It isn't totally surprising in bankruptcy cases, where courts focus more on practical solutions than strictly enforcing/interpreting the law. And it makes sense in this particular case, where the bottom line question is whether anyone is willing to provide funding for the company and plan to get carriage and to make CSNH profitable. The whole appeal in district court and all the legal questions in the bankruptcy are a waste of time if there is no money. So the judge may as well ask the guys who will be asked to come up with the money to show up and ask the what the friggin plan is.
They barely had any on during the FSN era. They've actually had 10+ games each of the last two years... and there's been some on MLB.tv as well.
I don't disagree...just never had seen it before, personally, but really only been involved in one (maybe two) contested bankruptcy proceedings...and most of those proceedings were incident to a bankruptcy (including one against a pro athlete on behalf of a bank about 10 years ago). My guess is that all the parties will walk out of the meeting telling the judge they just need to discuss all this with their attorneys before committing to anything
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/03/csn-houston-bankruptcy-case-updates-financial-details/ CSN Houston bankruptcy case updates, financial details Posted on March 21, 2014 | By David Barron A federal bankruptcy judge says that while Comcast was on solid procedural grounds in moving Astros owner Jim Crane’ lawsuit against Comcast, NBC Universal and former team owner Drayton McLane to federal court, he still has “substantial concerns” as to whether the case belongs before him. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur, in a three-page opinion filed Thursday, denied a motion by the Astros that would have overturned Comcast’s move last November sending the Crane lawsuit to federal court. Crane’s Houston Baseball Partners ownership group claims in the suit that McLane and Comcast officials conspired to withhold information from him regarding Comcast SportsNet Houston’s pricing structure when he was negotiating to buy the team from McLane in 2010. CSN Houston, the Astros-Rockets-Comcast partnership that airs Astros and Rockets games, has failed to turn a profit or gain widespread subscriber deals since its fall 2012 launch and is now under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Isgur said in his opinion that while he has “substantial concerns regarding the substance of the removal, the motion to strike is based on procedural issues. Because there is no procedural defect, the motion to strike is denied.” However, the judge said earlier this week he was unsure if he had “subject matter jurisdiction” to hear the case and also has questions based on whether McLane and Comcast officials acted on their own behalf or as representatives of their respective companies when they had the conversations in question with Crane and his group. McLane’s attorneys have moved to dismiss the case, and the Astros have asked Isgur to remand the case back to state court. Isgur will conduct a hearing on the remand motion May 12. In other CSN Houston-related developments: - Astros general counsel Giles Kibbe says the team is encouraged by U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes’s order setting a March 28 closed-door conference to discuss the ailing partnership. “We appreciate Judge Hughes’ interest in helping the parties resolve this matter,” Kibbe said. “This could be very beneficial. We look forward to the discussion.” Hughes is hearing the Astros’ appeal of the February order placing the CSN Houston partnership under Chapter 11 protection. – The network has asked Isgur for permission to provide advertisers with “make-good” ads. Make-goods are awarded when a network’s Nielsen ratings fall short of levels guaranteed to advertisers when they purchased ad time. Attorneys representing the network say CSN Houston’s relationship with advertisers may “disintegrate” if it does not provide make-good ads to 47 advertisers. They estimated the value of the network’s advertising under-deliveries at $1.505 million. “It is essential … that the (network) maintain their current advertising customers … and attempt to attract new advertising customers,” attorneys wrote. “The make-good advertising obligations are integral to the (network’s) overall advertising sales program.” While detailed information about current ad sales is not available, a proposed budget submitted to the court after the Chapter 11 designation estimated CSN Houston’s ad revenue at about $180,000 per week. – CSN Houston continues to struggle financially, recording a net loss of $29 million since the Sept. 27 filing of Comcast’s motion to place the network under Chapter 11 protection. A report filed with the court lists revenues for the period of Sept. 27 through Jan. 31 lists $15.5 million in revenue and operating expenses of $40.3 million. Another report filed with the court regarding the network’s financial status as of Sept. 27, when the involuntary Chapter 11 petition was filed, listed assets totaling $17.08 million and liabilities totaling $131.12 million. Of the latter figure, $100 million was Comcast’s $100 million secured loan for startup costs and $27 million was in unpaid rights fees owed the Astros. The latest report, as of Jan. 31, lists assets at $30.2 million and liabilities at $165.8 million, including the Rockets’ unpaid rights fees since the start of the NBA season.
