They still have a product. They own broadcast rights to the Rockets (who are still an owner) and the Dynamo. But if you can't get on the air at all because of an impasse, then yeah..you find a way to remove the impasse. You talk about buying the other party out of their position and/or you ask a court to intervene and take over to make the decision for you. And if none of that works, then you blow it up and, assuming you want them, buy the assets out of the BK. And all of that is exactly what Comcast has asked for from the BK court.
Directv does a better job of income/equity comcast is a much bigger company but it doesn't look efficient. what is the history of comcast? i never understood why timewarner and them switched markets, houston to dallas.
What you are saying doesn't make sense. Why would they offer to buyout a partner that is trying to leave WITHOUT a buyout? You'd just let them walk away and void their portion of the deal. Also, Comcast has offered to buyout the entire network and its assets, not just the Astros.
But we were talking about the buyout of both parties. Astros & Rockets (the Dynamo are much smaller potatoes, especially given their 3 year commitment to the network). We can also believe that the deal that was on the table only existed because of the Astros & Rockets being there. The buyout is most likely to maintain rights to both teams, while assuming control. FWIW, Crane had the option to buy the Astros without the CSN-stake included.
thanks. i guess this is the wave of the future. i couldn't see the forest from the trees, i hear about all the individual deals but never really looked at as a big shift in the way the teams and networks do business
After all that discussion, this is still how I see it: Comcast wants to own the channel outright with the Astros/Rockets as tenants and no longer as partners. They wouldn't want to own a channel without either team in the fold. Likewise, they probably don't even want to own the channel with just the Rockets in the fold. Astros aren't getting money now, partly because being owners of a losing network, and partly because Comcast wants to share the losses with said owners. Astros feel this violates their agreement, and they want out of the network. Comcast files bankruptcy in order to prevent Astros from leaving. Astros feel the network is not broke, thus they feel the filing is improper. Comcast trying to lowball the Astros/Rockets to get control of a network, while retaining their rights fees. Astros want the power to negotiate with another network... something they don't have as long as they are under contract with Comcast. The only thing that is not clear is how the Astros expect to get rights fees from a network they own... when the network isn't profitable. Also, even though it hasn't been stated, its implied that the Astros indeed are the ones to hold up the carriage agreements in favor of something most profitable for them.
Rockets got all of theirs, according to the Astros. Unless there is something in the agreement saying otherwise, the Astros should expect to receive their fees. It would be understandable if the Astros got a reduced fee as a form of capital contribution, but receiving nothing makes little sense.
Because the Astros are not leaving without a buyout. Because you still have to deal with the fact they have a partnership interest in your company....and that you can't get anything done without them gone. I'm aware of the latter point...
The only part you're missing is that Comcast's first cry for relief from the BK court is to have the court appoint a trustee who makes a decision for the rest of them with respect to negotiations with carriers. Comcast alleges that if that happens, the network will be able to pay all of its debts going forward. And none of that would change ownership structure of CSN...just would change how deals with the carriers are negotiated...essentially they'd be negotiated by a 3rd party appointed by the BK court.
Um, the entire bankruptcy issue has come to light because the Astros were trying to walk away. Right? Isn't that the whole point here from Comcast's side? To preserve the partnership?
They're not going to leave without consideration...you don't walk away from a 60 something percent interest in a going business for nothing. The sides have exchanged offers for a buyout. The Astros sent over the last offer. Comcast said, "screw it!" and had affiliates throw the company into BK so they could seek emergency relief...namely, getting a trustee appointed to take over all negotiations with a carrier and thus breaking the unanimous vote deadlock. Again, none of that would change the ownership structure of CSN. It's why the Astros are pissed about the filing, because they're afraid a trustee will get appointed and accept something far less than they can afford to accept. This is why I said from the beginning that the BK was fishy...because it seeks to usurp their partnership agreement, and uses Comcast creditors to do it. Then I read the affidavit of an officer of the Comcast Finance creditor attached to the petition, and it only confirmed that. Comcast filed the BK so they could get great coverage in the market without having to buyout the Astros...it seeks to remove the Astros vote without paying them to go away. It came right on the heels of an offer from the Astros for a buyout of their petition that presumably Comcast thought was too high to pay. If the BK gets poured out of court, they'll start over right from that point.
The Astros don't own 60 percent. It is slightly more than 40%. You walk away from a failing business with differing interests. I've seen it plenty of times on a much smaller scale.
Of course you do if it's not viable. My understanding was the Astros were trying to terminate their rights and walk away due to the lack of payments made and the expiration of funds. They would then be free and clear to go negotiate a deal on their rights with anyone else, say Fox, and not be required to split that money back to the partnership. You wouldn't walk away from a 60% stake in nothing to go get a 100% stake in something else? The thing for the Astros is that they KNOW what their broadcast rights are worth on their own. Part of why they are driving a hard bargain is likely because they need a certain price point for it to be worth it for them to split the monies. The Astros could go do a deal with FSN or even a startup network with DTV and make some good bank before next season.
You're right about percentage. It's like 46% I think. How about this...you don't leave without at least trying to get paid on your way out. Especially when you have the leverage of being the highest percentage owner and being a vote that effs everyone else. Their season is over, so their urgency to take their ball and go home isn't there. I have no doubt they want out...but if they can get back some of the money they put into this thing, they'd be crazy not to try.
The Astros got revenue sharing dollars and the national media deals. All of that would have made them profitable before they sold a single ticket at the payroll level they were at. Don't buy into the myth that they need a huge tv deal to be competitive. The idea that Drayton was just taking mega losses every year is laughable. I think the Astros are doing a smart rebuilding plan, but the idea that they need one of the most profitable tv deals in the sport to be "competitive" is ridiculous. Don't let Jim Crane or anyone else convince you that the Astros are on the level of the As and Rays.
