Exactly what it means. If all providers offered on same terms that they got from DirecTV, they'd bleed money through 2019. And Comcast's reorganization plan was to force Astros and Rockets to take that same deal from all providers.
I'm trying to figure out the implications of that. I guess it means they would become profitable in 2019? Otherwise why would even Comcast want to reorganize and agree to it.
You just heard both sides. That was a Comcast rep who gave that testimony. He's an officer of Comcast affiliate and sits on CSN board.
Comcast is on the other side of these negotiations when it comes to ROOT Sports channels that DirecTV owns. If they make DirecTV happy here, maybe they lose money with CSN-H but make money with having to pay lower rates elsewhere. I think one key to this is who's responsible for providing the cash to cover the $200MM in projected losses. If it's the owners based on the share they own, then it's even worse.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Ruth: CSNH's monthly expenses are $3m. CSNH owes Astros $27.7m in unpaid rights fees. Net has not failed to pay other bills, he says.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/394982095442829312">October 29, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That wasn't an Astros rep giving that testimony. That's a Comcast officer who sits on the board of CSN.
I haven't bitten your head off once yet. I'd need to hear the other side of this as I said before I don't know what their revenue projections were to begin with. The first 5 years may have been underwater as they paid back fixed costs. We do know as of now: 100M loan + 12M Cash Call + 27M owed to Astros is $139M in the hole today.
How many more sides are there? Both Astros and Comcast have been answering questions and providing documents. I'd say what we've heard so far is pretty damning
So why would the Rockets accept this then? Will the network be profitable from 2020-2035 and beyond? Is it just the Astros being unwilling to take the short term loss, or is it a loss for both Rox and Astros infinitum? It just doesn't pass the smell test.
Agreed. Comcast is a bigger company than MLB/NBA put together. They can withstand losses for a few years with one channel, if it buys them a foot-hold in a region currently dominated by nobody. Also, they'd especially love it if they had pro sports teams who owned the majority of the company, and thus took the majority of the losses with them.
Just a guess here obviously...if the network becomes profitable after a while, the Rockets would like to own a giant piece of it. Seems unlikely that's going to happen though
Did I say anything to the contrary? You said you'd wait to hear all sides...you do know that those two different sides have spoken today right?
Both Astros and Comcast folks have testified. Both sides get to question them. I'm not a lawyer but I know that much.
Not as dependent on local TV money as baseball, and they still get a shot at long-term profits. Also, I do feel the Astros need profit/rights fees from a TV deal to stay operational on a day-to-day basis mores than the Rockets do... Crane (and his investors) do not have the ability to withstand short-term (or long-term) losses at any level.
Absolutely. And both have given same testimony in this regard. No one believed it when Postolos said the same thing earlier because it doesn't fit the "Astros are evil" narrative. But now Comcast officer who sits on CSN board says same exact thing..and says Comcast's plan was to force Rockets and Astros to accept it.
