Exactly. Meanwhile, Granville is appointing himself to the Supreme Court all the while blissfully unaware that this case ensures that the teams will not be on TV anytime soon. If the issues in this bankruptcy case are litigated rather than settled, it will probably keep the teams off TV through at least next season.
Its "couldn't" care less... you sound like a damn fool when you say it wrong. Also, the point is that there are a multitude of reasons why the Astros/Rockets are not on TV... and this forum is used as a venue to discuss pertinent updates as to why that is (not to constantly "harp" about how you hate Crane, and how everybody else was "wrong", and how people who don't agree with you are "blind Crane supporters.") You'e done nothing but make a complete ass out of yourself, with the idiotic assumptions, blind accusations, and now clear contradictions ... and I see you've now resorted to the all caps yelling to try to get your "point" across, which again, I'm not sure what it is anymore.
No, not really... just happy to point out you getting caught with your pants down (again). The judge said there's no good deals out there... and the teams were right to reject them. Only you have proposed the mythical theory that the addition of uverse and dish (which are both big ifs) turns a rotten deal into a profitable one. And you continue to blame Crane for the entire thing, which is laughable... and you point out the bankruptcy ruling as some sort of mythical "victory" against the "bad guys"... when it does nothing to get the games on sooner. Its the moral hazard of continuing to bail out a dead-in-the-water channel, and you're captain of the sinking ship... congratulations. (btw, I'm not really as asinine as I've been in the last few posts... just thought I'd try emulating your posting style... turns out, you hate it when people "granville" you.)
So is this where you offer up an apology for misleading those naive enough to believe your expert opinion that Crane didn't have to look out for CSN H and his motion to dismiss had a snowballs chance? Because it appears you set up some false expectations.
Where is the link where the judge said specifically there are no good deals out there? I'm waiting....
If you think that the motion to dismiss (which took three hearings to decide) didn't have a snowballs chance and was frivolous, then you are just a fool.
First.... I bow down to your superb grammatical skills. LoL Second... I said Crane had a responsibility to CSN H. Isgur agreed. I said Crane used bully tactics. Hughes agreed. Those were my biggest gripes with Crane. Third .....save your holier poster than thou. Prime example was the antagonistic tone you and major took with Nero.
Find it yourself. It's there. You're just apparently too much in denial to believe it. Every single article posted about the topic stated that the judge agreed that the only deal proposed was a rotten deal. The judge also said to try and find a better one, if there is one. Neither team did. The judges themselves say that they're not supposed to be experts on RSN's... And this is exactly what happens when companies that "are" experts allow litigation to take over. So, we have one judge that agrees there are no good deals, and another that says he doesn't know squat about RSN's... And these are the people you're basing your entire stance on... Which is basically just nothing but useless "crane is bad" rhetoric.
It is becoming more and more clear the courts are not going to side with Crane like we predicted. Common sense is lost on some posters here or maybe it is just blind Astro's homerism.
I see it more as this process gets dragged out further and further, and eventually the network still goes in the toilet. Has nothing to do with "sides". It had to do with solutions...to which there are no realistic ones as long as the providers continue to unite and take a stand against RSN's. The Astros bid to end it was the most realistic "quick" end this ordeal could have imagined, but was stopped with the bankruptcy filing. Com casts buyout of the Astros was the second "quickest" way to end this ordeal, but that was stopped by the Rockets. Now, it will be tied up in litigation for the short and long term. It took 6 months just to get back to where we were when the company stopped paying the Astros... Nothing has happened since except more failed negotiations. Again, I could see the providers taking a stand "forever"...even if the channel is being "given" away.
No....It's not there. You are the one who continues argue based on faulty info. One more time....PAY ATTENTION..... Here's what the Judge said.... The bolded parts are why you should just shut up. You are in over your head here. Both Judges don't care about "aspirations" of profit margin that Crane or anyone else connected to this mess has, they want to make this a profitable business period and move on. So don't expect either of Judge to join the ranks of fools who think somehow the world should stop until Crane gets his AL West money.
And that not just a local CSNH problem. There is some hardball being played with the Dodgers right now.
Yep, the judges that say they have no business making decisions on a RSN want to "make it a profitable business". They said having them make those decisions would be like asking them to do "eye surgery with a chainsaw". All they ruled was that the bankruptcy should proceed (because there are no other solutions), and that their "could" be a happy ending in a utopian society. Keep sticking with your "judges decisions"... the longer this drags out, the less likely this channel ever gets widespread distribution (and the more likely MLB or possibly the NBA will start to get involved with THEIR products, which would further the litigation). Whatever you're claiming you've given refman... i'm sure it tastes far worse now when you realize your points have zero validity, and the more you stress them, the more you end up contradicting yourself and actually "supporting" litigation, and the channel never getting on the air.
