OMG, LonghornFan, RM95 and Bandwagoner agreeing in three posts in a row? Sure sign of the apocalypse!!
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastro...stros-rank-16th-in-team-value-at-800-million/ Bloomberg: Astros rank 16th in team value at $800 million Posted on October 23, 2013 at 10:33 am by Reid Laymance in General Another business publication has taken a shot at ranking the value of MLB teams and this time the Astros come in 16th. The calculations by bloomberg.com have the average value of an MLB team at $1 billion but the estimates it gives for the Astros put Jim Crane’s team at $800 million. The Bloomberg math puts the Astros 21st in team revenue at $205 million and 22nd in gate receipts at $45 million (an interesting figure considering the Astros ranked 27th in overall attendance, must be the dynamic pricing the team instituted to charge more for higher-profile series.) Bloomberg also gives the Astros credit for $76 million in rights fees, which would rank 16th, but it is unclear if that accounts for the missed payments by the troubled Comcast Sports Net regional network, of which the Astros own a 44 percent share. Other revenue figures: $12 million for concessions (25th in the league), $23 million for sponsorship (12th in the league, so those signs hanging in left field have some advantages beyond the charities they help), and $9 million in revenue sharing from MLB. Earlier this year, Forbes.com created a firestorm when it said the Astros were the most profitable team (because of a league-low payroll). The article brought a flurry of rebuttal from Crane and the Astros. We’ll have to see how the Astros react to a report that puts them in the middle of the pack, finance-wise, while having the worst record in the majors.
$76MM in broadcasting rights fees this year? see this is what i'm saying, it doesn't cost much, it can't, to run the station. almost all of that money ($100MM) had to go into the teams's pockets. like i said earlier, he seems to have spent most of it revamping the minor league system. he is 21st in revenue WITHOUT signing up with directv or uverse. it seems to me the standard deals would put him at the mid level of revenues among teams at the least. that is including the pitiful gate numbers.
You're wasting your breath with these homers. Like the article says, let's see what Crane says about this report.
I have no idea what the Astros were entitled to under the broadcast agreement. $76 million is about half of what the Rangers media deal is right now, which includes equity. But the rub here is that everyone acknolwedges the Astros weren't paid for 3 months of their season. I don't know if they spread the payments out over 12 months or if they only receive payments for broadcasts during the season.
Just to be clear...the only reason we're talking law in this thread is because the subject of this thread is a bankruptcy suit. Kinda hard to have a real discussion about a court proceeding without touching on the law a bit.
that's fine, but i get chastised for bringing up the $100MM earlier in the thread. i have no problem with the legal facts that have been brought up, i've thanked people for them, but its ultimately about money. it always is
The law aspect is one side of it.... what happens next is another. There's not even a concensus amongst the legal minds here as to what could or should happen with the bankruptcy case. There's some here who try to make Comcast the villian all while the truth stared them in the face. Comcast and the Rockets got tired of covering for the Astro screwing up the Network out of greed. The Rockets as much said so in the response when they stated "Individual stakeholder self-interest” is not sufficient grounds for the Astros to challenge a decision that would be in CSN Houston’s best interests.
This is also the first time anyone has actual facts about WTF is going on with Houston being able to see their teams on tv. Everything else was behind closed doors with propaganda from all sides, media speculation and guess work being the only info to escape.
i totally agree, and these numbers from the latest post are all speculative me because they are all private. i just want to see the numbers if this case is heard
Oh I agree.. They were covering for a ****ty business partner trying to salvage the damage Crane's mouth was continually doing to their company. I never said Comcast and the Rockets weren't covering (lying) for a big lie by Jim Crane. Having Crane revealed to be a greedy a-hole at that point would have shifted public sentiment toward the providers. Jim Crane got busted and they were forced to cover for him. I'm gave you another example of Crane not blinking as an example of going rogue and as a counter to your unified front. It's a problem many of you seem to ignore. What Jim Crane was / is doing is NOT what you do when you are negotiating.
totally agree. my only point is this, and i'm not a lawyer, but as lenny briscoe would tell you, follow the dollar. whatever the $100MM is considered to be, that is a large part of the dispute. that's a lot of money. just plain and simple, even for major league franchises, that's a lot of money. again my theory is that some of that money because that seems to be a lot for one year of broadcasting rights had to be given on the stipulation that a carriage fee deal would get signed. i don't know as much as the legal minds here, but i would almost guarantee that control of the station arguments will rely a lot on what was expected with that loan.
