The first move relevant to this BK was CSN deciding not to pay the Astros. But for that, the Astros wouldn't have been able to walk.
Your guess would be wrong. Anybody who has any knowledge of this judge stated that he was likely to do something unexpected when the case was filed. Crane didn't make the first move. The original CSN partners set up the chessboard. Of course Crane isn't acting in the best interests of CSN H. All business partners in every partnership ever looks out for their own interests. That you set behavioral standards for Crane that you don't expect from the other partners is laughable. At this point, I am going to take MadMax's lead. I am done trying to educate you regarding the bankruptcy. Your hatred of Crane has blinded you to the legal realities of this case. I can feel myself losing IQ points every time I read your drivel. So, I will spend my time doing more constructive things like nailing Jell-O to the wall.
Every business would fail if they took it to the level of self interest that Crane has. Negotiating with other parties when you have a contract with your business partners is sabotaging the relationship. Your desperate need to be right on this clouds your judgement. And...you may have been on the fence on what the Judge would do but some of your buddies did predict it would be thrown out. Even then none of you predicted what the Judge actually did which makes your opinion no more valuable than anyone elses. I figured that out about you and others when you guys thought skittles and iced tea where the cornerstone of a prosecution case.
CSN-H failed when they didn't pay the Astros. Only decisions Crane made at that time was to buy share of CSN-H and not to approve an offer by DirectTV. Neither decision affected CSN-H's ability to pay the Astros.
The failure began because Crane refuses to accept the rates that the market will bear. Why do you think Postolos resigned? Because Crane refuses to accept reality. Crane took over the Astros in 2011 and has had ample time to accept reality. Yes, rejecting the offer did affect their ability to pay. The Rockets were reluctant to contribute more money in a cash call knowing that their jackass partner might hold out until eternity. Comcast was getting hurt the most in this situation because they were paying inflated rates. Meanwhile your boy Crane is slashing payroll so he can wait this out. I'm waiting for an opinion piece to come out that doesn't paint Crane as the biggest problem in this mess.
This is a lie. The DirectTV offer would not have made CSN-H money as MFN status would kick in and caused CSN-H to lose money faster.
No it isn't a lie. As has been reported by many, they were counting on the log jam with the others to break once DTV signed. Try a little harder to understand all the factors in play here. So......for example....The Rockets would be ok infusing cash if they felt optimistic if other revenue would be coming in hopefully in the near future. If Crane wasn't going to budge because he had Comcast's nuts over a barrell with the MFN then something had to happen. Comcast and the Rockets got tired of Crane's unproductive bully act that was doing nothing but giving them all bad press.
So what you are saying is that no offer was ever brought to Crane that would have caused Astros to be paid. blah blah blah...hoping on future offers does not change that no offer was ever brought to Crane that would have caused Astros to be paid. hence, you are a liar.
Not sure why a difference of opinion makes me a liar.... Kinda expected more than that from you. If the Rockets has been reported were not going to contribute to the next cash call it things remained status quo, what do you think was going to happen?
thats a lie no its not yes it is no its not you are a big fat liar your mom is fat and you smell bad no she ain't yes she is
Jesus H Christ. I stopped actively following this thread because it's one big circle jerk with Granville appearing to be the common thread with his massive hard-on for everything Jim Crane. I decide to visit today and I see that absolutely nothing has changed. What a cluster**** of a thread.
It is not a difference of opinion. Crane had no offer put in front of him that would have caused the Astros to get paid. Even if a domino effect occurred magically occurred, CSN-H was doomed to fail as it would not be turning a profit for ten years. Without profit, CSN-H runs out of money at some point in a year, two, or three and Astros don't get paid. Crane did the only thing that could save network, hold out for a deal that is profitable instead of signing a deal that under the best possible outcome would guarantee failure, but delay it a couple of years.
You decided to stop by and see if the Rockets went against their word and provided an update before Jan 7th huh? Les takes care of business in a professional manner and he's not a blowhard bully like Crane. He knows the judge has to approve whatever he brings anyway. And as a fan of the Rockets, yeah I don't appreciate people in this forum not laying the blame squarely where it belongs. I blame all 3 parties for this not getting done before last season. But since then, it's been Crane who is the problem. I haven't seen 1 opinion piece written on this subject that lines up with the poor Jim Crane got screwed and is just rightfully looking out for himself crowd around here. If an update comes out, I will comment on it. If someone challenges my opinion, I will comment on it. Go start an update page on FB if you want to control what is written.
