Oh yes - the Astros' fees are guaranteed too. But CSN-H doesn't have a funding mechanism in place to enforce that. The LA network seems to require that TWC keep throwing in cash to fund the thing, though I'm sure it's more complicated than that in reality.
Well, they sorta do... as they've taken multiple loans from Comcast to keep the company afloat (and now Comcast is trying to merge/buyout TWC.) Just shows that both Comcast and TWC can absorb plenty of short and long-term losses due to failed distribution, as long as they get to keep a hefty portion of the profits once the channel succeeds (much like you discussed with ESPN above...with Comcast being a gazillion times bigger than ESPN). Thus, like I said earlier, if the Astros get bought out... Comcast probably can absorb the losses of what they don't get with subscriber fees much easier, and still be able to pay the Astros their rights fees.
Absolutely - the key difference is that it seems that TWC is contractually obligated to eat all the losses in the LA Network, while CSN-H requires all the parties to contribute (through the cash calls that the Rockets rejected). In exchange, the Astros/Rockets get veto rights and whatever else they negotiated into the deal. Agreed that Comcast/TWC can absorb it all if they want - I assume that's how CSN-NW is still afloat 6 years later while CSN-H didn't make it through 2 years.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Two CSN Houston hearings/proceedings today, and, no, neither will get the channel on DirecTV or U-verse this weekend.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/436886845029244929">February 21, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Judge Hughes on Crane's lawsuit vs McLane and Comcast.... “guerilla warfare by litigation" and “I don’t know if it throws a monkey wrench into the gears,” he said. “Maybe closer to manure in the gears. That is not a rational way to approach this.” Another kick in the nuts to Crane supporters who bought in to that ploy. and this..... Hughes noted during his questioning of Basta that the Astros, when the network partnership was formed during McLane’s ownership, never asked for or received a guarantee that the network would be profitable and suggested that enforcement of contract disputes in Texas is stricter than in some other locales. “This isn’t California,” he said. “We don’t interpret contracts by getting naked and getting in a hot tub or talking about aspirations (regarding business plans).”
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/02/21/judge-astros-rockets-and-comcast-should-focus-more-on-network-and-less-on-lawsuits/ Judge: Astros, Rockets and Comcast should focus more on network and less on lawsuits In a series of blunt observations and admonitions Friday to a dozen-plus lawyers in the fractious Comcast SportsNet Houston bankruptcy case, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes encouraged the Astros, Rockets and Comcast to work toward making the network financially viable while the legal aspects of their dispute wind their way through court. Hughes will preside over the Astros’ appeal of a decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur to place the CSN Houston partnership into Chapter 11. While attorneys submit arguments to Hughes on the appeal, Isgur will continue to preside over decisions concerning practical matters of keeping the network on the air while it is reorganized. But while the judges and lawyers do their work in that area, Hughes said, the Astros, Rockets and Comcast need to work outside the courtroom on ways to make the network profitable. “Let’s try to focus,” he said. “Do the legal part, but it shouldn’t be the dominant part. The dominant part should be how should we resolve the problem.” The judge in fact, questioned the wisdom of allowing the future of the teams and the network to be subject to court rulings and said that on first glance, the case has less to do with legal strategies than fundamental concerns that should be worked out among partners. “I see the problem as having nothing to do with the bankruptcy code or Delaware law,” Hughes said. “It’s about whether these guys can make the deal work. It sounds like you need some kind of arrangement. “You don’t want to turn this over to two aging bureaucrats with tenure like Isgur and me, because that is what you’re doing. You’re letting me run a sports league and a network. I guarantee you that’s like doing eye surgery with a chainsaw.” The chainsaw reference was one of the more colorful references, but hardly the only one, to come from Hughes during an hour-long hearing he convened to discuss basic contentions by the feuding parties and to receive a schedule on how the appeal should proceed. Hughes, for example, was displeased with the decision by Astros owner Jim Crane to file a fraud lawsuit against former Astros owner Drayton McLane and Comcast. The suit accuses McLane and Comcast of fraud by failing to inform Crane about some financial aspects of the network when he purchased the team from McLane in 2011. “I don’t know