Typical that those who don't see things your way are "apologists" whom you continually ask about their ability to see. And typical that your equally uninformed view is "the truth". The very definition of narrow-minded. The dead horse is the conversation, and as to the dolt continually whacking at it without learning a damn thing, I will leave that to your imagination.
Exactly... as the owner of a network, they needed it at a certain level. I don't want them settling for something that puts them at a disadvantage. If he wanted to "poor mouth" people, he would have accepted the crappy deal from Comcast and be done with it. The fact that he's holding his ground in order to get a BETTER deal is good for the team. I've never been a Crane supporter from the start... didn't like how he was treating the team as his sole source of income (as he has limited net worth), didn't like how he was maximizing revenues at MMP with dynamic pricing and the LF billboards, and didn't like the possible notion that he was stashing minor league guys to avoid paying them sooner. However, the one thing I've always stood behind is them having (or getting) a tv deal that gets them to be competitive with other similar markets. The CSN deal, in a perfect world, would have been a windfall for them... now they move on to the next best thing which is high rights fees, but with a different RSN. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. The Astros are going to be on TV somewhere... and they're going to get compensated for it. Do you not want them to get a deal? Are you saying they'll turn down every deal so they can continue to remain poor? Are you saying they'll use this as an excuse to have a low payroll? If they have no deal with anybody... they certainly can't afford much. Again, a team's TV deal IS their main source of income. What do you want them to do?
Look, I actually enjoyed the back and forth with the lawyers on the case itself. I tend to side with Refman's views of the case but did come to agree with MadMax that the case getting thrown out might be best with what all this has become. The conversation has evolved in to a lot of different things at this point. Currently, the case in court (of which there isn't total agreement amongst legal folks on this board) and where do the Astros go from here, do the Rockets or another RSN want to get in bed with the Astros again or do the Astros have any leverage now after how poorly they handled this situation. Ie....your provider is an a-hole come to CSN Houston, no wait.....CSN Houston is an a-hole come to Fox Sports... I gave specific examples of where the Astros have backed themself in to a corner now and have received nothing but oh..it will work out answers. I do understand leverage and negotiating as I have done that for 30 years for a large company. Speaking of horses, get off your high horse. I don't need your approval or others to debate any aspect of this mess as much as I want to. And yes, Astro homers, like you, have blinders on.
I have ran a multi state law firm for years..... it has nothing to with being an Astros homer and everything to do with you being ignorant. You had numerous professionals tell you that you are wrong.... maybe there is something to that.
The problem i have with crane and les to a lesser extent (haha) is that if you want to go into a new business, owning a station, you need to know what the going rate is for that product. they act like they are caught totally off guard by the positions of the other carriers.
The FSN issue was a big one (providers still having to carry it, with no teams)... as was the fact that the bubble burst on huge payouts for RSN's after the Dodgers signed their deal earlier this year. But, you're right... somebody should have stopped them and said "If we can't get coverage, should we still go ahead with this deal?" Providers taking a hard stance on this is much easier when the channel is not on the airwaves already... whereas they're basically screwed with FSN unless the network gets the local sports teams back.
A large part of the problem is a bubble was forming in the RSN market. If this had all happened a year earlier, there's a good chance of them having gotten the deal they wanted, as did a bunch of other teams around the country. But their timing was terrible and their station launched right when providers started taking a stand against the ridiculous pricing.
Seriously. Can someone explain to me how the Astros do not deserve most of the blame for this mess? Saying they were hoodwinked does not help their cause.
Yup... it also led to the franchise being sold for a record-high price... a valuation that was largely affected by the team being part owners of a RSN. You can bet Crane is going to do everything possible to recoup that value, as he paid through the nose for a team that without a RSN, isn't worth as much.
Some interesting bits from Astros Opposition to Appointment of a Creditor: 1. CSN Houston is actually managed on a day-to-day basis by Comcast Services...one of the petitioning creditors who threw the network into bankruptcy; 2. Astros say there's no gridlock...there's no mismanagement, fraud or improper conflict of interest within the partnership that requires a trustee's appointment to overcome. They say there is genuine dispute among the partners about long-term affiliation agreements with other providers "that are significantly below the base rates in the Comcast Affiliation Agreement." Astros say this isn't gridlock, and the partners anticipated that they might not always agree and contracted for mechanisms to override consent rights in some specified circumstances, but notably, not in others. But that how decisions were to be made were specifically bargained for by very sophisticated parties...and that the "gridlock" is nothing more than the Astros assertion of their bargained-for voting rights. And that those rights shouldn't be overrun by a bankruptcy filed only by affiliates of one of the partners. 3. Says the mechanism to deal with the disagreement they're having now is specifically contracted for. In the event CSN Houston does not have agreements with certain key providers after the anniversary of the launch of the station, the Astros and Rockets specifically bargained for the right to cause CSN to enter into affiliation agreements without Comcast's consent..."NO SUCH RIGHT WAS GIVEN TO COMCAST, yet this is precisely what Comcast seeks in the guise of its Trustee Motion. 