How do they come up a cost for espn its in every package. How much does espn charge. i dont doubt the numbers. Directv is learning a valuable lesson, people wont leave over thse regional sports stations.z
That's because ESPN has the leverage to force these distributors to pay what they want. People WILL leave a company if they don't get their ESPN. Not so much for CSN-H, though.
That may be true...however, the Rockets agreed to allow their media rights to be wholly controlled by not one but two unrelated entities that are going to look out for their own interests. That the Astros are vilified for looking out for their interests rather than the interests of the Rockets is silly. When you have partners that do not have aligning interests in a high stakes venture, apparently you end up in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Hearing set for October 28. [rQUOTEr]U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur on Monday afternoon set Oct. 28 to hear arguments by the Astros that the case should be dismissed and arguments by Comcast/NBC Universal affiliates that an interim trustee should be appointed to oversee the network, which is owned by the Astros, Rockets, and Comcast/NBC Universal. The delay will give attorneys times to gather evidence and depositions, but it also means the next court date will come just two days before the Rockets’ regular-season opener Oct. 28 against Charlotte.[/rQUOTEr]
Anybody who thought that all the bankruptcy issues would be resolved, a trustee appointed and carriage deals agreed to and approved by the court within a month just doesn't understand how bankruptcy proceedings work. This was bound to be a long and messy process. Actually, given the issues involved, four weeks is a very speedy hearing.
This is the key. The Astros have been doing nothing wrong here. Their job is to do what is best for them - not what is best for the Rockets or for Comcast. I think they are grossly overestimating the market value of their network, but that's their right. I think they are idiots and will fail with their strategy, and think they should cave to reality, but I don't think they should cave just to make everyone else happy.
This is a brilliant post. The Astros/Rockets/Comcast situation is very reminiscent of the government shutdown in terms of drawing party lines. The Rockets fans have generally put the blame on the Astros. The deal will happen when it happens. I'm not concerned because I don't waste money on cable, although I do end up watching terrible streams online. I have a little bit of faith that the Astros are making the right move in negotiations with CSN, who could ultimately doom our franchise if we agree to a sub-par deal which doesn't produce the appropriate revenue for the franchise to compete. The Rockets are not in the same financial straits that the Astros are and will produce a solid team regardless. If the Astros were to cave on a deal they would be doomed to produce a historically bad decade of baseball. There is a clear media-sports-cable conflict that has already hit other cities.
It's fine for the Astros to pursue their perceived self interest-- I do wonder if the Astros are even doing the best thing for themselves economically. However, sports fans have self interest, too. When the Astros' method of protecting such interest results in something that's detrimental to the self interest of Houston sports fans who want to see their local teams on TV, it's also natural for these fans to become unhappy and pursue their self interest by punishing the Astros. The Astros pursuit of self interest doesn't make them bad guys. However, they are acting in detriment to the interest of many sports fans in the Houston area.
In the short term you're right...but if they take a deal that puts them at a competitive disadvantage for the next 20 seasons, Houston sports fans will grill them for that, too. Ultimately, Crane has fiduciary and financial obligations to investors and to creditors. This isn't about good guys and bad guys...it's about business.
Yesterday I wrote here that I'd be curious to know what representations were made to Crane by Comcast before he purchased the team. Then Crane had this to say in that article that came out yesterday afternoon: “We’re fighting for money to improve the team,” Crane said. “We’re not the bad guys here, in my opinion. We want to get what they (Comcast/NBC) told us they were going to give us. That’s enough.” This is going to be interesting. Ultimately, I think CSN will make the Astros a big enough offer to buy out their equity position in the station...but the Astros are going to use CSN's words on the perceived value of the network against them in that negotiation. Bankruptcy courts are courts of equity. In addition to the Astros saying the station isn't really insolvent, they're also going to tell the judge that the bankruptcy, itself, is a travishamockery...that CSN is using it to usurp a partnership agreement for a partnership dispute...and that the Astros (and even the Rockets) relied on Comcast's representations regarding what could be legitimately be expected, and were damaged because of it. So if Comcast buys out the Astros' interst in CSNHouston...do the Astros go find another station to sell broadcasting rights to? Do they dare get back in bed with Comcast? What about the Rockets? I'm guessing a regional sports network in this size of a market needs more than an NBA schedule of games to justify its existence, but I don't know that.
