Like it took an attorney to figure out what is happening in this situation. I negotiate multi million dollar contracts for a living and work with attorneys all the time. Attorneys don't negotiate contracts, they just tell you what is within legal boundaries and even then sometimes they guess and guess wrong. We had a couple of attorneys and even more posters guess wrong in this thread. Crane swung for the fences with a weak argument and see through tactics. And got his ass handed to him. I'm sure when Crane gets bought out of the Network and cries to you how poor his team is, you will foolishly buy in to that and later wave goodbye to all the prospects gained via tanking when it's time for them to get a big pay day. And when guys like Springer remember when they become eligible for free agency how the Astros jacked him around keeping him in the minors for their own benefit you will stand there in a puddle of tears blaming Springer.
You come here with your troll act and add nothing to the debate. You only throw weak insults. That says a lot about you and your mindset.
You're trying to win arguments.... on the Internet. I'll give it to you, though, Granville. Not many people are as dedicated to this craft as you are.
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/...-reply-to-astros-bankruptcy-appeal-arguments/ Attorneys for Comcast and the Rockets had their say Thursday in the case before U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, who will decide whether to grant the Astros’ appeal to overturn the February order by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur that place Comcast SportsNet Houston under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Astros now have until Monday to reply to the Comcast and Rockets replies. And, in case you were wondering, no, there is no provision for a reply to a reply to a reply. Judge Hughes has not indicated when he will rule on the Astros’ appeal. I’ve attached the two briefs for your reading pleasure, but most of it is pretty dry reading, frankly. The nature of replies is that they generally follow the pattern of “The other guy is wrong, and here’s why,” with lots of citations from previous cases in support. The general summary of the Comcast and Rockets points of view is that the federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, as a result, the Astros’ case should be dismissed. There also is extensive discussion of the Astros’ argument that CSN Houston reorganization is futile because the Astros will block any change in the network structure that they feel is detrimental to the team’s best interests, and the argument that the Astros’ representative on the CSN Houston board has no fiduciary duties to the network and that his primary duty is to act in the Astros’ best interests. Comcast and the Rockets reject both arguments, and here’s the best rhetoric from Comcast on the latter point: “Just as parties cannot contractually excuse themselves from other federal obligations – to pay taxes, to register for the draft, not to commit any federal crime and so on – they cannot do so with regard to the fiduciary duties that federal law imposes on them when they choose to take on the role of a director officer operator or manager of a debtor in possession. “ That sentence, alas, is pretty much the rhetorical highlight for the non-attorneys among us. I do, however, want to tip my hat to Comcast attorneys Howard Shapiro and Craig Goldblatt for throwing in a couple of words with which I was not familiar. You will note on page three of the Comcast brief a reference to the Astros “highly tendentious” arguments. Tendentious, according to my handy Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, means “having an underlying purpose composed with the intention of promoting a particular cause or viewpoint.” Try using it in a sentence over the weekend. I dare you. Another good one comes on page 36 with the observation that the Astros’ position in one area of the case “derogates” the federal bankruptcy code. To derogate is to “repeal or abrogate in part, destroy or impair the force, effect or authority of.” If you can work “tendentious” and “derogate” into the same sentence in casual conversation, please let me know. I will recognize your work before literally dozens of Chronicle readers. A more useful possibility for casual conversation from the Comcast brief is the phrase “phalanx of adverse precedent.” Somewhere, Spiro Agnew, or at least his speechwriters, surely must be smiling at this particular twist of tongue. Happy reading.
At this point, if you want the best chance to have the games on TV as fast as possible, you've got to root for a buyout. Its the only option that both the Rockets AND Astros would accept, and would allow the channel to remain on the air (presuming the rights fees continue to get paid along with the buyout). What I'm fearful of is that even without the Rockets/Astros dissenting opinions on what the channel should charge... that Comcast still cannot (or will not) strike a deal with the other providers. With the TWC merger on the horizon... Comcast could just as easily say "**** it... we're the biggest company in the business, and we don't care if the 10th largest media market doesn't have widespread distribution of our channel."
Since Crane has shown literally zero propensity to act in such fashion, let's wait until he actually does this before just assuming he will. He and Luhnow cut the team down to nothing when he took it over because that's what had to be done. Break it down to build it back up. If you think he should've spent any money at all on free agents when he took over...that's just nuts. The only decent prospect his regime has had that was due a pay raise has been Altuve, and they paid him. We could argue about Castro being due, but they are playing his arbitration correctly, IMO. There are literally zero other players that he let walk to avoid paying them "big money", so to assume he'll do that because of a TV deal is premature. We all know you hate the man. I get that. But your hatred for him and his bungling of this lawsuit doesn't mean he'll handcuff the GM when it is time to keep the team together. Even with FSSW money they had enough to have a decent payroll. Let's see how it plays out in a couple of years before thinking we're going to be the Marlins or something.
You are wasting your time trying to talk to this dude, either call Crane the worst man on earth, or realize that you are wrong.
The team was cut to nothing went he bought it......he cut the payroll down to 13M by the end of last year all while charging dynamic pricing when good teams came to town. Jim Crane has done nothing but cry about needing AL West money since this began and said he needed it to be "competive". You do the math. And what he is doing to Springer holding him in the Minors is bull**** and all to keep from potentially paying him big money earlier.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/03/astros_comcast_bankruptcy_liti.php CSN Houston Owners Actually Agreed on Something By John Royal Mon., Mar. 10 2014 at 8:00 AM
Ignores that the Astros had higher media rights deal with Fox before agreeing to create CSN. Ignores that Comcast had been the ones to forecast profits for the network that were used in the purchase by Jim Crane. Ignores that losses by the network cost the Astros money.
1 Are you talking about re-upping with Fox numbers? Doesn't matter anyway. Crane signed off on this model. 2 You are ignoring the MFN clause which was a clear indicator that Comcast was not sold on the 3.40 per subscriber. 3 Losses by the Network cost everyone money the first 10 years. The other 2 parties can weather the storm. Still doesn't matter... Crane signed off on buying in to the risk model. No one made him buy the team. He even had the option to not buy the Network.
None of that matters when the article spotlights that the Astros owner at the time negotiated the terms of the CSN deal. To add insult to injury the new owner apparently signed off on those terms w/out a clear understanding of what was agreed upon when buying the team. In the end, where here because of McClane and Crane. I despise Comcast as much as the next guy, but this is on Astros ownership; new and old.
Not in this thread. He's innoncent and deserves his money. "We don't understand the Law". LOL. Poor Poor Crane.
Only Comcast can realistically "weather the storm." Again, judge says it was right to reject the crappy deals. Rockets will not be giving up their veto rights either to accept another crappy deal, or re-assign their media rights, regardless of what the Astros want/do/say.
1. Yes 2. No, but the network was sold as a can't lose, of which Comcast was the alleged expert regarding. Rockets/Astros were stupid regarding the agreement. 3. Yes, but the Astros are the biggest shareholder. They have the most to lose. No doubt Crane made a mistake. I tend to think Comcast played them all for fools. Control of Management (including management fee), 50% voting power, MFN.
