Smells like desperation. They were always going to lose in this kind of battle. They just now seem to realize it.
Astros County tweeted this link tonight and thought it was interesting. http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter How MLB splits your TV dollars Written by Dave Warner on 17 May 2013. Last week, we examined how your cable and satellite bills will pay for Major League Baseball’s billion-dollar TV deals. Now let’s look at what that means for the teams themselves. How does baseball distribute your money? We know that MLB’s new national TV contracts with ESPN, Fox, and Turner will more than double the amount of money each team received from those three networks. Where the previous contract paid teams an average of $25.53 million each per year, next year’s contract will pay teams an average of $51.67 million per year. Having an additional $26 million on hand seems useful. Now lets take a look at the local TV deals. Much of this data was compiled by Wendy Thurm of Fangraphs, with some data from around the web filling in the gaps. Some of the numbers are rough estimates, with escalators in place for the New York Yankees (4%) and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2.5%). Clearly, if there were no revenue sharing, small-market teams would be at a huge disadvantage. MLB’s collective bargaining agreement, however, stipulates that teams share 34% of their local TV money. The shared pool is then split evenly among all thirty teams. That means every million dollars a team makes from its local TV deal is worth $11,133.33 to the other 29 teams. With that in mind, let’s take a look at how much total TV money each team will make in 2013: Is that enough to cover escalating player salaries? Let’s take a look at how these numbers compare to 2013 payroll numbers, which were taken from Forbes: As you can see, only three teams are capable of covering their payrolls with TV money alone, and two of them -- the Astros and the Marlins -- have slashed their payrolls to the point of being woefully uncompetitive. The Padres’ new deal with Fox Sports West, on the other hand, puts them in a slightly better position, even though they’re a bit off the pace of the Giants and Diamondbacks right now. Of course, TV money is far from the only source of revenue for teams. Gate revenue alone will make up the gap for nearly every MLB team. In fact, gate revenue is expected to cover the entire payroll for at least four teams -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Twins. Then there’s the $150 million dividend that MLB Advanced Media is expected to add to the pool, which ships another $5 million to each team. To say nothing of concessions, in-stadium advertising, and so on. Still, you can see from that chart how important revenue sharing is for small market teams -- especially for teams like the Reds, Braves, and Athletics, who make so little from their TV deals. So how much more do teams stand to make from next year’s TV deals? In order to determine that, we have to factor in a few things. First, we have to figure out how much the Dodgers will make next season. Their new contract with Time Warner Cable is worth $7 billion over 25 years, which averages out to $280 per year, but chances are there’s an escalator clause in that deal, so as to minimize TWC’s short-term risk. If it’s the same as with the Yankees’ deal with YES (4%), TWC could pay the Dodgers about $170 million next season. (Let’s also assume that the Dodgers will agree to share 34% of that, even though MLB’s settlement with Frank McCourt would permit them to share much less.) We’ll also factor in the escalator clauses for the Yankees and Angels, as well as the Mariners’ purchase of ROOT Sports Northwest, which could put the M’s on the same level as the Red Sox, who own NESN. The Dodgers’ new deal alone adds more than $44M to the shared revenue pool. That will add about $1.47 million to every MLB team’s bottom line. Now what happens when we put these estimates next to 2013 payrolls? Suddenly, the number of teams that can cover their payrolls with TV money alone rises from 3 to 12, and most of them are small market teams. Sure, teams like the Athletics will have to keep Moneyballin’ to remain competitive, but they will benefit greatly from the additional $27.6 million generated from new TV deals. So will the Braves, Pirates, and Rays. They can keep their teams intact and perhaps make a run at the playoffs. More of these big local deals are coming. The next TV deal for the Phillies, whose current deal with Comcast expires in 2015, is expected to be worth almost triple the $35 million they’re getting now. On top of that, the Cardinals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Rays, Rockies, Tigers and White Sox could all see increases in their TV deals in the next 5 years. Of course, these local TV deals will only go up as long as cable and satellite TV subscribers are willing to foot the bill for them. Right now in and around Houston, TV carriers and baseball fans alike are rebelling against the Astros and Comcast. Is that merely a reaction to an owner who doesn’t seem to care about winning, or will we see more fans start to reject these added costs on their cable bills? The next few years could be quite telling.
If anybody still cares here is this. Maybe there is a end coming soon. It seems the Astros are desperate. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp...tebook_id=50623854&vkey=notebook_hou&c_id=hou
It's always been a matter of WHEN Crane decided to cave and face reality. Unfortunately, his gross miscalculation and stubbornness cost us an entire Rockets season.
