The lack of TV coverage has caused us to fight amongst each other. That and the abismal season by the Texans.
I would say it's childlike, but children usually forgive each other and give hugs once they've been reprimanded. I don't think anyone gave hugs after that last thread.
I said "most", I didn't say you did. In fact, I knew you didn't but there were others who did. My point was even the experts can't always predict the outcome. Not sure why you have to name call me when I haven't done that to you.
I'm not attacking anyone. There are 2 sides to this debate. Yes some of it has to do with bankruptcy law and some has to do with what I feel are unreasonable demands and claims coming from the Astros camp. The guy has backed out of a sale once with the Astros. He has been involved in 2 other attempts to buy a team. He has dealt with an RSN in one of the attempts and had insight in to the kind of carriage rates that he was seeking with the other. The guy runs around for over a year now crowing about how the rates he was seeking are justified and that he isn't blinking. Then the next thing you know he is suing Drayton because he was "duped" because the rates were unrealistic. He was supposed to come back with progress that he made getting the kind of deal he expects and we get a lawsuit against the former owner. He either has Tourettes or he is a desperate liar. The comments that we have until April to get this worked out suck balls too as there's no sense of urgency with this guy to make things right for his partners.
No one said they knew for sure what was going to happen. I remember distinctly having a conversation with Refman in that thread about how unpredictable any court proceeding is. I personally believed dismissal was the most likely action the judge would take. That was based on what I had read of all the pleadings, and what I already knew of the law by experience in practice. Instead, the judge forced an agreement between the parties by signalling to Comcast that they'd get poured out otherwise. I tell my clients all the time, there are no guarantees..there's no such thing as a slam dunk. It just doesn't exist. And it certainly doesn't in a case like this. Having said all that...I still think the case for bankruptcy is ridiculously weak for all the reasons I've stated before.
I don't recall where the Judge gave any definitive indication as to what he would do Dec 12. There is speculation that it was put up or shut up for Jim Crane too. None of us know at this point what will happen.
He carried the motion to dismiss and the motion for a trustee to that December 12 date. Will he rule on those motions at that time? Unclear. Will he rule on them at some point? Yes.
It's absolutely put or shut up for Crane. Doesn't mean the BK continues. He finished the first night of hearing talking to a Comcast creditor on the stand, questioning how they qualified as an appropriate petitioning creditor for an involuntary BK. And then before the night was over, Comcast was turning the reigns over to the Astros to steer the ship. They knew full well where it was going. I don't know what will happen next...no idea if Crane will pull something together..if one of the partners will figure out a plan to buy out the rest...or if the judge will dismiss the bankruptcy. But if I had to put odds on it, I'd give the longest odds to the notion that the judge would hold it all together in bankruptcy and appoint a trustee. I promise you, neither the Rockets nor the Astros want a trustee appointed to assign away their media rights at his/her discretion.
You ballstream guys might like this: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/11/25/Media/NBA-streaming.aspx In NBA, slow road to streaming Live local games still expected this season, but several obstacles hold up plans By John Lombardo & John Ourand, Staff Writers Published November 25, 2013 A month into the NBA season, just two teams have developed local streaming services, even though the biggest regional sports network groups reached agreements with the league to stream games locally at the start of the season. What gives? The answer from media and team executives is that local live streaming is still coming this season, but fans need to be patient. “We want to make sure that we are buttoned up from a user-authentication standpoint,” said Boston Celtics President Rich Gotham. “I think Comcast’s plan is to roll it out and test it, and I’m hopeful by spring to pilot a few games. We want to make sure that when we do it, it will be easy for the consumer.” Fox Sports Net expects to start rolling out local streaming services next month for all 16 teams for which it holds the rights, sources said. Comcast is moving at a slower pace, but sources said they do expect to have streaming services ready for its seven teams by the end of the season. NBA executives were not available for comment. Time Warner Cable Sports streamed its Los Angeles Lakers games last season and is doing so again this season. And the Portland Trail Blazers are selling live streaming of their games to fans who do not have access to that team’s rights holder, CSN Portland. Reasons for the holdup are relatively mundane and largely center around the networks’ distribution deals. Fox Sports Net and NBC Sports Group plan to make local streams available only to pay-TV subscribers through the industry’s TV Everywhere initiative. As such, they have to cut new deals with distributors to allow for local streaming and set up an authentication process around it. An interesting wrinkle to the deals has Fox Sports and Comcast SportsNet asserting what is being called “couch rights.” That means that pay-TV subscribers will be able to stream the games anywhere, even in other markets. For example, if a Heat fan who subscribes to Sun Sports is on a business trip to Los Angeles, that fan would be able to stream games to his computer or handheld device. The Trail Blazers’ streaming efforts are not related to the TV Everywhere strategy used by Fox Sports Net and NBC Sports Group. Because Comcast Portland has not been able to cut carriage deals with several distributors, including DirecTV, the Blazers are offering to stream 58 regular-season games for $99.99 to fans where Comcast is not available. Last year, the Blazers offered a similar plan and drew a total of 350 subscribers. As of last week, the Blazers had 104 subscribers for the live streaming package this year. The goal is to attract 500 to 600 subscribers this season. While the Blazers and Comcast are interested in the NBA’s TV Everywhere live streaming, that effort would have no impact on the team’s live streaming package offered to fans with no access to Comcast services. “We have had internal discussions and we are moving in the right direction on it,” said Dewayne Hankins, vice president of marketing and digital for the Blazers.
Maybe 3rd thread's the charm...maybe they take off and nuke it from orbit, 'cause that's the only way to be sure. All us commoners want is (informed) information, can yall make a thread for that and then keep the bickering in this one?
here, here. I haven't commented in this thread because I have no clue about how bankruptcy court and other business and legal matters work. so, I read and learn (after weeding through a lot of pointless crap).
When you say "they"...you mean CSN and the local carriers? The problem is...according to testimony from Comcast and Astros reps...agreeing to what has been offered means heavy losses for the network. An MLB team can't afford that for 5 seasons. It's also my understanding...though justtxyank would know better on this, i'm sure...that neither CSN nor the carriers are interested in a short term deal.
Well the carriers aren't going to sign any deal at the rates CSN wants. And why would CSN do a short term deal that guarantees them the same losses that a long term deal would?
Last part is what I was going to say...no one wants to lock in, for any term, rates that are going to have them losing money. That's particularly true of an MLB team.
