Sure, common sense tells us that. Doesn't mean the new regime has to do anything of the sort, and I don't like that they're flat out sending warnings out now. They'll be well in tune with their finances of a team scraping the bottom vs one that requires a high payroll to stay intact/competitive. Whichever seems more "lucrative" may be where they end up. See the Miami Marlins... A team that could currently afford a higher payroll, but has an owner who would rather take his chances with constant rebuilding until they stumble on enough talent to win. (Not a bad business strategy... But crappy for the fans)
Interesting. Astros are the ones trying to pull the plug??? http://mlblogsraymond.mlblogs.com/2013/09/27/astros-tv-situation/
Simple - the Astros have been trying to convince all their fans to yell and scream at the providers to carry the network. Its a PR war, and saying that they need the network to be competitive is designed to get people on their side in the "CSN vs distributors" fight. If they said "oh, we'll be fine without CSN", then people are going to react with "WTF, then go back to FSN and get my teams on TV".
I hope the Rockets split away from the Astros and just keep CSN for themselves for half the subscriber fee. The Astros should just give up and make a deal with The Kube.
This is the Astros forum. They've been riding a car without tires the whole season. This will be a piece of cake.
That's the thing...they didn't file it as a minority partner. The petition was signed by an officer of CSN Bay Area, who claims a $100,000,000 debt. A creditor (or class of creditors) comprising that large a percentage of the debt can file an involuntary petition. This is a little thornier in that the creditor is also an affiliate of one of the partners. Large Chapter 11 cases are complex and contentious already. Add in the fact that this one is involuntary with an affiliate as the petitioning creditor...BOOM. This is going to be bowling shoe ugly.
Not surprising at all. This could take years. CSN Portland has had the Blazers since the 2007-08 season and still doesn't have a major carrier other than Comcast. We're in for a long battle.
Doubtful. I'm willing to bet that the majority of the debt is close to being paid down based on the upgrade of MLB debt a couple months ago.
Seems like a power play by Comcast for control, despite being the smallest partner (they already controlled 50% of the board and the management). People being happy about this are being short-sighted. This is bad for the Astros and Rockets long-term. They should have never gotten into bed with Comcast.
Again, this is what we all "hope" is the case... But it's still conjecture. Their finances are a huge question mark. Sure, they have value with the TV deal. Yes, they have a cushy stadium deal that "should" keep them competitive. However, we also know what the franchise ended up selling for...And that the tv deal was a large part of why the price was that high. We also know that crane went into serious debt to buy the franchise...part of the explanation of why he's spending very little on the major league roster right now. Without a lucrative tv deal, things are very much up in the air on how this franchise spends money in the future. What you said above is exactly happened in Florida/Miami. Team claims they won't be able to make money without a new stadium (even though at one point, they were still making a profit at Joe Robbie). County ponies up public money for a new stadium (a bad deal for the city, from what I've read... In part why the dolphins renovation plan was voted down, and why Houston got the 2016 Super Bowl). Miami appears to spend money the first year in the new stadium... But that all quickly changes at the owners behest. Now, they have no financial reason to continue to tank/have a low payroll other than the owners choice that it's better to be bad, acquire talent, stumble upon success, and start over... Rather than pay to keep things intact or get better.
Agreed. To me, it's a much bigger debacle/dissapointment than the AL move and the suck for talent strategy. They do need $$$ to separate them from being just another team.
Ummm....not likely. This debt is not borne by the ball club. It is borne by a side project that the ball club is a partner in. Also, the Astros own 46% of the network. The attachment to the petition shows over $100,000,000 of outstanding unsecured debt. That is just what the creditors filing the petition are aware of. It will be very interesting to see what the debt is once schedules and statements are filed. The network is in financial distress because it isn't bringing in enough money to pay its ongoing expenses. It's insolvent. A reorganization will allow for an alteration in management in order to right the ship. The judge can do any number of things, including appointing new management to get things in place for profitable operations. In this regard, it's a power play to force the other partners to accept carriage agreements at a lower price that they may be rejecting at present. Unless the parties immediately sit down and start cutting deals, every step along the way will be hotly litigated. This will be a long, messy and contentious process from start to finish. In short, it will be a bumpy ride.
ThanKs for summing that up refman So much for the Astros not being the **** blocker last year as was reported. Jim Crane is on a mission to surpass Bud Adams as the most hated sports team owner in this city's history.
I guess I am confused about the extra $100m of unsecured debt. So are you saying CSN Houston has $100m in unsecured debt? Also, I am an idiot. When I posted I thought you were saying the Astros were going to have to file for chapter 11. You meant CSN Houston. That would make sense because the thread is about CSN Houston. :grin: Also, I made this post awhile back in the Astros being the most profitable team ever thread. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8215251&postcount=74 I was just winging things when I made that post and no one replied to it. Was I completely off base? Btw, if you couldn't clearly tell I am just jumping face first into this conversation with little in depth knowledge. Feel free to correct me or guide me wherever to understand this cluster**** better. I have kind of tried to avoid the Astros since Crane took over and I haven't kept up with all the details.
No...so much for the notion that the voting rights regarding carriage favored the Astros over the others simply because the Astros owned a higher percentage of the partnership...there are 4 folks on the board who make that decision...and 2 of them are appointed by Comcast.
I'm actually going to take the side of the Astros here (Rockets too.) I believe what has happened is that they now realize they are in bed with the devil. A four person board with two appointed by Comcast (NBC) is blocking carriage deals. The reason it is being blocked is because the deal is only viable for NBC at a certain price point, one they never should have expected to receive. The Astros want out because the deal is killing their brand AND they aren't getting paid. Comcast (NBC) has a history of being a bad business partner. They've been forced by federal judges to comply with proper business practices in the past. Now they are trying to strong arm the Astros into staying in this deal because it falls apart if one party leaves.
Agreed - there's also a conflict of interest here. Not negotiating on carriage deals has the potential to drive more customers to Comcast, even more so with Dwight Howard - so there is incentive there for Comcast to not make this work.
^ it works. I know a few people who switched from DTV to Comcast so they can watch the rockets this season.