4. Says that the Astros specifically have a right under their broadcast agreement with CSN to terminate it upon the appointment of a trustee, regardless of whether the trustee attempts to assign the broadcast agreement. Reads as follows in that agreement: "For the avoidance of doubt, no assignee of any assignment for the benefit of creditors or a ...trustee in bankruptcy...shall have any right to continue this Agreement or to in any way use the rights granted under this Agreement if the Astros exercise their right of termination..." Says that these sorts of clauses are enforced if applicable law excuses the non-debtor party from rendering performance to the trustee or to an assignee of such contract....and Delaware law says that personal services contracts and trademark licenses can not be assigned. Goes on to say that the Media Rights Agreement, General Partnership Agreement and Limited Partnership Agreement are executory contracts...and those can not be assigned to third parties. 5. Maybe more importantly, Astros say that a trustee could not break the purported "gridlock" because they it can't excise the Astros' consent rights from the governing partnership documents. 6. Says there is "no potential impaired class that could confirm a plan of reorganization as a matter of law...so "all roads in this Chapter 11 proceeding lead to a dead end." Creditors have to accept the reorganization plan, and for purposes of acceptance, the votes of "insiders" don't count. Capital structure is : 1. holders of secured claims by Comcast Lender; 2. holders of general unsecured claims; 3. holders of equity interests (Astros/Rockets/Comcast). None of these classes would be entitled to vote on a reorg plan, because the Rockets, Astros and Comcast are all insiders...and affiliates are insiders as well. The holders of unsecured claims have no basis for a reorg plan because they're being paid and there is no good faith reason to delay any payments to those outside creditors....Comcast verified in their own pleading that all those creditors are being paid...in fact the Astros and Comcast are agreeing to backstop all of those debts, anyway. 7. Big Comcast loan is secured by the CSN assets....but that specifically does not include the broadcast rights of either the Rockets or Astros. 8. Says the handful of offers they've received from providers would not allow CSN to operate profitably, and would ultimately lead to cash calls from the investors (Rockets/Astros/Comcast) and potentially the dilution of equity in CSN of any partner who failed to make that cash call. "If, on the other hand, the Astros made their capital contribution and preserved their equity interest, their net media rights fees would have been reduced, offsetting the very fees owed to them under the Media Rights Agreement (broadcast agreement). Alternatively, Comcast could have loaned additional funds to the Network, which would have required the Astros to help service a substantial debt. Feaced with that Hobson's choice, the Astros instead informed Comcast that they would exercise their consent right, refuse to approve affiliation agreements on terms that led to an unprofitable network, and in turn protect CSN and the Astros. The Astros have been and continue to be willing to entertain unprofitable affiliation agreements if limited to a short term so as to allow CSN to renegotiate longer term profitable deals. 9. In May they partners agreed to make capital contributions to CSN payable in 3 installments. All three partners funded their pro rata share of the first 2 capital calls, and agreed that the Astros' pro rata share would be placed in a special account and set aside to make the upcoming media rights payments to the Astros. But when it came time to fund the final installment, Comcast refused to do so unless all 3 partners agreed to fund. The Rockets chose not to, instead electing to secure an appraisal of the Network prior to making a funding decision. On 9/27, the Astros received a read receipt on an email to a senior Comcast officer communicating the Astros restructuring proposal. They received no response, however, and instead were served with the bankruptcy petition. 10. Astros think the whole BK is about Comcast seeking to appoint a trustee to facilitate its plan to acquire all of CSN's assets, including the broadcast rights of the Rockets and Astros without their consent. Further, "Comcast seeks to rewrite its loan agreement to provide for security in the Astros' media rights or an agreement that the Astros would not terminate that agreement."
Blame can be administered on any level of the agreement. The Astros aren't going to accept a low-ball offer just to get the product on the air... they rely too much on TV money to do that. Do you blame them for not "settling"? The Rockets don't rely on TV money as much... but still decided to go into partnership with the Astros to try and make as much $$$ as possible. Nobody held a gun to their head to join up with the Astros. Do you blame the Astros for that? Lastly, the two sides with different goals decided to go into a partnership with a company that has a questionable track record (but still had more experience in running a RSN, and getting coverage deals, than either other party or competing companies). If the Astros made the decision to go with Comcast without the Rockets' consent, then I guess this is one thing you can blame them for... but it was probably a group decision, influenced by $$$ signs.
I said repeatedly in these threads that Houston was a battleground in a larger war that Comcast has been waging around the country.
Partly. Bad timing, chose the wrong company to form the RSN with, in a market that stupidly had another RSN under contract with no out clause, despite not having any teams.
The bar that the Astros set for them to "compete" to not become a revolving door in regard to players was the CSN Houston deal and I need you to explain to me how they get that high revenue deal now somewhere else if this CSN Houston Network deal folds. I gave examples of what Crane could have done within the construct of the CSN Houston deal to eventually get to what Crane wanted especially since he isn't going to have a payroll at max levels anytime soon. Whatever the Astros get will be south of the bar they set not equal or north. That's when the not being able to compete excuses will start.
Wrong about exactly what? Because there are several things going on in this debate not all to do with the legal aspect of this case.
But it seems some here are pretending the FSN situation isn't an issue if they for example go with DirecTV via Root. Crane didn't have an action plan if they didn't get the carriage deals in place other than to stomp his feet and scream subsequently hurting himself and his business partners. Like I have said repeatedly... If Fox is the only way to get all the carriiage deals inplace quick, what leverage does Crane have with Fox? Crane goes some place else besides and A. he has a trust issue with if he enters in to an RSN and B. The paying Fox and the other RSN issue rears it's ugly head again.
And then Crane acted like a complete ******* at the expense of his business partners who wanted to salvage the situation.