I notice you didn't bother to answer the question I posed of you. I know why too because Comcast talks to the Rockets too and the Rockets were tired of wasting money waiting on Crane to get off the pot. You have absolutely no proof to offer that the Network would begun not paying media rights fees to the Astros in the next few years if all providers had signed on. Logic indicates that the Rockets would not have sided with Comcast if that were the case since they wouldn't be getting paid media rights. Even Jim Crane wasn't making that claim. The Network losses occur on the set of books on the Network side not each team's individual set of financial books. You were the guy spouting off numbers before. What were the Rockets and Astros getting paid per year under the former deals and what are they averaging on this deal? 80M is what I recall being the average for the Astros.
Found this online today. This would be the best case scenario for the Network itself. I don't necessarily think it will happen with the specific details as outlined but that Crane needs to be removed from the situation. http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2013/12/2014_houston_sports_prediction.php With 2013 giving way to 2014, it's time for a few predictions that will, more than likely, be way off the mark. But what the hell, that means I'll be just like the rest of my sportswriting brethren. So... PREDICTION ONE: CSN HOUSTON The next status conference in bankruptcy court before Judge Marvin Isgur is scheduled for January 7, 2014. Here's guessing that Les Alexander will announce that he has reached a tentative deal with Jim Crane to purchase the portion of the network owned by the Astros, and another stay will be granted in the bankruptcy proceedings while the details are worked out. Alexander will purchase this portion for less than what Crane initially sought, but Alexander will pay Crane the money that he claims the network owes him for 2013. The parties will also reach a deal in which Crane sells the Astros broadcast rights to CSN Houston for an amount close to what Fox Sports Southwest is paying the Rangers. By the time February roles around, Alexander will reach a deal with Direct TV, AT&T U-verse, Time Warner and SuddenLink to broadcast CSN Houston in the Houston region and the surrounding counties and presto, the Rockets games will be aired to everyone. By mid-March, Alexander will announce that he and Fox Sports have agreed to become partners in CSN Houston -- much like with CSN Bay Area. This will inject more money into the network, and Fox Sports will make CSN Houston available to the Fox Sports Southwest network as secondary programming, which will allow Astros games to reach the same broadcast footprint as when originally on FSN Southwest.
Crane has claimed Network would loss 200 million over 10 years. As far as I can this number hasn't been challenged by Comcast or the Rockets. Crane has said offer by DirectTV would cause CSN-H to lose money. As far as I can this number hasn't been challenged by Comcast or the Rockets. For both these statements to be true, the 200 million over 10 years has to be the full coverage number. The deal with DirectTV would cause 200 million in losses even if it was around $3.30 (3.3 million subscribers per month * 12 months * $3.30 dollars per month per subscriber = 131 million or about 20 million in losses per year) without domino effect. So yes, Crane has most likely said full coverage at rates DirectTV offered would cause losses for ten years. I admit I could be wrong about domino effect, but that doesn't change that no deal was brought to Crane that would cause Astros to be paid. It is just wishful thinking that ATT and Dish just cave for what DirectTV offered when they haven't even made an offer yet for CSN-H.
To Major who stated that it has never been reported that Crane has never claimed he didn't know about the MFN.. http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/crane-astros-have-lost-millions-csn-houston/146875 During the press conference, Crane said the Astros weren’t allowed to look at the numbers for subscription fees. Instead a phone call arrangement was finally made and it was understood the estimates were made based on Comcast’s experience in the marketplace and they were achievable. What Crane wasn’t told and he didn’t find out until December 2012, he said, was that in 2010 McClane, Alexander and Comcast/NBCU developed a business plan built on inflated numbers and that Comcast would receive a most-favored nation clause. Crane also said he found out that the other distributors would never pay that rate. How f'n stupid does that make Crane look? I'm going to spend 326M on a business and take only verbal projections as a revenue indicator. There's no way the man is that stupid and if he is, he deserved to get screwed by Drayton.
From the article linked above...Comcast has been “unable to negotiate affiliate deals to make the network financially viable,” and that over the last two years has only been able to recommend one deal (DirecTV was mentioned in bankruptcy filings) would have lost the network $200 million over 10 years and reduced the Rockets equity from 46% to zero and resulted in a below market payroll for the Astros. Wishful thinking was Crane making public statements about not blinking aimed at providers thinking he could intimidate them.... Do you have any idea what Fox was paying the Astros in the previous deal?
