I know I could die in a car wreck when I left home this morning. If a drunk driver ran a red light and T-boned me, that would be all my fault since I made the decision to get in my car.
The teams have the majority in the company, they gave up the negotiating rights to Comcast NBC Sportsgroup
You lost me here. Are you saying jumping into a river full of hungry alligators wearing a suit made of raw meat carries the same amount of risk as driving to work in the morning? My point is there was an obvious risk of this stalemate happening (the risk was much higher than getting hit by a drunk driver on the way to work, btw). All they had to do was look at the Portland situation to see that there was a very good chance of it happening. Portland scrapped FSN and went with CSN 6 years ago just like the Rockets have now done. And it's now been 6 years since satellite subscribers have been able to watch Blazer games. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist (play on words) to figure out that there is a very good chance of it happening here too, seeing as how similar the situations are. How could the Rockets have missed this before they made the deal? Either a) they were totally oblivious to the Portland situation (highly unlikely) or 2) it was a risk they were willing to take. The 2nd scenario leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, frankly.
It's really not.That is what is being rumored that DTV is paying for the two Lakers channels.The huge difference is that we aren't the Lakers and don't have anywhere close to the amount of viewers.Sure we have the Stro's viewers but still we don't even come close to those numbers.For one of our recent game's Nielsen ratings had the Rockets with 21k viewers, while the Lakers avg probably around 500k viewers.So I just have to LMAO when Comcrap boast of their 40% saturation..It would take the Rockets and Stro's several years to equal the viewers the Lakers have in one,but yet they demand the same money ...GTFO is what I'd be telling them..yea guy's don't hold your breath on this ending soon,unless they lower that price significantly. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/media-...gional-sports-networks-055958150--sector.html
No, I'm saying it's silly to put this all on the Rockets when you aren't at the negotiating table with them and the providers. Of course they knew this would be a possibility, but for every Portland case, there are those that either don't have any missed games for the fans or have minimal missed games. The six-year thing definitely isn't the norm. I think, knowing how these negoiations work seeing as it is not just sports-related, that it's silly to think the Rockets/Astros shouldn't do soemthing that would benefit both franchises financially (not meaning lining Les and Jim's pockets with cash, I mean that the franchises can use to improve) because there's a risk that some games would be missed. Why give all that leverage to the providers.
It's not $3.4 optional per viewer who wants to pay, it's mandatory compensation that Comcast wants per every subscriber (or so I think).
Yes and also within a specific area that I imagine could also be up for a lot of negotiation.A provider like Dish may have a certain # of viewers in the Houston area,maybe 500k for example but if you expand that out to what the NBA considers blackout territory,well it would greatly increase. Also there are millions at stake depending on what tier it's placed on..Dish, for example ,would prefer it to be on something like the top 250.That way people that want the Rockets have to upgrade,they also pay less subscriber fees to Comcast.Out of that 500k maybe only 100k have the top 250..Comcast though would want the channel to be on even the lowest package and collect the 3.40 from every subscriber in that region.I'm not positive but I'm guessing that may be the deadlock in the Portland negotiations ? I've read that CSN Portland is asking 2$ per.
This. It's every subscriber to the provider, regardless of whether they want or watch Rockets games. There are approximately 370,000 people in the Houston area with DirecTv. If Comcast got the deal they wanted from DTV (3.40 rumored per subscriber per month) they would get $1.26 million per month or approx $15 million per year from DirecTV. Rockets games last year had something like 30,000 viewers. (Based on home opener ratings which is probably generous) That's across all carriers. If 60% of those viewers have something other than Comcast, you are only talking 18,000 viewers. If every single potential Rockets viewer who doesn't have Comcast were to switch in order to watch, those networks would lose about $1.8 million a month if you assume a $100 monthly bill. If you drop it $75, you are talking about $1.35 million. If DTV had doomsday scenario and lost 10,000 subscribers to Comcast over this at $75 a subscriber, that would only be $750,000 a month. Vs $1.26 million they are being asked to pay to get the channel. They'd be better off losing the subscribers. Now let's be real. 100% of potential viewers aren't going to switch. CSN Houston wants too much money from the carriers (if the 3.40 is correct) and they would be silly to pay it.
Listen. Bottom line is, Alexander COULD have made sure this never happened. He COULD have contractually obligated Comcast to guarantee a deal be in place with all local providers before this situation ever even came CLOSE to what it has become. But he didn't. Why? Because it was not particularly in his best interests. His best interests conflict with the fans' best interest. I get that it is a business, and that he owns it and can do what he wants. However, If you just look at the percentages, having several times more viewers, even at a lower per-viewer rate, would have been much more profitable in the long run. It seems clear that it is Comcast's goal to be the single exclusive distributor of Rockets and Astros games. Don't hold your breath that this EVER gets done. As soon as someone figures out a way to stream a good HD version of the games, we can wash our hands of these clowns once and for all.
So what do the crowds at TC look like this year? Is it pretty empty? I ask, because...I haven't seen a game and I keep turning down my suite tix until this gets resolved. Turning down tomorrow nights Laker game hurt, too.
I am a total sucker for the Rockets and I'll give in to Comcast if needed to get the Rockets. Right now I'm finishing my Masters in Austin (using League Pass). When I move to Houston, if this is not resolved, I will get Comcast. They are a total pain to buy cable from, but I have to go to whoever airs the Rockets.
Inside Les Alexander's head: "TV doesn't even generate enough revenue to pay Royce White's salary. Who cares if I lose a few thousand TV fans?"
http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2012/11/29/3703232/thursdays-three-astros-things This talks about CSN from the baseball perspective, but you can assume similar numbers for the Rockets. When you see that the Astros alone are getting $80M a year, you see where The problem lies. As stated in another post, they are only getting $15M from subscribers so there is a lot of ground to make up from advertisers. Of course, the more people who see your product, the more you can charge. But I'm sure CSN has people crunching numbers to know where the value lies. Either way, it appears the teams have their money and are out of the equation. It's up to Comcast to figure out a way to maximize revenue now.
What are you talking about The Rockets and Astro's have a 3.2 BILLION dollar deal in place ... um ... I'm no mathmatician but I'm sure that the Rockets portion will cover Royce White's welfare check
If Les would have demanded that....we'd still be in this situation, because upon hearing that info, ATT/DTV/Dish would have had Comcast by the balls, telling them they want the channel for free. All of these companies are terrible, and want all for nothing, all the while charging us an inflated price. Comcast historically is a horrid company, so they're easiest to blame, but every one of these companies deserve blame.
