I know this is tongue in cheek, but I really wouldn't want to do business with Crane on something this volatile. I do wonder if Comcast would still be required to pay 3.40 if Astros did get rights back. If so, Crane would really have had Comcast by the balls before filing.
Contractually, if the network had paid the rights fees, the Astros wouldn't have the right to take their media rights back. Due to how the contract was written, with the taking back of media rights written into the deal, Comcast knew this was possible after 90 days of nonpayment.
Question for Ref and Max- Since IIRC both of you are familiar with the judge in this case, how long do you think he will draw this out? He let the Astros be the lead negotiators and now the Rockets, do you think he will make a ruling after the next court update if the Rockets don't bring anything new to the table? Obviously the carriage offers aren't going to change just because the Rockets are negotiating, so unless they come up with another option like an Astros buyout then nothing will change at the next update. Could this drag on for months, years, decades.....?????? I guess what I am really asking is does the judge realize that the fans are the ones who are really getting screwed in this deal and could he / will he speed this up for the fans sake?
Not Max or Ref, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn a couple of years ago. I would put it in the months category. As long as progress appears to be made, the judge likely will hold off. With baseball season approaching, I think the judge will decide to act before then unless all three parties accept progress is being made at that point. I put baseball season as the deadline as the Astros are the ones who want it dismissed. I don't think Comcast/Rockets want the judge to make any decisions. The weird thing about these delays is that while the original "debts" didn't appear to be legit at the time, actual legitimate debts are probably happening now like the Rockets.
I don't know that he'd speed anything up for the sake of the fans. I've never been before this judge as an attorney...he just taught me bankruptcy in law school. It's not the carriage offers that they're trying to change at this point (though no one would say no to that if the offers were high enough, obviously)...it's seeing if they can rework the deal in some way that works..bringing in another party..or having partners buy out other partners' interests. Finding some way to prevent this thing from being the loser it's projected to be over the course of the next decade. There's a lot of potential ways that could happen. It's possible still the judge could just dismiss the bankruptcy; that would certainly bring things to a head as the Astros could walk. That would force change. Of course it's possible the Rockets step up and buy out the Astros and/or Comcast (or some percentage of either or both) in some way that makes it attractive to go forward. Comcast has expressed in their original filings that they'd like to own the assets at some point. It's possible the judge could order a trustee appointed --- but I can almost assure you that neither the Rockets or Astros really want that to happen; no pro sports team wants their media rights assigned away by a US trustee -- and the leagues don't want that precedent, either. If your concern is speed...the worst thing that could happen is that the bankruptcy holds...that a trustee is appointed...that the litigation gets trapped in the bankruptcy proceeding...and there is no agreement between the parties with respect to some buyout or one of those other "outside of the box" options for resolution. If that happens then, yes...it could be years.
I don't know how long this will last. I suspect that he will give the parties every opportunity to be successful. If progress is being made, I doubt he will just pull the plug. We, as fans, tend to look at these situations in the short term. We want this resolved now. A bankruptcy judge has to look at this in the long term. While the judge is certainly aware of the fact that the fans want the team on TV, I doubt that he would let that concern override the concern of having a network that turns a profit and will be able to exist for a long time. Sometimes getting it right doesn't equal getting it quickly. The judge is a very fair man, and as Max pointed out, very practical. He will cut it off at some point. As to where that point is, nobody knows. There are too many variables and unknown facts to really give a guess.
Thanks Joe, Max,and Ref. While I am 180 degrees from all of you on who is to blame for this mess, I do appreciate your knowledge of the situation. I hope an equitable solution can be worked out quickly because we as fans are the ones who, even though we are innocent bystanders, are hurt the most. Unfortunately, I don't see any way this gets worked out quickly . The only quick solution would be for one of the other parties to buy out the Astros however I seriously doubt either would offer enough to make Jim Crane happy. The Astros and Rockets should have originally made a deal with Direct TV or Dish Network instead of a cable company. If they were with a satellite company, ANYONE who wanted the station could get it with a phone call no matter where they lived within the broadcast area. With cable, they are limited to the cable infrastructure. If they had gone with a satellite company, there would be a lot more pressure for the other providers to reach carriage deals due to the fact that anyone can switch to satellite. The other providers could and would lose customers.
