Ok...what if the Network decided they'd rather not air all the Astro games? Well they'd be obligated to or they'd be in breach of contract. What if there was a dispute on how much is owed? What if the Astros were obligated to have players available for interviews and other programing and didn't? Breach of contract again... What you are describing is a very very remote possibility since breach of contract is a standard for any contract. And in light that the team gave the Network a 30 day notice.
No offense to you, but who cares? Why is this important? Whether there's a breach or not is irrelevant. The Astros have not initiated any proceedings to collect that money...at this point it appears they're willing to just walk the agreement. Maybe they'll walk the agreement and sue for the deficiency later in state court. At this point the Astros are the ONLY creditor not being paid...and they're an insider. Yet, here we are in an involuntary bankruptcy. Had that not been filed, the Astros would have walked...the Rockets would have followed, and they would have had time to make arrangements for another method of getting their games on the air. They would have had about a month to get that together.
Hypothetical: If this gets blown up today, how quickly do you think the Rockets get on TV? Do they have to give a 30 day notice?
I suspect they have deals in place for most contengencies - we know they have a deal in place for the 75 mile broadcast - because that was done last year. If the Astro's get overrulled, then I would hope they could turn that deal on immediately while the Astro file the inevitable appeal If the Astro's win - the I suspect that also have a deal with FSSW to sell rights - it would just be the timing of getting out of their current deal
A trustee is not likely to be appointed and sign deals with carriers within the week. I think it's highly unlikely a trustee gets appointed quickly, anyway. Even the Rockets are saying they don't want a trustee, either. The best hope fans have for quick resolution is a dismissal of the bankruptcy that forces everything to a head without delay.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>At CSN Houston bankruptcy hearing. At least 15 lawyers in front of the bar and maybe 20 in the audience. Astonishing.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/394824971551125504">October 28, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
For purpose of simplification....the Astros reply brief (which I posted about on Friday of last week) sets out the following key questions they have for the judge to consider at the hearing on their Motion to Dismiss: 1. May Comcast circumvent the requirements of its partnership agreement by compelling its subsidiaries to commence an involuntary petition? 2. May Comcast void the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code by compelling those subsidiaries to file declarations based on not-yet-due claims under unauthorized verbal arrangements with affiliated entities? 3. May Comcast commence an involuntary bankruptcy when the sole material unpaid creditor at the time of the filing is the very partner whose consent rights Comcast seeks to strip? 4. May Comcast do so when its stated purpose for orchestrating the Involuntary Petition is to protect the interests of Comcast as a secured creditor? They go on to say if the answer is "yes" to these questions, then there is no such thing as a bad faith filing under Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code (the section governing involuntary bankruptcies).
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>If you paid DirectTV the combined hourly legal fees per hour being spent here over two days, it might be enough to cover CSNH carriage fees.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/394825735157723137">October 28, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Not for 20 years though! And DirecTV won't be able to compete with Dish and Comcast if they sign a bad deal for 20 years!
It was relevant to the erroneous statements being made here that some keep trying to defend. If you are in bankruptcy court and your position CSN H isn't bankrupt, not following legal contractual procedure to request delinquent payment from CSN H could work against you. CSN H could easily say in court that the Astros didn't ask for the money because they knew CSN H was bankrupt and just wanted out now. The Astros also need to demand the money because they sure as hell aren't going to not go after what they are owed at some point. Not sure why it's so important for you to respond to my post to someone else either.
I agree but does this agreement which is going to be overall less lucrative than this RSN part ownership that Crane needed to "compete" start the clock for him to begin whining he doesn't have the money to compete with others in the division. At this point, I don't really care what happens for Crane's team. It's just sad that we will have missed a year of basketball over nothing.
1. I saw the conversation and didn't understand the importance...that's why I asked. 2. You've made the point here time and again that the payment to the Astros was withheld by design. I tend to agree. That's not an indication of a company that can't pay its debts...and when NONE of the creditors who filed this bankruptcy have any debts that aren't being paid in their ordinary course, then it reeks of bad faith...particularly when all of those creditors are affiliates of a partner in the midst of a partnership dispute. 3. If the bankruptcy is not dismissed, then the Astros will likely file a claim to preserve it. But they're not going to file the claim in a bankruptcy they feel was brought in bad faith to begin with. There are other more appropriate venues to make that claim within.
Who says the Astros won't end up with an equity interest in an RSN ultimately? My guess is those discussions are already happening. We missed a year of hoops because our basketball team signed a dumb-ass deal. No one put a gun to their head. They saw dollar signs far and above what an NBA team needs from media dollars...and good for them...the Rockets aren't a non-profit. But signing a deal with the Astros giving them full veto power over whether the Rockets could get on the air was just flat out dumb.
Exactly - this was caused as much by the Rockets' greed as it was Astros' greed. Not in the carriage negotiations, but in the structure and intent of the whole organization.
I hate to even characterize it as greed. It's businesses making money. Businesses with investors and creditors they have to answer to. They explored RSN options because they knew it would open up new paths of dollars. It just meant more on a competitive basis within their respective leagues for the Astros than it did for the Rockets. And that imbalance is why there should have been something built in to their agreement to address this situation. The only thing built in is that the Astros and Rockets had the power to force Comcast into a carriage deal in the event Comcast was unwilling to agree to one after a year. But there was nothing about the Astros or Rockets being able to overrule one another or Comcast being able to overrule either in the event this stretched out. Nothing at all. That's amazing to me.
I'd say they should be looking at a ROOT/DirecTV deal, but the waters may be so poisoned in Houston right now that the best bet is FSN for 5 years or so. If they start up a deal with DTV, Comcast is going to fight them like a dog.
I have told you time and time that I didn't say that they were going to claim it in bankruptcy court. I'm telling you this is standard procedure for filing breach of contract in order to terminate a contract which is highly more likely what is going on than the 1 in a 100 scenario laid out by others.
