I have heard the Rockets will be televised this year and next year and the year after. Take that with a grain of salt.
No crucify. I've gotten info from friends who have "inside sources" that didn't pan out. Do you know if the "inside sources" are really in a position to know?
it IS about billionaires wanting more money. Your line of thinking is ignorant. crane had an expectation (aka wanting more money) You probably were still in diapers to remember, but lots of taxpayer money went into minute maid and toyota center. Fans/ tax base is getting jammed yet again for guess what MORE MONEY
He is directly linked to the marketing team so I am assuming they have some info as to what they will be working with. Obviously for commercials, promotions, advertisements...etc. Who knows. Could be all rumors from within their own department as well. I know we have plenty of those where I work. No. Nothing to do with them.
I'm ok with Crane wanting the most he can get. The problem is he thinks the Astros deserve Angels/Yankees tv money.
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/...not-to-expect-in-csn-houston-bankruptcy-case/ Weekend update: What to expect (and what not to expect) in CSN Houston bankruptcy case Friday, October 4, 2013 Before we launch into the weekend announcer pairings and other updates, a brief update on the Comcast SportsNet Houston bankruptcy case. The Astros on Monday will file their motion asking that the Chapter 11 case brought by several Comcast/NBC-affiliated creditors be dismissed by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur. The creditors will have a week to reply, followed by evidence discovery and the Oct. 28 hearing on the Astros’ motion to dismiss and the creditors’ motion to have an interim trustee appointed to oversee the network while the bankruptcy case continues. What remains very much in question is where the Rockets line up on this. The Rockets obviously need to boost carriage for a team that now includes Dwight Howard, but the same bankruptcy procedure that could result in a reduction in the Astros’ CSN Houston equity also could reduce the Rockets’ ownership stake in the network. Team officials have declined to comment on the matter, so it will be interesting to see if the Rockets file a motion of any sort Monday. For those who have asked, the bankruptcy procedure quite obviously has superseded any carriage talks with the likes of DirecTV, Dish Network or U-verse, reducing the chance that the first few weeks of the Rockets’ season will air on those platforms, and it’s given life to some dandy rumors. For example, a woman trying to convince me to pick up U-verse service asked me Thursday if I was aware that the Rockets and Astros were headed back to Fox Sports Southwest. Clearly that’s not happening until this legal matter is resolved, if then, and I’m not sure if U-verse is telling its salespeople to spread that rumor or if the sales staff is doing so on its own. I think the more likely outcome is that Comcast will buy out the Rockets and Astros, even if it has to pay more than it wants to pay, rather than running the risk of having the Astros bolt if the bankruptcy case is dismissed, which would result in the loss of several tens of millions that Comcast/NBC has invested in the network. Astros owner Jim Crane said this week that Comcast offered to buy him out but that he rejected the offer. He said Comcast rejected his counteroffer and did not reply to a second counteroffer. If the case stays in Chapter 11 reorganization after the Oct. 28 hearing, an interim trustee would have the power to arrange carriage deals without the approval of the Rockets or Astros.
Sucks to see that everything points back to Crane being the hold up on all of this. And he won't relinquish his control no matter what
Possibly, but it wouldn't surprise me once the Rockets and Stros are bought out, then they would return to FOX or another network of their choice. It makes sense for the Rockets obviously. Not sure if anyone cares about the Astros though. My source may have some merit though. Obviously rumors during a bankruptcy case may be false, or placed under the impression to be false in order to not compromise the case. Who knows.
houston may not have the numbers, but this is a wealthy town. income per capita should count for something.
Even if Astros and Rockets were to end the partnership for some reason, that doesn't mean CSN wouldn't air their games. If that happened it would likely become a bidding war between Fox and CSN. I'm assuming CSN would have a distribution deal at that point since Crane wouldn't be there to veto it. Frankly I hope the Rockets stay with CSN (again, if the distribution deal goes through) as their coverage of the Rockets, and Astros for that matter, has blown away anything Dallas based Fox has done over the years.
