I was referring to Dish and U-verse to sign with CSN Houston. Like others have said, the bubble has burst so why sign a 20 year deal that ties you to a bad contract if you are the providers. So....by your line of thinking...didn't the providers have the teams before and now they don't because of a money dispute. The only difference is the channel they would be on.
Thanks for a well-reasoned and rational post. There is some serious drivel being spewed in this thread.
Yes, I know. I'm saying there's no incentive for UVerse or Dish to sign a short term deal with CSN. The value comes from when the team gets good - there's no point in signing a deal that only gets you the crappy years. Yes - the channel is key. Right now, they can blame the channel. If you already carry the channel and then take it away, it's much harder to make the case to those who don't follow the details of the negotiations.
This; When DISH had a dispute with AMC, people weren't up in arms with AMC they blamed DISH for not renewing the channel. If the Astros were still on FSN and DISH decided not to carry them, then people would be upset with DISH more than FSN. As it is currently, DISH (and the other providers) have a way to more easily place blame. Instead of "The Astros were on FSN last year why not anymore", the carriers can now point at CSN and say it is there fault (whether that is completely valid or not). CSN has tried their best to blame the carriers by saying you had them last year and now you don't blame the carriers. However, IMO the majority of the population is buying the carriers argument more so than CSN's. The problem we have in this thread, is that there are people who can't see past the small sample size that is the last couple of years, and have branded Crane the worst owner ever. Those trying to approach with a "wait and see" get the old "your just a die hard Crane supporter" argument. The reality of it is some of those b****ing about him not taking a bad deal, would be the first ones b****ing in 5 , 10 or 20 years down the road when he can't sign competitive players like the rest of the division, because he took a bad deal now and doesn't have the revenue to compete.
what gets lost in this is that the providers are on the hook for FOX and fox's only worth were the astros and rockets. the providers are paying the old fox fees and they are on the hook for maybe another decade.
It really is a worthless channel, and I do think this is an understated point that won't go away unless one of the teams goes back to them. Can't believe the providers didn't have an out clause for when the channel no longer had any teams left. Its not like the Astros/Rockets took everybody by surprise in forming their own RSN. They've been talking about it since 1999.
Yes and maybe no. In the old long CSN thread in the GARM it was mentioned that the agreement they signed had penalties (not the best word but can't think if a different one to use) that diminished the cost of FSSW if they lost broadcast rights to teams they carry. The issue I have with the carriers is that now that they don't have to pay as much for carrying FSSW they aren't voluntarily passing that on to customers. You can call and get a reduction in your bill but you have to be proactive about it.
Simple. No other team has had as barren of a farm system before or been as completely bereft of any young talent.
Once you actually make the phone call to the service provider and they spin it their way, you either believe it or don't. That's the situation we are in now. Who say's Crane is going to spend the money in the future? Who says what he has been offered is a bad deal besides Crane?
I agree with the providers should be reducing the bill for their customers who have FSN. Did Comcast raise their subscriber rates when they started airing CSN Houston?
Comcast has a buttload of money sunk into this now. I wonder if they'd consider guaranteeing the Astros what they need. If the Astros broadcast rights are an "indispensable asset" as they say in the pleading...then they could sign carriage agreements with Uverse, Dish, etc....and then cover the gap to the Astros. The Rockets already agreed to less, because they don't need the full tilt given revenue sharing. Comcast could sign shorter term deals with the carriers in the interim and guarantee to bridge the gap to the Astros. Otherwise, Comcast runs the risk of the bankruptcy being dismissed...the Astros walking because they haven't been paid under their broadcast agreement...and they're left with a station they can't salvage. Just a thought...but it seems like that's the parameters around which a deal could be structured. I've love to mediate!
FYI...there are all sorts of documents on file with the court from yesterday and today. The pleading attributed to the Astros isn't showing up yet. Not sure why that is.
Hence the reason I qualified it with "Whether that is completely valid or not" No one, but from the comments you and some others are making your dead set to believe he won't. There are many of us in here that are of the mindset that we want to wait and see what he does. If he doesn't spend when the farm is ready, then that will be an issue. But until that happens I'm inclined to let it play out and see. If he gets his deal and doesn't spend I'll lead the pitchfork and torch brigade.
My son has it and they didn't raise his bill when the channel came on. So asking all these other providers to raise all their subscriber rates $3.40 when you didn't do it yourself is unreasonable.
Because Jim Crane sold all the Astros attorney's laptops and made them write out their pleading on a Big Chief tablet with a #2 Pencil.
In situations like this, if the Astros get out of the 3 party partnership, what becomes of the deal between Comcast and the Rockets, especially if neither side is in default? Does it negate the whole deal, or can Comcast stick it to the Rockets and keep them locked into a Rockets-only one-trick-pony network with as much appeal for carriers as the Longhorn Network?
Comcast and CSN-H aren't the same company. Comcast is not asking anyone to do anything. But as far as rates go, either Comcast is eating the money, or that's only true for people under contract - rates will go up eventually to cover that cost.