With all the debt the network is taking on (growing by the day)... presuming there's a "liquidation" or re-assigning of media rights, who is responsible for covering those payments (including the unpaid media rights, and the "loan" from comcast). Or is this part of the bankruptcy protection, and that money/payments are lost forever? This totally reminds me of keeping a patient on life support... a patient that has no realistic chance of surviving without life support... yet the parties that be haggle over the estate, and want everything to be done (in the mean time, wasting millions and millions of dollars).
Not sure if relevant. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>New AA - Almost 70% of Los Angeles can’t watch the Dodgers on TV <a href="http://t.co/VOgNdofsIe">http://t.co/VOgNdofsIe</a></p>— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) <a href="https://twitter.com/awfulannouncing/statuses/447745869329100802">March 23, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It is relevant. Especially to the extent that TV providers are resisting the demand to pay big dollars for an RSN. Also interesting to note that both in Houston and LA, there is already an RSN on the channel lineup. It raises the question of whether that resistance is greater in markets where there are now multiple RSNs.
#Hoping #Wishing #Dreaming #Praying <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Jim Crane said he still hopes games could be streamed online or have blackouts lifted on TV locally.</p>— Brian McTaggart (@brianmctaggart) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianmctaggart/statuses/447775040722186240">March 23, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yep, also takes away from the argument some make that if the team was better there would be more of an urgency by the providers to pick it up.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Crane hopes Astros’ games will air blackout-free on MLB’s Extra Innings <a href="http://t.co/uF8NzL73dG">http://t.co/uF8NzL73dG</a></p>— Chronicle Sports (@ChronSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChronSports/statuses/447802380235853824">March 23, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Empty head with guns fully loaded..... Not sure how games get on air in the Houston area for non-Comcast subscribers since CSN H holds the Astro's media rights. I don't see how that helps the Network get carriage deals with other providers if anything it gives them another excuse to not carry the Network
I don't think that applies to blackout restrictions. Those are set forth by MLB and the team. The networks don't have much say to where or who gets to see their broadcasts around the country, and they don't get the MLB.tv or extra innings revenue.
Then why pay for Media Rights for a particular market when someone else can broadcast the team in the market you just paid for? I would think that a contractual exception would have to be made like it has been for nationally televised games. From DTV's website regarding why blackouts exist. Blackout restrictions are designed to protect the television rights holders in the competing teams’ respective home markets
The not blinking declaration could have been a factor in the offer. If one side is going to lead with a ridiculous and stubborn offer counter with the same.
They pay for media rights to get all the ad revenue that gets tied into local broadcasts. The "re-broadcast" (which is essentially what happens when I watch CSN-H in a different market via MLB.TV or MLB extra innings) is subject to MLB approval/rules. In the end, MLB enforces the blackout rules to protect the team's local broadcasts (usually preferred by the team itself), but in this case the team obviously wants them to lift it... and they likely can without CSN-H being able to do much about it.
Any rebroadcast of pictures or accounts of this game with the express permission of Major League Baseball is expressly forbidden. This is the warning we have all heard a zillion times during a baseball game. Note that it says nothing about the network that aired the game. Make no mistake that MLB owns the media rights for all 30 clubs. The clubs are granted the ability to negotiate local tv deals. It would be interesting to know exactly what rights are up for negotiation and how that is written. The reason? The Astros cannot sell rights that hey do not own. All local tv deals are subject to the rights that are reserved to MLB.
Except that (a) the offer came before the declaration and (b) this is happening in other places all over the country that don't involve Crane.