If it falls through, I doubt either tries for another RSN after this debacle. I know they were in negotiations with DirecTV to be the one to "host" the channel (just like Comcast is now), but in the end went with CSN due to them having more experience in the RSN field. FSN already has the Rangers as part owners... wouldn't that be awful if they go crawling back to them, and the Astros are a tennant of the Rangers?!?!?! While Comcast is trying to get the channel now for pennies on the dollar, I don't think anybody can give the Astros a free pass on holding up carriage deals. If they had been able to get carriage deals in place, CSN likely doesn't hold off rights fees payments, which leads to the Astros trying to get out of the deal, which now leads to the bankruptcy filing by Comcast. Comcast obviously can withstand a lengthy stalemate more-so than the Rockets or Astros.
Agreed, if it falls through. But if comcast merely buys out the Astros' interest, the Rockets are still interest holders in CSN Houston...albeit they'll be down 3 votes to 1 on the board. Crane bought this team based off representations from McLane (and likely Comcast as well) regarding what revenue streams could be expected. The Rockets and Astros aren't broadcasting moguls. They both have a product to sell to broadcasters, and they both relied on Comcast to make all this happen at certain price points. Those price points are infinitely more important to an MLB franchise than an NBA team. That the Rockets are willing to settle for less shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I don't think it's unreasonable for Crane to seek a price that's competitive with other AL West clubs...in fact, as a fan I hope he does. I'm not sure this bankruptcy survives the October hearing. Particularly considering who the creditors are...and Crane's representation that Comcast has $7.7 million in cash right now. That they're choosing not to pay bills doesn't mean that they can't. And if Comcast Partner is colluding with Comcast Debtors to usurp a partnership agreement, that's a problem.
Right... and I'm presuming this won't get resolved in bankruptcy court, and would require another sort of law-suit by the Astros/Rockets, correct? If the Astros get bought out, and decide to go elsewhere... I don't think they'll get their asking price as an owner of a new RSN. They'll likely have to join a network already in place, and settle for a fair rights fee. Again, the Astros have to do what's best for them... but had they agreed to carriage deals earlier, I don't think Comcast resorts to holding out rights fees payments.
Depends. If the bankruptcy court keeps the bankruptcy alive and open, then the litigation would likely happen there...a contested matter under the bankruptcy proceeding. If not, then you're right...it would be in a separate lawsuit in a separate forum. Agreed...unless there's something we don't know. Crane seemed to indicate he had been talking to others already. I'm sure that's true...but those payments for 3 months or so are a drop in the bucket compared to taking less from providers over the term of a 20 year agreement.
explain like i'm 5, 1. CSN promises Astros/Rockets X in carriage fees. 2. Carriers offer Y in carriage fees, which is less than X. 3. Astros do not accept Y carriage fee, and hold out for X as promised by CSN. 4. X carriage fee never comes but CSN and Rockets agree to accept Y carriage fee while Astros (majority owner) do not. 5. CSN files bankruptcy, attempting to use courts to possible allow Trustee to negotiate on CSN's behalf and presumably accept Y offer. 6. Rockets Fans continue to take it up the ass with the season less than a month away. Is that about right?
Most of that is right. 5 is slightly wrong. CSN didn't file bankruptcy...its Comcast creditors threw CSN Houston's operating company into an involuntary bankruptcy. 6 may prove to be wrong. I think the Rockets will ultimately be on the air this season somewhere...either on CSN after a buyout of the Astros' interest in CSN...or the whole thing blows up and another station picks up their broadcasting rights.
the reason that the Astros are being (somewhat) greedy and the Rockets are not - is the salary cap. Basketball has a cap and gets money from a good national TV deal. So if the Rox don't need to gouge people in Midland (5 states vs. 5 counties) for fees. The Astros are uncapped, have a farm system to support, and a larger roster. They also paid too much for the team - so now management HAS to make this money back
And if the Astros financial situation wasn't as bleak (cash-poor owner who's financing debt to own the franchise), I'm sure they could have withstood the lack of payments (as from Comcast's point of view, they're trying to find a way to share the losses equally... and they're deciding to take it out of the rights fees). If the Astros are the majority owner, they're unfortunately going to have to take more of the losses when the channel doesn't have any cash-flow.
