Probably not. But we do know that Comcast was once interested in buying the network as the above statement indicates. They now don't seem to be, and it will simply be a matter of time before the network is dissolved. The main issue I see is that this is the same result that "could" have happened before all the filings, hearings, trials, etc... And it cost this city the entire Rockets season because of it. Without the most likely bailout partner having interest, I don't see much other feasible solutions that keeps the network intact.
That's a hell of a spin job. How convenient that you left out first owner to take the team to the World Series, 7 playoff appearances in 10 years, etc. Drayton's last fiveish years was horrible--there's no arguing that. His exit was equally bad. But blaming him solely for the AL travesty is just silly, and saying his tenure was worse that those of the Ford Motor Credit company, or Butt Adams, whose team was a laughingstock for most of his tenure, strongarmed the city into going further into debt on the 'Dome, then left anyway? Come on, man. And yes, the whole Comcast thing--if the way it's being represented is accurate--is also horrible. But I'll still take Drayton over Adams. At least the Astros are still *here*.
This is the key issue. CSN-H is fatally flawed and it *appears* that Comcast is finally realizing that. Comcast is the one that has insisted that it's a viable network with value worth saving, and now they are indicating there is no price they are willing to pay for it. That suggests they are finalizing realizing the whole thing is a piece of crap. There's still potential for an outsider like DTV to buy it - and if they agree to pay the higher rate (if they own 100%, they are paying themselves anyway), then Comcast is locked in and stuck at the $3.50 rate despite their MFN, so that may be a route to save it. But as of now, the primary way CSN-H was supposed to get saved seems to have been closed out. Comcast and the Rockets keep insisting there's a way to make this work, but when asked to propose an actual solution, not surprisingly, no one seems capable of coming up with one.
Comcast buying the network would remove the fatal flaw. Granted, it would have other problems if Comcast bought it like having bad blood between them, the Astros, and MLB.
Or, like the Astros statement says above, "Their priorities have shifted..." With the pending merger, which would have them inheriting the mess in LA (a much bigger issue for them to resolve), along with the growing trend of providers taking a hard stance on adding sports networks, Comcast may have finally just said "to hell with it" regarding future new sports network negotiations. Hell, like I posted earlier, Comcast is focusing more on theme parks now.
Again, my only thought is this is to help finalize their bankruptcy cause, to counter Crane's talk that they should come in and buy it out.
That wasn't just Crane's talk though. Comcast was saying that in their initial pleadings...they've represented to the Court on more than one occasion that they were planning on making an offer to do that.
I don't know. This has been the most surprising development to me. Comcast had offered the Astros $185M to buy them out last year. Comcast has seemingly been all for a buyout, until now. Maybe Crane's public comments are a contributor. It should now be clear to the court that there is no chance of these parties are able to solve their problems on their own.
And the Rockets have opposed having a trustee appointed, as well. This is beyond crazy at this point. I can't see the value in maintaining this proceeding. I understood the order appointing the Astros and then the Rockets to lead negotiations to see what they could find...the Rockets came back and said there's nothing out there. So all that was left was Comcast's offer....the only party that was seemingly interested in gobbling up the assets and moving on. Now that they're not, I do not get how it is a good idea to let this thing wander on through BK. FWIW, my best guess at what's going to happen next....Comcast is going to ask to have a trustee appointed (or re-urge the issue). The Rockets and Astros are going to oppose that. I have no idea what the judge does with that. What a mess.
Isn't the reason the judge denied the trustee because the Astros would be able to re-acquire media rights? If I'm remembering this correctly, the Astros would be for a trustee.
It was already finalized... and heading to BK reorganization regardless per the previous judge's decree, which was spear-headed by Comcast. Part of that reorganization could have been to explore options for a buyout, and have Comcast be the sole owner/operator of the network. Now, that option is off the table. Like I said earlier, I don't see a helluva lot of options left that keeps the network "profitable", which is the purpose of going through the entire BK proceedings. Even a Comcast buyout likely doesn't make the network profitable right away, but they were the sole entity that could withstand the $100 million losses projected of a network with limited coverage (and the possibility existed that their footprint expanded based on the merger). Astros/Rockets will fight trustees, media rights re-assignings, and future "bad" deals as long as they can.
Not how I recall it. Astros didn't want a trustee, but Comcast did. Judge wanted to allow the parties to work through the bankruptcy on their own if possible. Then there were legal questions about a trustee being able to assign the media rights of the teams.
You've got that backwards. Comcast dropped their request to have a trustee appointed. Isgur had pretty much told them it wasn't gonna happen but they were free to take a shot at persuading him. A trustee would have had the power to make network decisions over the objections of any of the partners, such as agreeing to carriage deals that would have otherwise been vetoed. The appointment of a trustee would be worst case scenario to the Astros.
No. The opposite. The concern is that a trustee would be appointed who would then be able to assign those media rights away...the Astros (and every other pro sports franchise in the nation) do not want that to happen...they don't want that precedent set.
I think you are most likely right. Comcast is rescinding their bid to purchase the Network in the event of an auction. Comcast is likely hoping for a reorganization of the business in bankruptcy court. The Rockets and Comcast have both talked about buying out a portion of the Network, neither made a pledge to do so. Either or both still do so at some point. My guess is Crane still wants the moon so no buyout for now. Making an offer and that offer being accepted are 2 different things. We have no idea at this point if an offer was made or that Comcast was given notice of what range an offer should be in and chose to no bid. Happens all the time in business.
Not necessarily - it fixes the fatal flaw of competing interests. But if Comcast buys the whole thing and negotiates lower rates with DTV/etc, it may still be unprofitable. It would work out OK for the Astros and Rockets, but not necessarily for Comcast unless they are willing to operate at a loss, or rely on hopes that it becomes profitable in 10 years. If DTV buys it, they can pay themselves the higher rate (net cost of 0) and keep Comcast at their current rate which substantially increases the revenues closer to the original target levels. Basically, Comcast buying it still leaves CSN-H with only Comcast as a provider unless they lower rates for everyone. DTV buying it would give it two providers at the higher rate.
Will be interested to see the Rockets response today. Their recent correspondence to the bankruptcy attorneys essentially said "The only 2 options we see are that Comcast either needs to loan the network more money or buy us out. We've looked for other options, and they're just not there." They also indicated that Comcast's failure to backstop the network or buy out the teams would make them consider pushing to convert from Ch. 11 to Ch. 7, which would liquidate the network.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Potential reason for Comcast saying it won't buy CSNH: Senate hearings on TW merger begin April 2. This removes CSNH as talking point.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/445938131619942401">March 18, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
