Actually, Refman is 95% correct. The point of the order was to see if Crane could make a working business model which would mean one of a few scenarios: 1) A buyout of a partner (Comcast in this instance) 2) A buyout of the Astros ownership while CSN would retain their broadcast access 3) Bringing in a fourth partner in the form of DTV (most likely) to inject capital into the network to cover losses in exchange for equity. 4) A complete buyout of all partners by a fourth party 5) A media broadcast partnership with an existing network such as FSN The most likely of all of these deals was someone buying out Comcast. If DTV did that for example, they'd have a carriage agreement in place with Comcast, the biggest in the market, AND as the owner the carriage rate issue wouldn't be as big of an issue for them.
So your point now is that you can't trust Crane's statements to the media to be truthful? That's kinda my point too although I don't think this is an example of it. Thanks for confirming that you too believe that Crane misleads the public.
Problem for him, he thought he was 100% right and he wasn't. If DTV buys out CSN, doesn't the MFN clause still exist? So whatever DTV rates are and when they add U Verse or Dish, doesn't Comcast pay less than everyone? If the agreement with Comcast goes away, then there is no carriage agreement and a rate has to be negotiated with Comcast during the buyout. Since Comcast knows the market, how do the Astros wind up with better rates with Comcast than they would once the MFN clause kicked in on the current agreement? Comcast is paying an inflated rate right now that they will not once someone pays anything lower than their current rate. Crane is likely pissed because he wants Comcast to keep on paying that inflated rate no matter what everyone else pays.
Your questions are impossible to answer because all of it would be open for negotiation as part of any purchase. However, Crane may not actually care what Comcast is paying if he gets an infusion of cash to cover any losses for the first X number of years.
Your assertion that DTV buys out Comcast and voila there is a carriage agreement with Comcast would be open for negotiation and not a given either. So DTV's model is so drastically different than Comcasts that they will absorb the Astros share of losses for the network without cannibalizing the Astros equity? Or are you saying here that the Astros sell their media rights outright?
It is above market. It's what the Astros and Rockets were shooting for from all the providers. Comcast didn't want to get stuck paying those carriage rates if no one else did. I don't blame them. That's what the most favored nation clause was all about and what Jim Crane says he knew nothing about until a year or so later. An example of the impact using made up numbers (seems appropriate here) and lets just say an equal number of subscribers come on that are already on. Lets say that Comcast is paying 100 million to CSN H in carriage rates. Lets just say DISH and DTV are new providers and they represent 40% of the market. Collectively their fees amount to 50 Million. It seems like Crane said the offers were half or something like that. Because of MFN, Comcast then drops to less than 50 million. For arguments sake say 49 Million. Then the Network is left with Comcast (49 Million) and DTV/Dish (50 Million). Under that scenario, they gain viewers and reduce their carriage fees by 1 million. After "allegedly" becoming aware of the MFN. the nightmare known as Jim Crane decided to use his bully "no blinking" act in the media to entice providers in to paying what he was calling fair rates. That bombed big time. Then you have Crane making this comment in court to Judge Isgur. “I’m in the overnight business. … I think we could get something done.” Little did we know getting something done was filing a lawsuit against his partners which some believe makes it harder to negotiate with providers now. Crane is a big time business guy who is now running around saying he got duped on the rates that he was trying to hardball you in to paying. Jim Shady sales pitch... "Dude, I'm new at this. I had no idea y'all thought I was crazy for structuring my revenue stream projections around getting those rates. CSN H lied to me, big time, I tell ya. I'm suing all of them except Les but only because he has a cute laugh. Let's partner now that I know what I am doing. Oh and sorry for participating in a scheme to try to turn your customers against you to get you to pay those outrageous fees. My bad." Some of the experts around here want you to believe the Judge is leaning toward the Astros in this mess and don't want to mention the comments attributed to the Judge below. http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/10/judge-tells-astros-rockets-other-networks-could-be-answer/ Isgur also warned the Astros, however, that their interests in CSN Houston may be best served in bankruptcy court. He said he had not heard any testimony about Comcast’s conduct in running the network that offended him and added, “We have a failure of the business. … Maybe we need to move ahead by letting the parties strike out on their own.” The Judge said put up or shut up to Crane. So far he has done neither.
I'm one of the experts who really doesn't know what he's talking about, so why are you bothering to ask me?
Are you sulking over my comments to unnamed experts regarding the statement attributed to Judge Isgur regarding not finding any offensive conduct by Comcast and that the Astros interests may be best served in bankruptcy court? I think that has a lot to do with all 3 parties agreeing to the Judge's plan to let Jim Shady be lead negotiator for a little while. I feel the Rockets and Comcast felt it would be coming back to bankruptcy court ultimately and that a trustee would be assigned after Dec 12 who would get carriage plans in place.
Granville, you clearly know more about this than any of us. I can't imagine why you'd have any more questions for anyone here. You have it all figured out. A whole host of people have told me just to put you on ignore, like they already have. I didn't do it, because I'm not sure I've ever done that before...I think I MIGHT have years ago. But I'm definitely not interested in continuing the conversation with you whatsoever. I'm sure you'll figure it all out without my input.
This part or else the judge is spinning his own order... <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge Isgur now asking how he would restructure business with or without Comcast involvement.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/394903426682720256">October 28, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I woulda just responded to the comment that I made but each to his own. The Judge's comments have been in print for quite awhile now, I was just surprised that those defending Crane didn't address them. Have a nice day.
I knew you wouldn't be adding much to the conversation as usual. Do you care to debate any points that I made?
Since you have decided that you know more than a business attorney and a bankruptcy attorney, what is there to debate about?
Given the fact that Comcast, through its subsidiaries, threw it into bankruptcy court to keep the Astros from leaving and failed to negotiate more than a feeble offer from one provider, I just think a new model including Comcast as a partner is unlikely.
