So, if Judge Hughes tosses it out of bankruptcy court, does Comcast get to appeal that decision? If they liquidate the Network and distribute the proceeds from the auction to the creditors, that is fair. If the Network blows up with the case getting tossed out of BK court, how do creditors get paid?
How is wondering where the 80 million AVERAGE is coming from nitpicking? If they are being paid nothing or next to nothing of the carriage fees, then that is irrelevant. Try to keep up as well. When a team is presented nothing but bad deal(s), according to the judge in the case, how is that team expected to make a deal with the entity proposing those bad deal(s)? When a team is not being paid their fees, regardless of what they are, how is seeking to get out of that deal the teams fault? We get it, you hate Crane and even when he's right, he's wrong. Believe it or not, I have no feelings towards Crane one way or the other. With respect to the team, the strategy that he approved is to build up from the minor leagues and start spending big money when appropriate. We'll see what happens when that time comes. Right now there are glimpses of hope, especially with respect to the starting pitching they are getting and the apparent pitching strength int he minors.
All you do is nitpick... I explained why the team didn't get paid. The Judge also said Crane was only looking out of his own interests. DTV just told you that he is still delusional in his asking price. I think it's appropriate for the team to get better at the MLB level not stay spectacularly bad. That time has come. That doesn't help sell the Network if fans don't want to watch a dormat team year after year.
In a liquidation, creditors don't necessarily get paid...or if they do, it's pennies on the dollar. Secured creditors are obviously in the best shape, and a lot of times after they seize what's theirs, there isn't anything left for other creditors. I'm not sure about the answer to your first question, but I would certainly assume that Comcast has a right to appeal that.
Weren't there verified 20 year loss projections at the previous hearings? Verified by all parties, including Comcast? Over $100-200 million dollar losses based on full coverage at the one offer that was actually made? The Astros get media rights money, but as part owners also have to pay for the network... so in the end, if the network isn't making a profit, there's always the chance that they can't afford to pay the rights fees (as is the case now). What's in contention right now is the stipulation of the contract that if the network is not financially viable enough to pay the rights fees, that the partners would then be allowed to dissolve their interest... and take back their rights fees. The Astros were blocked from doing that by the BK filing. Hell, the Rockets sounded as if they were sick about not getting any rights fees payments and would likely have taken back their siding with comcast had they know no buyout was forthcoming. So in the long run, the losses have been projected, and "guaranteed" rights fees are anything of the sort.
So, you don't understand the basic principles of a business partnership. That explains your thoughts on the subject.