Crane 'optimistic'(stop me if you heard that before); Reid Ryan not sounding so optimistic. Meanwhile, Astros president for business operations Reid Ryan was in studio Thursday with KBME’s Matt Thomas and had this to say about the Comcast SportsNet Houston standoff. “I don’t think anybody expected to have the same thing happen to the Astros that happened to the Rockets, where they went a whole season without the games being on,” Ryan said. “Everybody is kind of dug in on their position. I think the new reality is that there’s a good chance the games may not get on, and if that’s the case we need to do a pivot and do a better job of getting out to the grass roots and decide how we’re going to market the club and let people know, because we’ve got some great stories.” Ryan also reiterated Astros owner Jim Crane’s position that settling for a lower subscriber fee is problematic because “20 years (the length of the agreement) is a long time, and you’re talking about a lot of money. If you make a bad deal, it can sink your club from a competitive standpoint. “When we get a deal done, it will be the right deal for the Astros and the right deal for the community, because they want to have a winner in this town as we all do, and hopefully it will happen soon.”
It seems like everyone involved in this negotiation is either incredibly naive or just stupid. Why the **** did they think it would be any different? Jesus Christ.
If our satellite and / or cable have to go up then I hope a deal does not get done. Jim Crane and his greed are not worth it. He wants more money for people to watch what is basically a triple A team play major league teams. He has already cost us an entire season of the Rocket's. I got used to watching the Rockets through internet streams. I can live with it if it means keeping money out of Crane's pocket. I just wish the Rocket's never got involved in this deal .
CSN was formed by Drayton McLane and Les Alexander. I'd say the greed of those two trumps that of Jim Crane, when it comes to CSN in particular.
If this deal goes through, the Rockets may be more willing to spend money when they start getting close to luxury tax area in a season or two.
Because they're the ones that conceptualized this and signed it in October 2010.. They're the ones that wanted an elaborate, standalone start-up network to maximize revenues, which made carriage a potential issue. If Comcast/NBC Sports Group has a history of negotiating in bad faith, as some in this thread have alleged, the agreement to get in bed with them was signed long before Crane entered the picture. Crane came in after things were signed and delivered, and part of his "purchase price" for the Astros was based on the expected CSN revenue figures that McLane gave him. It's not that Crane is immune from criticism -- certainly, at some point, someone needs to step in on behalf of the fans, even if it compromises our revenue stream on a comparative basis. With the Astros being the largest stakeholder, Crane may need to be that guy. But big picture, the worst of the "greed" on the CSN side came in 2009 and 2010, when the logistics were hashed out. That's pre-Crane.
I don't think many people have a problem with the concept of a stand-alone network. It's not like Drayton & Les pioneered the concept. I don't blame them one iota. The "greed" part comes in when CSN actually launches and Crane's asking price is too high. It was his decison to buy what McLane was selling regarding expected CSN revenue figures. His failure to properly vet what the network was truly worth is on him, not Drayton. It's a pathetic, desperate reach to go back and drag Drayton's name through the mud now. You can try your best to deflect blame from Crane but it's a lost cause. He messed up. Simple as that.
Eh, it's been talked about earlier in this thread. A big part of why FSN is able to get the rates it does is because of the "bundling" aspect with other Fox properties. It's easier for cable providers to take a stand against CSN due to its independent nature. I don't think Crane came up with an asking price, per se. I think there's a per subscriber figure they have to get or come close to in order to justify the payout that Comcast/NBC Sports Group is giving them. And certainly, it's fair to give some blame to Crane's group for not properly vetting. But I don't think it's "pathetic and desperate" to drag Drayton's name into it. It's the honest truth. He and Les knew negotiations would be more difficult by partnering with Comcast, which had a bit of a sketchy history with negotiations, and starting a new network from scratch. They did it anyway. They signed a deal for a headline-grabbing amount without having a single agreement ironed out beforehand (I don't count Comcast). I'm not absolving Crane of responsibility, but to me, if you're anti-CSN, the root issue comes down to the principles upon which it was created in the first place. P.S. I also think the timing of the launch was a big problem. With agreements typically reached for 15-to-20-year periods, it makes sense to try and strike while the iron is hot and when you have peak leverage. In early October 2012, the Rockets were star-less and more than three years removed from their last playoff appearance. The Astros remained in the midst of a lengthy rebuild. Both of these factors were extremely predictable when the deal was finalized in October 2010, yet Drayton and Les did it anyway. That's on them.
