<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>CSN Houston updates: Creditors' list compiled, Rockets want their money, Astros file appeal brief <a href="http://t.co/X47HBTi1ZF">http://t.co/X47HBTi1ZF</a></p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/438733641108029440">February 26, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
LOL. Gover notes that since CSN Houston was placed in bankruptcy, the network has had enough cash to pay its creditors with one exception: the Rockets. The Rockets, he writes, believes this needs to change: that they should receive their rights fees from the network’s current income stream and that Comcast should dip into its own pocket and take up the burden of funding network operations. “We believe it is timely for Comcast to begin to provide (debtor in possession) financing to the network in an amount that maintains the network (for its purchase) including paying current the media rights payments owed to Rocket Ball (the Rockets’ corporate name),” Gover wrote in the Feb. 10 letter.
Not sure what the 50% reference is? Is that the result of the MFN? I guess I missed where you said was a mistake that when Crane said he wasn't blinking. Well.....the Judge says he doesn't have the right to purposely cause the Network to fail. Guess that trumps what you want / believe. That's what you have been missing out on all this. You have been consistently wrong insisting that Crane doesn't have to look out for the Network's best interests. FWIW... I don't disagree that the RSN model is busted. Again...you are dead wrong about looking out for their best interests in the Network partnership. Both teams look out for their interests with their media rights and Comcast looks out for itself with the carriage rates that they pay to CSN H. The business dealings with the Network have to be run with what's in the best interest of the Network. In regard to the quality of the team.... Crane has little track record in sports as an owner and so far it's mostly bad. His track record in business is that he's shady. At a time when the Network needs leverage so that subscribers will demand the product, Crane is trotting out the worst team in baseball. His team pulled a 0 rating. None of us know if Crane is going to spend the money he gets on payroll or keep running crappy teams out there. So if you are a provider, you may we concerned about locking in to a long term agreement with a guy who may never try to put a good team on the field and you get stuck with 0 ratings forever. With the type of behavior Crane has exhibited during this ordeal, I doubt anyone is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt either.
Also interesting from the article above: In his letter, Gover wrote that the Rockets conducted “an exhaustive search of market options for a reorganization of the network and determined that Comcast’s purchase is currently the only viable restructuring option for the network.” That conclusion feeds into what is a fundamental tenet of the Astros’ argument: that there is no “reasonable likelihood” that the network can be successfully reorganized in bankruptcy court in a way that keeps value for the Astros, Rockets and Comcast.
The context of your comment was Nick's comment. Nick's comment shows that he knows how to use "a la carte" correctly as it is used in relation to McCain's bill. I failed to take in consideration your lack of reading comprehension and failed at understanding that you would consider incorrect usage of "a la carte" legit.
The only issue I have with this is that we the taxpayers PAID for the playgrounds these guys 'run their businesses' in. I think that carries with it an obligation to keep the fans as at least a high priority, which it is clear to me in all of this that the fans are a NON priority to these guys.
Sorry - going from the $3.50ish that Crane wants to the low $2's that it's believed DTV was offering that you thought Crane should have accepted. I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean? That's not quite true. The judge stated this was true post-bankruptcy filing. But he also indicated he had no issues with Crane's decisions prior to the bankruptcy - ie, the time when Crane was holding out. The Judge has said nothing about the Astros' responsibility to CSN pre-filing. And also indicated that the initial filing would have been tossed out of bankruptcy court, in which case the Astros would have been allowed to walk and take their media rights, etc etc etc. The problem is that the parties disagree on that is in the best interest of the network. And it was designed that they only sign deals when they are all in agreement. Simply existing while accruing losses for 10 years may not be better for the network or its owners than shutting down. There's no obligation by owners to keep a business alive just for the sake of it. Again, none of this is relevant to the obligations of the parties involved.
I agree in the sense that I don't think cities should be subsidizing sports teams or their arenas. But the city did so, and it made no demands or requirements about TV coverage or anything of the sort. That's the city's fault - not that of any of the owners involved here.
So your experience is the norm? And late games don't matter with kids? And most kids don't develop interest when they are young? Stop nitpicking.
I don't think anyone anticipated the current fiasco, but I will not be surprised to see such assurances as part of civic negotiations in the future, when it comes to financing sports venues. However, just because they may not be legally obligated, they sure as heck are morally obligated, and it's one of the biggest crying shames in the world today that moral obligations are ignored in favor of legal ones, instead of in addition to.
Well, I agree to an extent. But, as fans we want the team to be able to be successful, and if we take/get a deal that leaves us 50+ million a year short of others in our division, they won't be giving us the team we all "want" That is also a big difference between the Astros and Rockets here, the Rockets have a fairly set salary limit each year, being successful is more about running the team "right" and being a "destination" city...baseball has no limits, at some point if you develop super star players you need to be able to pay to keep them
I agree with the Rockets and Astros on this from what I've seen. I certainly am not privy to the information that they are...but the fact they both reached that conclusion is pretty sound evidence to me that Comcast needs to buy folks out quickly or the whole thing needs to be blown up.
It looks to be heading that way.... it also looked to be heading that way well before any of the bankruptcy hearings. Somehow, the Rockets reaching that conclusion on their own will still be "Crane's fault". And the teams trying to get a buyout from Comcast is "extortion".
Is there a tax on MMP on Houstonians (other than those who rent cars or stay in area hotels)? I thought that hotel and car rental taxes were paying for it. I assume the city and/or county is on the hook if those revenues fall short, but I didn't think there was a sales tax increase to fund it.
There isn't... but the prevailing sentiment is that its still "taxpayer" money!!! The Astrodome renovation, on the other hand, is still being funded by Houston property taxes, if I'm not mistaken.
Another interesting line I caught in the Rockets letter: As you know, there are several bases to support Rocket Ball's right to payment: the right to compel assumption or rejection of the all-important media rights agreement that provides for current content; the right to adequate protection of Rocket Ball's rights; and forbearance from the right to seek relief from the stay. There may be counter arguments, but none are supported by the facts. There is no way to reorganize the Network without Rocket Ball's media rights agreement and based on Comcast's own analysis, Rocket Ball has no equity cushion to fall back on. We know that this is not a sustainable position, and one that can justify a motion to convert. Translation: If we don't start getting paid, we might have to think about filing a motion to convert to Chapter 7 (which would liquidate the network).
From Astros appeal... Comcast projected the Network’s cash flow for ten years based on the DirecTV proposal and an assumption of additional affiliation agreements with other providers—those that Comcast deemed more likely than not to carry the Network—at the same rates. Under Comcast’s projections, the Network would be unprofitable every year for the next ten years. Its operating cash flow—which does not include debt service or capital expenditures—would be negative every year, by more than $200 million over ten years; and its free cash flow—its profit—would result in a loss of approximately $285 million over ten years. From December 30, 2013 Originally Posted by Joe Joe View Post 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. Originally Posted by Granville View Post 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. Consider this proof.
First....this is the first time it has been reported that the loss projection included an assumption of afilliation agreements, your quote acknowledges that so at the point I said it you had no proof. Second....ths is the Astros version. Let's see how Comcast responds. Third....Bold the part where it says that the Network would stop paying the Astros. Crane stated many times that he was concerned about losing equity in exchange for Comcast covering losses. That would lead you to assume that the media rights were being paid. Try again.
I'm pretty sure Comcast verified those numbers during the first hearing, especially since the projection was done by Comcast themselves... this is just a recap of that. Going back to the Rockets letter... if they strongly believe that no carriage deal makes the network viable, and refuse to give up their veto rights without a long lengthy legal battle, this pretty much assures that its either a lucrative buyout, or liquidating the network.