This article has some information that needs clarification. The article says that the creditors have a week to respond to the motion to dismiss. Unless the judge has set special deadlines on the record or has entered an order setting deadlines, any motion to dismiss would be subject to the 21 day response deadline provided for in the local rules. I do not know whether Judge Isgur has set specific deadlines in this case or not. The article also assumes that this is an either or proposition...either the case is dismissed or an interim trustee is appointed. Not necessarily true. The judge could keep the case alive and decline to appoint a trustee. What would happen then? I honestly don't know...but it is safe to assume that this case would take on a life of its own. All of this also ignores one other issue. If the government shutdown is not resolved by October 28, it is likely that the court will be closed. The court website says that the courts will operate for ten days in the event of government shutdown and they will then reassess the situation. My guess is that the courts will close if the government is still shutdown at the end of this coming week.
If I remember correctly, involuntary bankruptcy filings, when contested, do not cause a company to be officially in bankruptcy until the court enters an "order for relief" declaring so after a full trial on the evidence. The questions to be addressed at that time will include 1) whether CSN is actually insolvent, and 2) whether the filing "creditors" are actually creditors. The upcoming hearing is not going to be this full trial to decide on this "order for relief." Instead, the creditors are asking for an emergency relief of having an "interim trustee" taking over CSN before the order for relief question is heard and decided. The idea is that things are dire at CSN and the filing is so likely to be valid that a "interim trustee" must take over even before we can get to the hearing to decide on an order for relief. The bar for granting this relief is pretty high. Also, the Astros are reported to be filing a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition, which would be granted only if the filing of the bankruptcy can be found legally invalid on its face without going through a full evidentiary trial process (complete with discovery, witness testimony, documents entered into evidence and all the bells and whistles). So, Refman is right that the court may deny both motions. In this case, CSN remains in the hand of current management (operations run by Comcast and the same corporate veto rights apply). The parties proceed to preparing for the full evidentiary trial on the order for relief-- lots of time and legal fees will be spent. The hearing on the order for relief will determine what happens to CSN-- if an order for relief is granted, then we go into the full bankruptcy process that results in either an asset sale or a plan of reorganization (under which creditors most likely become the new equity holders)-- and it will take a good deal of time and lawyer hours, plus a multiple hearings before the court, to get either the assets sold or the plan of reorganization confirmed. If not, then CSN is out of the bankruptcy court and we are back to square one with everything deadlocked.
I agree with everything you said with one exception. If there is an asset sale, it would likely be a court conducted auction. Would Comcast win the auction? Maybe. However, it is not a certainty. If a trustee is appointed, the trustee will have the ability to agree to carriage agreements while the asset sale is pending. So, whoever bids on ownership would be stuck with whatever carriage agreements the trustee signs.
If they are "bought out" as the article implies, CSN would be doing so to KEEP them in the fold, on the channel (but the Rockets/Astros are no longer owners). The article specifically says they'd rather buy them out and spend more to do so... instead of having the case be dismissed and the Astros are then allowed to leave.
Remember, if the case is dismissed, it merely puts the parties back to their state law rights. Whether that means the Astros would be gone is not clear. We do not know the terms of the contract regarding termination.
I think them not being paid their rights fees for months is grounds for contract termination... hence why CSN filed when they did (on the cusp of the Astros leaving the network... filing blocked that).
Yes, there will be uncertainty as to who wins the bid. Also, if a trustee wants to agree to a carriage agreement that the Astros are currently contesting, it is all but guaranteed that this move will be contested in the court-- and that's gonna involve a motion, a hearing and the attendant litigation process-- and will only get signed with the court's approval. Anyhow, the bottom line is that things will not get resolved quickly unless the parties enter into some sort of consensual settlement.
Absolutely the court would have to determine the reasonableness of any carriage deals. That would be litigated. If there is not an agreement and if the case is not dismissed...this is going to be a very ugly proceeding.
