evidence to substantiate the value they're seeking? Did the Rockets, if the story is true, agree to a lower rate because they believed it was fair, or did they agree to a bad deal simply because they were desperate to have their games televised? The fact that the Astros rejected a deal the Rockets agreed to -- basically, the only fact the story indicates -- answers none of those. Of course, for a mindless simpleton like yourself, I could see how this is a struggle. P.S. I've never once referred to a conspiracy in this thread, so **** off with the "according to you" bull****. Just say whatever you want to say without bringing in loaded words that aren't even accurate. By the way, as for lacking "a shred of evidence", I think your reading comprehension problem is conveniently back. My position on this has been very clear from the outset: I want a deal done, and the best way for it to happen (in my opinion) is to pressure and b**** at both sides. They all have blame. They're all large, greedy businesses that need to be pushed to the middle by whatever means necessary in order to reach a compromise. To that end, from arguably the best media source on the planet for the Rockets: I don't think it gets more clear than that. For starters, that's a lie (on the part of providers). There IS demand. Look at this thread. Look at this website. Plenty of people want this channel. The ratings might not be what they were in contending years, but providers are dramatizing the situation and unwilling to even negotiate on a regular basis. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and pretend they're just upfront and honest about everything. You know, the Refman approach. Even if that's the case, the best way to get their attention and to show them that there IS demand for the games is to call and complain and fill out the petitions. That's exactly what Clutch, who is as informed on this situation as anyone from the media side, recommended as well. Bottom line: if you're watching a large business dispute between several enormous corporations, you're probably pretty naive if you pick a side and believe one is substantially more virtuous than the other. They're all after the same thing and each side needs to be pushed toward the middle compromise. Not that complicated.
I've read some great stuff from Maury Brown, sports and baseball business writer, on regional sports networks lately. I'm trying to find the most recent article from him. He believes that there's a "glass ceiling" on their value and that they're not going to be able to bring in the money they claim they will, because the carriers aren't willing to pay what they're demanding. I'll keep looking for the article, but below is a Q&A transcript where he was asked directly about it: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=981&mode=print&nocache=1356948268 Pete Toms (Ottawa): Hey Maury. Skyrocketing local TV rights fees has been THE baseball biz story in recent years. The increase in fees is due to the cable industry's belief that live sports is the key to staving off "cord-cutting". I think the bubble is soon to burst with MSOs offering less costly "sports free" tiers to their customers (target audience primarily women). In a nutshell, I don't think cable subscribers will continue to absorb the soaring costs of sports channels (RSNs). What do you foresee happening? Maury Brown: Pete, as usual, you’re right on. I don’t know if the glass ceiling has yet hit, but it’s coming. The carriers have to pass much of the costs down to consumers in the way of subscription fees. You start piling these deals on top of each other (and remember, this story is bigger than baseball. See the TWC Sports deal with the Lakers, NCAA conference network deals, etc), and the bubble is bound to burst. The question is, who gets in before it happens? The Phillies have their deal expiring in 2015. While I haven’t heard, it wouldn't surprise me to see them negotiate an extension well in advance. EDIT: Here we go...found the article: http://browse.feedreader.com/c/The_Biz_of_Baseball_Part_of_the_Business_of_Sports_Network/260787867 If there was one storyline for baseball outside the lines that’s picked up steam the last few years, it’s been the explosion of media rights. Starting with the Texas Rangers, and cascading across the Angels, Padres, Astros, and certainly, the Dodgers, a new form of economic disparity has gripped the league through lucrative television rights deals. Its effects have been felt across the free agency landscape. Whether it was the signing of Albert Pujols, Zack Greinke, and Josh Hamilton by the Angels the last two seasons, the “grab almost every warm body” moves the Dodgers have done in this offseason, or moving from being a doormat to contender by the Rangers, TV money has been at the center of how those deals happened. But, I said it before--not once, but twice--and I’ll say it again, these deals aren’t going to be the same for club, and a current deal is an indicator, the glass ceiling on lucrative media rights contracts may have been hit. Today, FOX Sports Media Group completed their purchase of SportsTime Ohio, who is owned by the Cleveland Indians. The deal is reportedly worth an approx. $235 million, and along the way, the Indians could see rights fees jump $10 million annually from $30 million to $40 million. FOX had been in a bidding war with Time Warner Cable. Besides the Indians, SportsTime Ohio also offers Cleveland Browns programming, OHSAA football and basketball playoffs and championships, and Mid-American Conference events. When put up against some of the other deals that have been reached, this one looks more like the “pre-boom” media rights sale we had been seeing. It also shows that you don’t paint media rights deals with the same brush. The Los Angeles area is not Cleveland any more than the Indians are a brand on the same level as the Dodgers, or even the Angels. But, the Astros deal, and to a lesser extent, the Padres deal, might be within closer proximity. The Astros deal is worth approx. $1 billion and sees that split between Comcast SportsNet, the Houston Rockets, and the Astros. The two sports franchises get just over 77 percent ownership in the deal, which gives them ownership equity. The Indians are foregoing ownership equity, taking the $230 million, and are getting a modest rights fee bump, or at least modest by comparison to the rest of the market these days. For the Padres, the deal with FOX Sports is worth between $1-$1.2 billion with $50 million annually and $200 million up-front. The rights deal sees the Padres with a 