if it throws a monkey wrench into the gears,” he said. “Maybe closer to manure in the gears. That is not a rational way to approach this.” He said the Crane-McLane lawsuit, which the Astros said was filed to meet a deadline in their sales agreement with McLane, struck him as “guerilla warfare by litigation” at a time when “it is in the best interests of all the parties to prompt thoughtful resolution that achieves a legitimate business expectation.” Hughes, who described himself as a “museum and library guy” with little interest in sports, asked frequent questions as attorneys Paul Basta, representing the Astros, and Craig Goldblatt, representing Comcast, ran over basic details of their dispute. Basta repeated the Astros’ argument that Comcast/NBC Universal had been unable to present a profitable business plan for the network and had failed to pay rights fees, which as of last week totaled $27 million, according to court records. That failure, he said, gave the Astros the right to reclaim their media rights, which would signal the network’s demise. However, Comcast prevented that from happening when several affiliates filed an involuntary Chapter 11 petition last September. While the Rockets, who supported the bankruptcy filing, also are owed $27 million in unpaid rights fees, Basta said the failure of CSN Houston has been more of a burden on the Astros than the Rockets because the Astros need profit from the network in addition to rights fees to enable them to compete with well-funded American League West teams like the Rangers and Angels. The result, he said, is a “toxic environment” that can be best served by the Astros retaking their rights and letting the network fail. Hughes noted during his questioning of Basta that the Astros, when the network partnership was formed during McLane’s ownership, never asked for or received a guarantee that the network would be profitable and suggested that enforcement of contract disputes in Texas is stricter than in some other locales. “This isn’t California,” he said. “We don’t interpret contracts by getting naked and getting in a hot tub or talking about aspirations (regarding business plans).” Goldblatt spent less time detailing Comcast’s arguments but said that Comcast continues to believe the network can be a success if it is reorganized in bankruptcy court. Attorney Alan Gover, representing the Rockets, said the team believes Judge Isgur “got it right” with his decision to place the network in bankruptcy.
Not sure why people around here think Comcast should / would absorb losses if they are not contractually committed to do so. Also.....sounds like museum / library judge could give a watery **** about the Astros being able to "compete".
Because they can, and they want the channel to succeed. They're already currently doing that for this channel, along with other CSN channels that don't have widespread coverage. They'd happily buyout the Astros share, while keeping the channel solely on Comcast networks with limited distribution (which would keep it operating at a loss, but they'd have the monopoly on local sports teams for the next 20 years, and would keep all revenue).
What you haven't grasped yet.... Both Judges want some sort of compromise between all parties to get this resolved. Jim Crane once again got owned in court. Both judges have seen through Crane's act.... Too bad you haven't. Contracts don't work like that....you don't get to extort money from your partner just because they can afford to be extorted. Comcast and the Rockets feel the Network can succeed. It's Crane and his guerilla warfare tactics that want to bust this up.
Comcast already offered the Astros a buyout to end all of this. The Rockets stepped in and prevented that. Sure, the judge wants the utopian/diplomatic solution... its just that nobody (not him, not business experts, not the sports teams, and not the channel itself) can figure out what that is. Comcast ultimately wants to own the channel outright, and can withstand years of losses... more-so than either the Rockets or Astros. I don't think Comcast cares if the channel doesn't end up widespread if they own it... as they've proven in the Northeast and Portland. The Rockets simply want to be part owners, but know they need a.) the Astros to be a part of the channel, and b.) widespread distribution to make it work. Unfortunately, both of those requirements are unlikely to be met. Keep your idiotic bias at a minimum... really brings this whole thread down.
LOFL at you calling my posts idiotic. Both judges have supported my position on this. And biased is all the people siding with the Astros with this fantasy of this holdout being so Crane can compete.... And stop with the years of losses drivel....that's what is idiotic.... Noone has presented projections of what full carriage might look like until they do you will continue to look gullible buying everything Crane says. And what brings the thread down is the know it all but haven't gotten a damn thing right attitude both of you had with Nero who was just trying to debate with you.
