Not sure if I am allowed to read the court filings and respond around here since I'm not an attorney but page 7 of the Astros Motion to Dismiss says it is 6 equal payments April through September.
I promise you that the attorney isn't making up numbers. The last thing any attorney wants to do is violate Rule 9011 by falsifying pleadings. That would have consequences for that attorney that extend far beyond this case.
So, riddle me this...if Crane is such a dirtbag, why are the Rockets trying to keep this bankruptcy case alive in order to salvage their business relationship with said dirtbag? You would think that, if Crane was so awful, the Rockets would look to cut their losses now. You don't really know how all this went down. Neither do I. I do know that a lot of it will probably come out at the hearing on Monday. Stay tuned...
Umm....they were looking to cut their perceived losses by signing carriage deals below the $3.40 mark. Said Dirtbag wants more than the Yankees ($2.99) get on Yes Network. Obviously the Rockets feel that there's money to be made at whatever the Network has been offered and the Astros and Rockets need each other's programming to get the best deal wherever they land.
For the millionth time in this thread, local media rights dollars, LONG TERM, are much more important to an MLB team than they are to an NBA team. Therefore, unlike Crane, if you would be willing to take a lot less over a 20 year deal, you may not be a dirtbag but you would be a ****ty businessman.
And for the millionth time, said Dirtbag wants more than the market will bear right now. I looked around and couldn't find reference to it. Is the CSN Houston a 20 year contract and does that automatically mean every provider signs a 20 year carriage contract with CSN Houston? Crane's best opportunity to maximize his profits on a TV deal is via an RSN. There's no sense blowing that opportunity up up by not being flexible early on until they get their legs under them. He's got a ton of nervous partners with the Astros and 2 partners with the Network having to make cash calls now. The Rockets just declined to do so. Crane's not going to leave this situation and jump in to another RSN opportunity to make the kind of cash he is seeking without running in to the same issues. You think anyone would give him veto power now??? I am a Sr Director level in contract negotiation for the last 15 years for a major healthcare company and make almost 200k a year doing so. So i do understand leverage. I haven't pissed on what you know in regard to what you do for a living which is this type of law. I actually respect your opinion on the case itself but that doesn't mean that makes you the authority on the rest of this mess.
I never, not once, pissed on what you know about your profession. I am sure that you are quite good at what you do, and God knows that the healthcare industry is extraordinarily complex with regulations and the like. That being said, you must know that negotiating contracts in the healthcare industry and negotiating entertainment distribution are two very different things. They just aren't the same animal. Generally carriage agreements in the industry, as I have read, are very long term agreements. They are usually 10 to 20 years in length. Signing a bad one just isn't an option for the Astros. They would rather, and rightfully so, be off TV for a season or two than sign a bad deal to appease people in the short term and wind up economically unable to compete in 2020.
I was making reference to basic leveraging tactics. Going rogue like Crane did is never a good thing. Being on TV at a discounted rate for a couple of years is better than bankrupting the Network. In 2 years, if Crane's plan to build through the draft works and fans come back, he has more leverage. Plus the lingering effects of the Foxsports carriage deals could be a non-factor at that point. Crane really has very little credibility at this point.
No one chastised you. We just disagreed. The bankruptcy is filed to preserve the status quo. To make sure the Astros don't walk...because if they do, everyone seems to acknowledge that the station would implode. In that sense, it is about the $100 million...to the extent it means that Comcast has loaned $100 million to a startup that failed. They're unlikely to recover most of that money. So in that sense, yes, it's about the $100 million. But Comcast isn't the only group that contributed something here. All the partners have funded this thing. And they will all be out money they sunk into it if it implodes. The Rockets in particular seem, primarily, to be making sure they don't lose their equity interest. But the bankruptcy proceeding, first and foremost, is Comcast's effort to get a trustee appointed by the Court in order to force a decision..to take control over from the partners in negotiating deal with carriers in order to break the stalemate. Comcast says if that doesn't happen, the station will implode. Oh, and they say they'd be willing to buy all the assets out of an auction handled by the trustee they want appointed. The Rockets and Astros disagree with Comcast. Neither wants a trustee appointed. Neither will want their media rights assigned by a trustee. The Astros say the whole bankruptcy is a scheme for Comcast to take over all the assets of the network....and they argue the bankruptcy should be dismissed. The Rockets say they're fine with it staying in bankruptcy, because they acknowledge that the only thing holding the network together right now is the automatic stay which is preventing the Astros from walking out the door since they haven't been paid their media dollars due to them under their broadcasting agreement. The Rockets say very clearly, if the Astros walk, they will too...and that means their equity interest in CSN is worthless, and they don't want that to happen. The Rockets want the court to order the parties to negotiate for one week to see if they can find resolution still. So yes, parties have monies invested in this...and the Comcast Partner has an affiliate that lends money to Comcast startup networks all around the country...and that group loaned $100 million on this one. And yes, Comcast has a reason to try to patch this thing together...and they're saying that can't be done without the bankruptcy forcing the Astros to stick around....and ultimately having a trustee appointed to make decisions for the partners..in place of the partners.
Your entire premise for what they should have done is based on being able to do a two year carriage agreement and then renegotiate. That deal was likely never on the table. It just isn't the norm in the industry.
That's not my entire premise, it's just a possible short term solution that may have been palatable to providers who were still on the hook for Fox Sports. another solution could have been to prorate the CSN H carriage fees to offset whatever rebated fee that providers were paying to Fox. Once the provider was off the hook with Fox , CSN H picks up whatever the provider was paying Fox. The Astros have never had a 20 year agreement with providers and had an out on their last deal. Not sure why that 20 year deal being tossed out as set in stone. It's nothing but an attempt to dramatize the effect of a possible carriage agreement.
I thought about the possibility of Comcast agreeing to bridge the gap for the Astros and Rockets a bit between what was expected and what they could get...at least while the providers are stuck with FSN. The problem is, I have no idea how long most of those providers are stuck with FSN. My understanding..and I don't remember where I read this...is that was offered, but Comcast would only agree to do it if the teams gave up some equity in exchange. Apparently there have been numerous attempts to restructure the entire deal.
Fox Sports gave the providers a negotiated rebate after losing the Rockets/Astros. Being on the hook for Fox Sports has nothing to do with the carriage negotiations.
I'm not sure why Comcast should have to bridge the gap. This Network is a shared risk and all partners had to be aware the carriage deals were no slam dunk.
That was a point brought up by one of the legal minds here. If that is erroneous please provide documentation that their assumption was wrong because I think their point was even with the rebate it wasn't free and would factor in to a rate hike for their subscribers should they pay what CSN Crane was asking.
Well if you're not gonna pay for the broadcast rights...and you're gonna lose what you keep referring to as your biggest asset....then you either pony up or call it all a sunk cost when it walks out the door.
