Exactly - at this point, they know CSN-H is desperate. There's no way anyone is going to pay a high amount anytime soon.
Different dynamics. First these guys will be better than those guys i guarantee. second howard has been to the finals and he is polarizing at this moment. with all the la hate intrigue is building. Lastly i think the rockets have a young dynamic fanbase in an international city with a healthy economy.
All that might be true...but as the others above me pointed out, there's blood in the water now. The carriers see this as a huge victory in their larger war with Comcast over the value of RSN's.
Only thing I could see as far as getting coverage for CSN-H quickly is that the Astros win a bankruptcy dismissal, walk away, and the Rockets accept much lower fees with CSN-H, if CSN-H is deemed viable with only them. I don't know what costs are associated with running a network, but if LHN can survive with 3 football games and a bunch of crap, it seems like CSN could functionally survive if they didn't have to pay the Rockets too much in rights fees (and the Astros nothing).
So the upside is it sounds like this won't drag out in the courts for a long time, but the downside is it likely won't get settled out of court because it sounds like this move by Comcast was very much a hail mary pass that they had to realize probably wouldn't work, right? So they'll probably at least wait until the 10/28 court date, I would think, Or is it allowable for the judge to look stuff over and basically tip his hand to the various parties so they can start settlement negotiations?
I think Comcast is likely to know what's coming here...I'm sure their attorneys are advising them that this is a serious long shot. And it seems like Comcast is fighting for the last dying gasps of CSN Houston. That's the tone of the pleadings...calling the Astros broadcast rights an "indispensable asset." I don't think there's another proceeding contemplated before 10/28 where the judge could tip his hand....though sometimes judges get all the parties on the phone and talk through issues ahead of a hearing.
who exited the fox deal. if comcast has been a partner since 2010 then their joining the partnership then they existed while being carried by fox. to me this is the key paragraph from the lastest from pacer The Comcast Credit Agreement was thoroughly negotiated. Because the Astros' media rights are their most valuable asset, the Astros did not agree to contribute their media rights to the Network or to grant a security interest in them. Instead, the Astros retained control over their media rights, and Comcast Lender agreed to receive a security interest only in the Network's and the General Partner's assets, which do not include the Astros' media rights. Nor did Comcast Lender protect its loan against the so-called deadlock it now complains of. Instead, Comcast squarely agreed to a number of provisions the Astros required to protect their media rights. By invoking the automatic stay to prevent the Astros from terminating their Media Rights Agreement, Comcast Lender seeks to use the bankruptcy process as a proxy for a secured interest in media rights that it failed to obtain at the negotiating table. this basically discusses what the dispute is over what the station gave up in collateral for the $100MM.
Stations don't just pop up overnight. CSN-H was in the works for years before it launched. The move was made when the FSN deal ended. You're focusing way too much on the $100MM. That's not really the issue here at all.
a loan that wasn't in default as of the day of the filing of the bankruptcy. This bankruptcy is about control of the station amidst an impasse...and about the Astros plans to hit the road and Comcast's hope to delay that.
And they are saying siince les and crane cant pay the money back and doesnt want to sellits biggest asset we want the asset. money or the asset. secondly if we are saying these broadcasting rights arent worth what they were a few years ago i think the next logical step is to ask for cash. but crane has no cash this is all the creditors can get. if the station could pay it back that is probably what the creditor would ask for.
You guyz act like they gave the station money knowing it couldnt pay it back so it could file bankruptcy and get control.
There is no default under the loan from the Comcast Lender. There are quarterly interest payments to be made...they've been made. This isn't about that. It's about asking the bankruptcy court to appoint a trustee to break the impasse between the partners over carriage deals....it's about Comcast's desire to buy up all the assets of the station. Those are the things that have petitioned for. The other goal is to keep the Astros from walking out on their broadcast agreement, which apparently they were 3 days from doing at the time of the filing.
I wonder if the statement in that article that the Astros and Rockets would seek another TV deal together is based on any actual evidence or if they are just guessing. I really, truly hope the two teams kind of split ways after this because I don't want to get into another situation where the Astros are grinding for another $0.50 from the other providers while the Rockets are perfectly happy to take what has been offered. Plus the Astros won't be playing for another 6 months or so, they have very little urgency at this point.
I think they have more value as a package together. Apparently they've had some media partnership since 2003. 162 games is nice. 82 games is nice. But combined, that's a lot of programming. I doubt seriously that the Rockets will put themselves in this spot again...where they're subject to the Astros approval to put their own product on the air. Huge mistake I can't see them repeating.
And obviously if they did it again, everyone would still blame the Astros for the Rockets' ineptitude.
