The most disingenuous argument in this entire mess is the argument that the Astros (as a partner of CSN) don't have standing to challenge an involuntary bankruptcy that was filed by affiliates of another partner (Comcast) seeking to set aside the partnership agreement. I can't imagine a court of equity won't see through that.
If smaller media markets can get big deals, so can the Astros. Sports is still big money... I actually do buy the statement that the Astros could get a competitive deal pretty fast if they could get out of this CSN mess.
I haven't seen any consensus that Fox, DirecTV, or even ESPN (if they chose to jump into bed with another Texas team) wouldn't be able to pony up $$$ for the rights to broadcast Astros games. Live sports are still drawing high advertising rates... and getting to broadcast 140+ baseball games/season is enough ad money for a network to pony up the $$$.
Lots of owners are stupid and boorish. And phenomenally successful. There's very little correlation. Don't mix up your own personal dislike for him with success or lack thereof.
That's not necessarily true if they go to FSN. FSN already has carrier agreements so an increase from, say $2.50 to $3.50 only costs the carrieres $1.00 instead of an additional $3.50, and has a stable of other content like college sports. Plus they have leverage being connected to FX/etc when it comes to renewal. The Astros may not be able get as much as they wanted with CSN-H, but they can probably get more than the rate that would be realistically possible with CSN-H. CSN-H was appealing because they got ownership value too, but the annual revenues might still be pretty good with another partner.
Did you even think that through before you submitted it. Are the carriers going to eat the dollar because after charging the same rate when they had the teams on FSN as they did when they left , the providers will get crucified for going up. Plus they aren't going to give Crane and his 0 rating more money than they would have earlier because it's possible that Crane just cut himself off being on the largest provide (40 % share).
Providers got a rebate on FSN after the teams left... they chose not to automatically give that rebate to the subscribers, however, unless the subscribers called and asked for it. And yes, they will give Crane a ton more money than what the Astros previously got from FSN because advertisers still love all live sports... even bad ones. Teams in smaller markets than the Astros get big deals. Also, the Astros won't be bad forever... despite what people who can't look past the last 3 years think. Crane/Astros may not "own" the network like they are with FSN, but they'll get a hefty rights fee for their games... and that's what they need to operate (and what they haven't been paid by CSN the last 3 months).
And they will get crucified like I said.... Why would he get a ton more when according to Crane the offers were 40 - 50 cents on the dollar? Why go through all this to come out with what Crane says is not enough money to compete? He sure as hell ain't gonna get the amount of money he wanted and he has made an ass if himself in the process. Fools are going to fall hook line and sinker for the if CSN he had only worked we could hang on to our talent.
The offers from CSN were less, based on the Astros having an ownership stake. As a channel owner, the Astros source of income relies on subscriber fees, instead of simple rights fees, thus they were going to want it to be maxed out as much as possible. After they stopped getting their rights fees, Astros wanted to leave CSN to get better offers elsewhere, which they should be able to as long as they don't have ownership aspirations. Rights fees have gone up for every team with every single contract renewal... its dictated more my market size than it is team performance. I do believe that without a competitive television deal, the Astros are at a competitive disadvantage compared to other similar market sized-teams. Its the business of MLB. They make more from TV than they do from attendance, merchandise, and sponsors combined.
DirecTV currently: ($2.50 total) Pays for FSN at $2.50 DirecTV was being asked to: ($6.00 total) Pay for FSN at $2.50 Pay for CSN-H at $3.50 In new scenario: ($3.50 total) DirecTV would: Pay for FSN at $2.50, going up to $3.50 or whatever FSN wants to aim for whenever renewal comes up. The Astros wouldn't have to negotiate with DTV until a renewal came up, at which point they would likely have more leverage if they aren't terrible. They would just need to agree to terms with FSN, who has far more money and far more leverage with DTV than CSN-H did. FSN can pay more to the Astros because they don't have to also give up an ownership stake.
To clarify, the Astros would NEVER have to negotiate with DTV since they wouldn't be owners in the network. That would just be between FSN and DTV.
The Astros wanted it maxed out more than possible, that's what you can't grasp. So...they are going to get a better offer not having an ownership stake in a Regional Network? That's only true if you are basing it on the current mess that Jim Crane created at CSN H. Yeah....he will make more money somewhere besides the Network he f'ed up. But not what he has fools believing he needs to make to keep the clubhouse from being a revolving door. The Astros wanted to leave after their refusal to accept market reality and greed screwed up the Network.
So......why does FSN have to pay the Astros now more than they were getting before when they were with FSN, when they can't charge DirecTV more now? Again...do you think this stuff through? Like Otis said... Crane is pretty ****ty at this stuff, he weakened his leverage acting like a bully. Who even knows if the Rockets come with him.
They wanted a fair subscriber fee comparable to what other MLB teams with ownership stakes got... problem was that carriers in Houston weren't willing to pay it, while they were still on the hook for FSN. If there was a way that they could have all negotiated not to carry FSN after the Astros/Rockets left, getting CSN on would have been a much easier task. If they don't care about ownership, and are just negotiating rights fees... yes, they'll get a competitive offer simply because they're a MLB team that plays in a top 10 media market. Not sure why its so hard for you to grasp the basic issues in this stalemate.
Because the value of MLB TV contracts has gone up with each and every renewal with every single team. Sports on TV is at an all-time high for ad rates due to it being DVR proof.
Because that's what happens every time deals get renewed. Rates go up. It happens in every sport with every team. Do you know how TV deals work for sports?
You are the guy who can't grasp things here. The FSN thing was always out there and should have been factored in to potential revenue that the Network could legitimately count on. Also some providers felt $3.50 was overpriced too. CSN-H should have negotiated shorter term individual agreements with providers that termed out around the time the provider was off the hook for FSN. Less money in the short term but the opportunity to get rake hikes around the time Crane isn't fielding the lowest payroll in MLB. If they go back to Fox, they will be lucky to get what they got before unless Fox can jack up the rates to the providers. That will piss subscribers off who were already paying for something they weren't getting and then will be asked to pay more to actually get it.
Again to both you and Major.... this situation is a little different since subscribers rates didn't go down when the teams left. Kinda hard for the provider to demand a rate increase after they screwed you for a year.
$3.50 is overpriced with them still paying for FSN... but its in line with most other cities' RSN fees (even smaller markets like Pittsburgh). FSN paying even just market rate = more than what the Astros were getting before. Remember, the Astros could still shop their rights to other channels as well. Lastly, FSN is already under contract with all the providers (unlike CSN was). Any dispute would be handled by FSN and the providers directly... and they've handled rights fees increases before, with people's cable bills going up because of it.