^^^^^ Good article. The judge is forcing the parties to work things out themselves instead of taking a side. Kind of like my wife does......with her Kindergartners. Hmmm, interesting analogy.......................................
Interesting perspective. Frankly, I was hoping he would just bring down the hammer on day 1, but I can see how from the angle of the judge and the parties and not a fan, its a very undesirable outcome.
I think he is going overboard on the Astros losing their veto. He is forcing them to work together...not taking away power from the Astros. He would have to make a decision to do that...which is kind of the opposite point the article is trying to make. I actually think the resolution regarding the situation will be the Astros and Comcast get paid a bunch of money for their shares of the network as well as settle any issues with negotiated media rights fees (Astros) and carriage fees (Comcast).
What the author of that article is missing in his analysis is that this is an agreed order. It's not an order forced on anyone, and would not be entered but for it being agreed to...it doesn't grant relief that anyone in this case even plead for. The parties wrote this order themselves. It's the same order as before, it just substitutes the Rockets for the Astros...and the Astros walked into court the morning of that last status conference and said they had already agreed with the Rockets for the Rockets to assume that role given the litigation. The order reads as follows at the pertinent part: "Neither the Astros, nor the Rockets nor Comcast may object to the assumption and assignment of the Comcast carriage agreement on the basis that unanimous consent of the partners is required for the assumption and assignment of the contract. This provision of this Order is done with the unanimous consent of all partners of the Houston Regional Sports Network, L.P."
I just find this exercise funny. Judge tells Astros to go find a deal after they've been unable to find a deal for a year now. Astros still can't find a deal, now let's allow the Rockets to go find a deal after being unable to get the Astros to agree to a deal for a year now. It's an exercise in nothing. They're not going to find the deal the Astros want to keep CSN. Let's move on.
Well, technically, I believe the difference is that the Rockets can arrange a deal that the Astros can't veto anymore. But the only way the Astros would agree to that is if they know the Rockets aren't interested in the deal that was on the table either.
Sure has been nice being able to watch the Rockets on TV in Houston as of late. Another game on Friday night. SUCK IT, COMCAST.
The issue is the profitability of the network though. If the prior deals offered weren't profitable for the Astros why would anyone offer that now when they know they can just wait for CSN to fall apart and then scoop up the Rockets and let the Astros hang on a lurch until the providers get a sweet heart deal. They have no leverage to get a deal to make CSN profitable.
I think the Astros know that the judge isn't going to allow the Rockets to go sign off on deals that lock them into a decade of $200 million losses. The judge has to approve any deal that gets brought to the table.
Precisely. The deal that the Astros have turned down prior to the bankruptcy (to the disdain of some) is the same deal that the judge will not approve because it will lead to the network losing money. Comcast wanted that judicial intervention and now they have it.
Been out of the country for the last week. Did I miss where the Judge said that he definitively wouldn't agree to the deal that was previously on the table? Again, it was never stated that the Network would lose money, period. It was stated over a 10 year time period that it would lose money. We have no idea what the profit or loss would be for the length of the contract. It's my opinion, that we are dancing around the obvious which is Crane can't afford to be in the TV business. He needs to be bought out and let those who can afford to be in the TV business do so.
Based on everything that I know about bankruptcy law and judges, there is a zero chance that the judge will sign off on a deal that will lose $200 million over 10 years. It does not matter if the contract is a 20 year deal. Bankruptcy judges do not sign off on deals that, over the course of 10 years, would make repeat insolvency a real possibility. The judge has not rendered an opinion on this deal specifically because it isn't in front of him. Now that the Rockets are leading the negotiation, they could bring the previous deal to the judge. They won't because they know it would not be approved.