And yet your hero, the judge, supports the opinion that it would have led to years of losses, and that they were rotten deals. THAT is what makes you idiotic. Your head is so far up your ass in your hatred for Crane, you can't see how much you blatantly contradict yourself in almost every single post. You just called the "years of losses" argument idiotic, but the judge agrees that its a valid argument. I'll use your favorite phrase here... "the judge agrees with me." Also, when have I ever said I'm siding with just the Astros? I'm also a Rockets fan... I want their games on widespread TV as soon as possible. The bankruptcy probably wiped that out for all of this year... hell, as long as they stick with CSN, there's likely no reason why direcTV or dish should EVER cave. Forget about the Astros... if the Rockets want to get on widespread TV as soon as possible, it would be in their best interest to get away from a company that couldn't care less if they have widespread distribution or not (as evidenced by other cities). Comcast is a giant, bigger than MLB and the NBA put-together... LMFAO that you think Crane (or any sports team) could "extort" them to get a buyout.
PAY ATTENTION!!! There has been no projection besides the one with 2 providers Comcast and DTV. The Judge was talking about that partial offer and yes it would be ROTTEN with just those 2 providers. No one has put projections in front of either Judge that shows whether full carriage would be a rotten deal. You have no f'n idea what you are talking about You run around kid thinking like some big corporation is going to cave in when they have a signed agreement that didn't guarantee Crane anything. The Judge just said that....again.....PAY ATTENTION... If this is over your head, quit commenting. I was called a Crane hater for the very things 2 judges have said about him as well. So if the Astros go elsewhere, how the hell are they going to make up what they lost and get what Crane needs to be "competive" especially when Crane's lawsuit was just ridiculed by the Judge. I didn't say that Crane was extorting them for a buyout.....Crane is extorting them to either keep paying the inflated carriage rates or give him more equity. If you'd PAY ATTENTION... you could figure **** out on your own.
Man, if you back-tracked anymore on your idiotic comments, you're liable to fall right off the inter webs. Was much easier when all you had to say was "crane sucks", wasn't it? It must suck when the judge agreed that there's nothing but bad business deals/proposals out there, and all of them should be summarily rejected. And that was no "partial" offer... that was THE offer, and it was the only one. Also, DTV and Comcast are the major providers... if the deal is rotten with both of them, do you really think the drivel of dish network (who said they likely would never pick up another sports channel), u-verse, and cox will make up for it? The judge knew exactly what he said when he said it would be a rotten deal... thank's for clearing that up. Again, stick with the "crane sucks" rhetoric... at least it keeps you consistent. Right now, you're flailing around like a fish out of water... all over the place, and falling all over your contradictions.
This is pretty funny... Granville... the internet BBS victim. He was accused of being a Crane hater. Lets look out for him.
I could care less what you or anyone else calls me. The point was, either you were wrong or the Judges are Crane haters too because both of them have them have questioned his intentions just like I did. I sit back and laugh at all of you who have steadfastly defended things like the lawsuit against McLane and Crane not having to look out for CSN H's best interests. Ya'll were dead wrong and got slapped in the face with it. Man up and admit and move on.
I see all of that was over your head. The judge never said there was nothing but bad deals out there. Please provide that link. Why the hell would the Judge send Crane and the Rockets out to look for them? He used Crane's words against him and when Crane said he was confident he could get a deal done. Do you pay attention to anything? The other providers are roughly 30% of the market. You are saying that wouldn't make a big difference, again you have no idea what you are talking about. Both Judges will want the Network to be profitable and for the business to survive. Neither one of them care like the rest of you seem obsessed with whether Crane can compete with the AL West. That's not what this is about. Judge Hughes just said this.... Hughes noted during his questioning of Basta that the Astros, when the network partnership was formed during McLane’s ownership, never asked for or received a guarantee that the network would be profitable and suggested that enforcement of contract disputes in Texas is stricter than in some other locales. “This isn’t California,” he said. “We don’t interpret contracts by getting naked and getting in a hot tub or talking about aspirations (regarding business plans).” PAY ATTENTION
