That's not a good thing. Sort of helps make his point. Crane definitely can't afford years of losses... but we all know the Astros aren't losing money as is. Now, take away a tv deal, but leave the inflated debt that was based originally on having said tv deal in place... and we have a big problem.
I think he is the one guaranteeing the debt. I know that doesn't make him the sole owner, but he has the most at risk.
If this is true, he has exercised horrible judgment. If it is determined that CSN Houston cannot survive and the bankruptcy is converted to a Chapter 7 and all these debts get discharged, then Crane would be solely liable for another $100,000,000 in debt. This cannot possibly be the case.
That's not surprising - local TV revenues are simply a bigger piece of the pie for MLB teams than NBA teams, so maximizing it would be more important for the Astros. I think the bigger question is what Comcast is pushing for.
Interested to see what the court does with the fact that one of the partners to the partnership is also the creditor of the partnership that threw the partnership into bankruptcy to begin with.
I wouldn't expect them to side with anyone. I would expect for them to pursue their own best interests like every other corporation. They need to get their product on the air for sure.
I think he means debt incurred for the purchase of the team...not the debts of CSN Houston. But I doubt he guaranteed any debt from the purchase above and beyond his ownership share.
I think as a part of the purchase the Astros assumed 300 million in debt. That was over the new rules/guidlines set by MLB following the Dodgers misfortune. If you stacked another 50 million on top of that, things could get interesting. No wonder they are keeping their revenue as high as possible. A year of losses would likely make them insolvent.
Not exactly. The petition was signed by an officer of CSN Bay Area. CSN Houston owes several of the other CSN networks for various production services. Are they related to one of the partners? Yes. Are they an insider? Arguable. Are they the same entity? I think the answer is no. Never less, it will be interesting to see what Judge Isgur does with this. He is a very fair, no nonsense kind of judge and he will expect the parties to explain how their position comports with the statute, rules and case law.
Yeah, I said in previous posts it's an affiliate of CSN Houston. No question they're not the same entity....but, hell, Comcast is flat out saying they filed to break up a partnership logjam. If that's the goal, then this isn't at all a traditional creditor (or group of creditors) throwing a debtor into bankruptcy just because they want to get some cash. Seem pretty obvious that there's an insider relationship driving this. In addition to statute, rules and case law..i'm guessing the Astros (and maybe the Rockets) will be pointing to their company agreement regarding what it takes to file BK...and arguing that this is just Comcast seeking to usurp that agreement through an affiliate. I just have a difficult time imagining that CSN Bay Area just all of a sudden did this out of the blue without some sort of insider status with the Comcast partner of CSN Houston.
Its the best station Houston has ever had to showcase its teams (and Houston sports, in general). I know everybody is pissed about the lack of carriage... but the channel itself presents itself quite well. Certainly better than FSN-Dallas did.
For everyone dissing the CSNH content, is it because you don't have it? That **** is good. I hate comcast with a passion, that I actually miss Time Warner.
Les and crane are obviously capable businessmen. so how do you screw up a situation in a company you own and you are its largest supplier. How much is it for directtv to add a station? Direct charges 1200 a year for 200 stations. that is six dollars a station times half amillion customers. that is three million. Is it that cheap for direct to buy a station. how much money are they haggling over to miss out on tons of advertisement revenue. i just dont understand it
What I've been told is that a major issue was that McClain got the bonus of signing the deal and Crane got nothing so he has been trying to run a tight bargain.
Perhaps. McClain also sold a franchise that ended up being worth more than anybody thought it would because it had a huge (fake) "TV-Deal". He now has all that money, while Crane was desperate to buy a baseball team that he would do anything. He agreed to the AL move for a kickback, sold off advertising space to obstruct views for some extra cash, and now is in danger of losing the one thing he cannot afford to lose... said tv deal that keeps the franchise somewhat competitive in terms of its finances (and overall worth).
guys look on the bright side -- at least you didn't have to watch the Astros lose 15 straight to end the year!