Dodgers, Portland... and likely any new RSN that comes from here on out. The Dodgers don't care because they're getting paid... and TWC probably won't care much as they're still the largest distributor out there. Comcast and the providers also took their stand in Portland, with no plans on ever giving in for the life of the contract. In the end, as long as the providers take a stand, the cable companies will simply start to market their products as "exclusive" content, available only to their subscribers... much like DirecTV does with NFL Sunday Ticket.
- I think it is clear that at least Comcast thinks the CSNH business can be a profitable one. Otherwise, why would it have offered to buyout the Astros at any price? Why would they want to pay money to own more of a money-losing business? - The issue about the Astros and Rockets not finding a deal is a bit more complicated than "there are not carriage deals on the market that would make CSNH a profitable business." Remember, what the teams, as "lead negotiators" were trying to do was not just to find a profitable carriage deal, but to find a CONSENSUAL resolution of the dispute overall while the litigation is pending. The resolution may come in the form of carriage deals that the Astros would consent to-- NOT just one that the court would agree makes CSNH profitable-- or in the form if a buyout that, again, must have the consent of the Astros. What we can say is that the teams couldn't find a deal that satisfied the Astros in the eve of litigation, not necessarily that they could not find deals that Comcast and Rockets would not believe to put CSNH on the right path. - Now what we have in Chapter 11 is a potential forced buyout of the Astros, at a price set either based on the bids submitted for a court-approved sale of CSNH's assets or based on the valuations included a court-approved "plan of reorganization" (which would put the control of CSNH in the hands of a different group of equity owners/partners, under a different corporate structure). - Either a sale or a plan of reorganization can move forward fairly quickly. Also, once the bankruptcy court approves either a sale or reorganization, the Astros is unlikely to be able to stop it from taking effect simply by filing an appeal. Specifically, the court's approval of the sale or reorganization becomes effective despite an appeal unless the Astros obtains a "stay" of the court's order pending the appeal. Courts frequently deny such a stay, or will only grant such a stay if the appellant agrees to put up a large bond to compensate the other parties for the damages caused by the delay resulting from the appeal if the appeal fails. Once the sale or reorganization becomes effective, CSNH will be under new ownership/management and is free to do what it wants without the Astros consent even while the appeal is pending. Also, even if the appeal is successful, all that the Astros would likely get would be some form of monetary compensation. The sale or reorganization itself would most likely not be reversed (under a doctrine of "equitable mootness" IIRC). -From a legal and business perspective, the big issue is going to be whether the Astros' media rights contract can be "assumed" and "assigned" by CSNH under the Bankruptcy Code (i.e., whether CSNH can keep this contract and maybe assign it to a buyer as a part of a sale of all of the network as a going concern business). This is because that without being able to broadcast both Rockets and Astros games, the CSNH business is most likely not going to make sense or be profitable for anyone to run. - The law in this area is a bit uncertain. What CSNH has is likely a "exclusive copyright license" to broadcast the games. If we are just talking about normal contract law outside of bankruptcy, the Astros likely has the right to say "no" to CSNH if CSNH wants to assign the broadcast contract right to some third party (and there is likely a clause in the contract saying exactly this). But bankruptcy may change this (via section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code), a debtor can normally assume and assign its contracts despite opposition from the counterparty even if the contract says the counterparty has the contractual right to not approve the assignment. There are some exceptions to this rule, and one possible exception is in the area of certain intellectual property rights. The question is whether "exclusive copyright licenses" or whatever the Astros media rights contract falls under is within an applicable exception. The case law covering exclusive copyright licenses are rather contradictory as far as I know and I am not sure that there is controlling authority on this issue in the 5th Circuit.
This is the big issue to me going forward. From the Astros initial pleadings I found merit in the motion to dismiss argument (before the Rockets and their related entities joined as creditors) and this argument about the media rights agreement not being assignable. And by merit, I mean a legitimate argument. Let's assume the judge agrees with the conclusion that the Astros media rights contract does not fall under an exception and is assumable and assignable. Sounds like we're talking about unsettled law here...so if that's the case, do you think the court is likely to grant a stay once the Astros appeal that simply because it's such a novel issue? I'm thinking pro sports leagues and franchises around the country are really hoping it doesn't become the settled law of the land that their media rights agreements are assignable by anyone other than themselves...and even over their objection.
If the judge finds that the media rights are assumable and assignable, I doubt that the judge would grant a stay pending appeal. If one were granted, it would be due to the fact that were an assignment to occur during the pendency of appeal and the appeal was successful, it would be a cluster to undo it. Since such a ruling would change both bankruptcy and intellectual property law in a very significant way, such an appeal would be appropriate for a direct appeal to the Circuit. At that point, MLB would likely be driving the appeal since they are the ones who grant the local media rights to the teams. Should MLB lose at the Circuit, I expect that this so significantly impacts the value of the media rights that MLB would request cert from the USSC.