20 percent ownership equity. So, the scales in baseball, from an economic perspective, are tipping further in favor of the clubs that reached these eye-popping deals. Where the likes of the Red Sox and Yankees used to be the sole focus, the economic disparity issue has bloomed elsewhere. But, with some exceptions, sports TV deals are likely topping out. The reason for the ceiling being hit speaks to a larger more looming issue than just rights deals in MLB, but rather sports league as a whole. There is a cumulative effect going on which render the explosion of media rights fees unsustainable. When you throw in the massive colligate conference sports network deals cropping up, the NFL’s massive rights deals, and regional agreements such as the Lakers with Time Warner Cable, it begins to add up. Where does the money to pay for these lucrative media rights deals come from? Subscribers. And, when you get subscription fees going through the roof, the carriers of the content, and ultimately, consumers begin to make noise. A prime example is Michael Powell, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission who now serves as the chief lobbyist for the cable industry. His comments on the cost of sports programming will send alarms through the industry as he cites consumer protection through the government. "We all ought to wake up and be careful ... so we don't blow this into smithereens at some point and invite the government to do it for you, which I think nobody would be a winner in," Powell said in an interview earlier this month on C-SPAN's "The Communicators." Powell isn’t the only one. In early November, John Malone, the CEO of Liberty Media, which owns DirecTV echoed Powell’s comments saying, "The only way it is going to change in the short run is for government to intervene.” The point being, the costs trickle down to those paying for cable and satellite access at home and in small business. "We’ve got runaway sports rights, runaway sports salaries and what is essentially a high tax on a lot of households that don’t have a lot of interest in sports," Malone said in an interview. "The consumer is really getting squeezed, as is the cable operator." What makes Malone’s comments all the more interesting is that Liberty Media is involved in Major League Baseball. As part of the massive purchase of Time Warner in May of 2007, Liberty Media now owns the Atlanta Braves. The effect within clubs around Major League Baseball is likely pronounced; get media rights deals done before the window of opportunity closes. The Phillies, for example, have their rights deal expiring in 2015. In the #4 designated media market and nearly 3 million homes to tap, the club could be one of those few potential big deals left that are difference makers. For the Phillies, reaching a deal well in advance of 2015 might be prudent. The bottom line is, don’t expect too many more of these massive deals to be reached. Whether pressure from carriers, consumers, or worse, the government, cracks in the glass ceiling are becoming more obvious.
I am astonished that apparently NOBODY saw this state of affairs coming when the CSN was announced. From the start is was apparent to me that this was a naked money grab on the part of the Rockets and AL Asstros. I believe that Clutch hit the nail squarely on the head when he posted the following: From Clutch: I used to think that was just giving CSN more money, but that's not it. Those providers are not even willing to sit down to negotiate... and they won't unless there is a demand. My understanding is DirecTV and others are acting like there's no demand, thus they're not even willing to negotiate for it.
Of course it's a money grab. These are businessess with real investors who've put real money in. Of course they are going to seek more money...to benefit the bottom line. Everyone here recognized that...far more than the NOBODY you reference in your post.
I've just given up. We're now eating our own in this thread and it's turned into a train wreck of insults and one upping.
So I called UVerse and got a discount, but they also said something like "Comcast has reached a temporary deal to allow streaming of the games online". I assume this is just bull**** but anyone else hear this?
I was looking at changing to Dish today, and I noticed that Comcast Sports is included in their "Multi-Sports Package" for an additional 9.99 per month. Did anyone else see this? Please check it out to see if the Rocket Games are included.
They are CSN channels from other regions of the country, and with Dish, not even in HD. Anytime there's a game on one of them, it'll be blacked. If/when CSNHouston gets picked up, you'd probably get it without having to buy the Multi-Sports Package - If you live in the CSNHouston broadcast area. If you live outside of the broadcast area, then you'd have to buy the Multi-Sports Package, but all the games would be blacked out.
Max, the NOBODY I referred to were those who did not foresee the current state of events happening. Virtually no one here believed or chose to believe that the games would end up being unavailable for the majority of local Rockets fans this deep into the season. When I saw what CSN was asking to carry the games, it was my fear that something like this would come about. I personally think it F'ng sucks and shows a tremendous disrespect to the very people they (Rockets & Asstros) are looking to buy and support their product. It's as if they have a drug pusher's attitude to the fans - one that says they can behave in any manner they see fit because said fans are so hooked and whipped that they will continue swallow whatever BS they choose to shove down their throats.
may be for nothing but uverse has added a channel in the middle of all the sports channels but have not labeled it yet. I am praying this is a sign.
No apology necessary Max. We go too far back on this BBS. EVERYONE (well, ALMOST everyone - some folks here do have Comcast) posting here is pissed off, fed up and GD mad and I don't fault them one iota. And the thing that really sticks in my craw is that the Rockets and Asstros don't give one rat's a$$ about how anyone around here feels. Now, I need Clutch or Batman or Solid or DaDakota or somebody to explain to me how treating the most loyal and fervent part of your fanbase like the droppings of large farm animals is the perfect way to not only endear your respective franchises to said fanbase but will actually benefit them in the long run.
Every upcoming tip off is a reminder to us all of why we hate the Lastros and their pitiful, thankless existence.
