I find it comical that this CSN deal seems to be solely on the astros who haven't been competitive in years
April 2 is going to be the make-or-break date. The peak leverage for the CSN side is when both sports (baseball/basketball) are impacted, and obviously the Astros being the largest stakeholder (46%) in CSN Houston makes them the biggest voice. Personally, I think Crane is bluffing in hopes of getting every last cent. If his concern is the Rangers -- and it should be -- then having the Rangers available statewide with the Astros only visible in less-than-half of Houston is a pretty big problem. My guess is that whatever extra money he could eventually get in a year or two (when the team is presumably more competitive, and thus likely to get better ratings, and in turn money from providers) would be dwarfed by potential losses should the aforementioned scenario materialize. But we'll know by the first week of April. If they don't back down at the last hour, it would show that Crane truly does believe that the eventual payoff (once the Rockets and/or Astros are championship contenders) is worth more than the near-term losses -- and if that's the case, there's little hope for a deal. I just have a hard time seeing the logic in that.
You know, as much of a douche as Crane clearly is, the sad part is he is still already a better owner than Unca Baylor ever was. And man, is that not saying much.
How much influence does Crane himself have on these negotiations? My understanding is that once the Rockets/Astros signed the deal with CSN, they agreed to let CSN handle all the negotiations.
Crane said he's sat in on several of the recent meetings. My assumption has always been that the stuff about letting CSN handle negotiations was PR spin to keep media/fans off their back about it. Fact is, the Astros and Rockets own a combined 79% of the network... when they're at a point where they desperately want carriage, they'll step in and get a deal done. As I see it, the question comes down to whether the providers' April 2 offer is better than a hypothetical 2015 offer (with presumably much better teams) minus whatever damages result from a lengthy dispute. Despite what Crane says now, I think the April 2 offer has to be better, because that would be a pretty substantial minus -- particularly for the Astros.
Well, if that's true, at least we know they are actually meeting. I wonder if this carriage fee, along with "sports package or no sports package" issue are still the main sticking points. They seem really far off on all of that.
I think it all comes down to the fee. The "sports package or no sports package" issue is just complete bull****. There's no chance of that EVER happening, at least for greater Houston and secondary markets. That's just a line the providers toss out because, from a superficial standpoint, it's a statement the masses will agree with. After all, why should people that don't care about sports have to pay for it? It all unravels on the logistics, though. For starters, 99% of professional teams are carried on the expanded basic tier (not any sort of special package) in their home markets -- why should the Astros/Rockets have to make that sacrifice for DirecTV when they're not demanding the same elsewhere? And from the provider standpoint, it's a very slippery slope. I mean, I never watch Oxygen or HGTV -- why do I have to pay for those? Etc., etc. It would increase the calls for an a la carte model, which the providers fear because most of us would order far fewer channels than we have now. Bottom line is that both sides know that a deal will eventually get done and the channel will be on the expanded basic tier in Houston and at least immediate secondary markets. It mostly comes down to that fee, and everything else thrown out (by both sides) is just corporate PR spin to try and get the public to take a side and pressure the other into revising their offer.
It'll be damn funny if some yahoos in Arkansas will get CSN through some small provider to watch Astros games but here 20 miles from the stadium we'll be shut out.
Well unfortunately, after moving, direct tv not being an option due to the facing of our apartment (according to the installer) we were forced to go with Comcast. I would have waited it out..... anyway, first day with it, bout to find out if everything is still sucky!
Yea the Rockets have been competitive, maybe they have missed the playoffs the last 3 years but they haven't had a losing season in a while. That to me is a competitive team. Now the joke that is the Astros (2 100+ loss seasons and counting)...that is not competitive. If a deal is struck right before baseball season than it definitely means the Astros were the ones who blocked a deal right before basketball season in order to try to get the most money. If that is true then the Astros can kiss me as a fan goodbye.
We've been through this a million times, but it's WAY easier to make the playoffs in the NBA than it is in MLB. If you don't make the playoffs in the NBA, you basically SUCK. Yes, the Astros currently BLOW CHUNKS. But the Rockets missing the playoffs for 3 years in a row does NOT equal "competitive." I'm as pissed off as anybody about all this (check my posts in this thread...) but there's a huge difference between not having a sense of urgency until your own season starts and "blocking" a deal. Anyway.....can't wait to watch my 3rd game of the season tonight! Thanks to ESPN for actually showing a Houston Rockets game in the city of Houston!
Some of you have a weird definition of competitive. Are you sure you watched games when you were able to? The last three Rockets seasons have been nothing like the last three campaigns for the Astros.
