Comcast got express permission from MLB when they started paying 80m per year for the rights. Comcast paid the Astros money for the media rights with the Blackout Rule in place. There would have to be contractual language that allows MLB to show Astros game in this market. I agree that it would be interesting to know that as well because at this point none of us do. This could be a bluff by Crane that Comcast called when they announced they were no longer interested in purchasing the Network. If MLB allows this, it will weaken future local TV deals if the providers feel MLB can pull the rug out from under them.
Since I moved to STL last June, this is the first time I've checked in on this thread in a long time. Reading through it makes me glad I'm just able to fork over the money for MLB Extra Innings and get it over with.
Yeah...it would be helpful to know how it is stated in the contracts. I would imagine that the rights granted to the RSN are subject to territorial restrictions governed by MLB. Everybody knows that MLB could change those restrictions with no notice. However, one thing we have learned here is that the way these contracts are drawn up is often not what you would expect and sometimes simply defies logic.
Agreed. With that much money involved, every attorney I know would get canned leaving a loophole big enough to destroy a company.
But whoever created the blackout rule, and territorial restrictions (which was MLB), is well within their rights to change it. Sure, CSN can simply give up the media rights if they don't like it (something they should have done awhile back)... but they'd actually be powerless if they tried to fight MLB on this (especially since they technically aren't paying the Astros for the media rights).
For the best interests of this thread, let's not respond to each other's posts. You have a bad habit of trying to prove me wrong using false facts. Jim Crane made the not blinking statement March 28th 2013. http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/03/crane-csn-houston-partners-wont-blink-in-price-carriage-negotiations/#10901101=0 The offer as reported in the paper, came in April 2013. Get your facts straight.
Crane must love seeing news like this: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Apple is reportedly negotiating a streaming TV deal with Comcast <a href="http://t.co/ZOaneeg7TN">http://t.co/ZOaneeg7TN</a></p>— Gizmodo (@Gizmodo) <a href="https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/statuses/447914635937996800">March 24, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That would be genius of both companies. Comcast's set-top boxes are horrible, and if you can use the Apple one to access the channels and on-demand content, it would be a welcome change (and actually make the new apple tv useful for something other than streaming your music/photos and netflix).
Didn't want to derail this thread, just threw that in there because I know how Crane likes to mention Comcast's deep pockets...carry on.
It depends what is in the contract that was signed with CSN H. You can't be well within your rights if you have signed away those rights. Lol at simply giving up the media rights. That's not how the business world works.
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/i...ituation_isnt_unique_anymor.html#incart_river Trail Blazers-Comcast situation isn't unique anymore in today's sports TV landscape Mike Tokito | mtokito@oregonian.com By Mike Tokito | mtokito@oregonian.com on March 24, 2014 at 12:05 AM Last week we noted the switch of one of the Trail Blazers’ final games from KGW to Comcast SportsNet Northwest. For some Portland fans, the news was a reminder of one the biggest – maybe the biggest – gripe they have about the Blazers: That the majority of their games are televised by CSNNW, which is not available on all carriers, most notably absent from satellite stalwarts Dish Network and DirecTV. The Blazers’ 10-year, $120 million deal with CSNNW still has three years remaining on it after this season, and it just does not look likely there will be a resolution to the access issues before the deal ends. NBCUniversal – the company that owns CSNNW – is such an enormous entity now that the problems of a small-market team’s fans really don’t seem to be a priority or even concern. If anything, there’s growing evidence that universal availability of sports networks could be a thing of the past. Consider: • Earlier this month, Pac-12 Conference commissioner Larry Scott told reporters at the conference basketball tournament that there is “no immediate sign of a resolution” in negotiations on getting the Pac-12 Networks on DirecTV, the Los Angeles Times reported. Scott essentially said the same thing in September, when he met with reporters at the Oregon-California game in Eugene. He is starting to sound like Larry Miller and Chris McGowan, the former and present Blazers presidents who both inherited the Blazers-Comcast dilemma, and who when asked about the situation, would say there's nothing to report, but there's hope something might happen. • Another Comcast-named regional network, Comcast Sportsnet Houston, has turned into an absolute circus. CSN Houston debuted in 2012 with the Rockets and Astros as their staples but did not have DirecTV or Dish on board, and it still doesn't. Less than two years into its existence, the network is in bankruptcy, and Astros owner Jim Crane is suing NBCUniversal. Early this NBA season, CSN Houston offered to make itself available to all providers for free for three months -- meaning about 20 Rockets game -- but DirecTV, Dish and AT&T U-verse all declined. Unlike CSNNW, which is wholly owned by NBCUniversal, CSN Houston started as a joint venture by Comast and the Astros and Rockets, but it's apparently been bleeding money. The Houston Chronicle reported that CSN Houston has not been able to pay its creditors, who include the Rockets and Astros, each of whom is owed $27 million in rights fees. CSNNW appears to be doing OK, at least based on the fact that it now has two Blazers postgame shows -- the long-running "Talkin' Ball" and the recently-debuted "Trail Blazers Pulse." (Has anyone watched "Pulse"? Give us your thoughts below.) • Comcast/NBCUniversal is apparently not stopping in its seeming desire to own everything in sight with an attempt to buy Time Warner Cable. The takeover effort is facing all kinds of opposition, including from the Writers Guild of America, which represents the folks who write TV shows and movies, and there's at least one staggering detail: Time Warner CEO Robert D Marcus, who started the job at the beginning of the year, agreed to sell to Comcast for $45 billion, and will apparently now receive an $80 million severance package despite not even working three months. This gets into sports as Time Warner owns Time Warner Cable SportsNet, which broadcasts the Lakers, and could conceivably be converted into a Comcast SportsNet franchise if the acquisition goes through. This circles back to the Blazers, who could sure use an alternative to move their broadcasts to once their Comcast deal expires, or at least another viable landing spot to use as leverage, to insist that full clearance be guaranteed before they re-up with Comcast. Time Warner could have been a possible partner for a new network here. It's doubtful any of the local stations would be willing to carry a full slate of Blazers games anymore. What's left? Maybe Root Sports? That seems possible, until you realize who owns Root -- it's DirecTV. Potentially, if a Blazers-Root deal is reached, you'd have DirecTV negotiating to have its regional sports network continue to be carried by ... yup, Comcast.
Man! What a supreme cluster*****! Couldn't happen to a more deserving POS than Crane. I hope he chokes on the situation.
Yea I have to agree, he is keeping Dodger fans from watching their team, Blazers fans from watching their team along with keeping us from watching the Rockets and Astros.
Didn't HillBoy declare himself to be "done" with the Astros a long time ago? And why hasn't he just jumped onto the Arlington Ranger bandwagon yet? Just asking.
There's a few "lingerers" around here... some said they were "done" when they went to the AL. Some said they were "done" when Crane bought the team. They always come back... or they never even left to begin with.
Of course, the Astros cannot contract away what they don't own. The only rights they can contract for are the rights they are granted by MLB. It would be interesting to see how that is worded in the contract. I can't imagine that MLB wouldn't have standard boilerplate language to address this in all media rights contracts, but then again...with these deals, you never know.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Are the Astros also running CSN Philly? Wow: Blackout warning as Comcast sports network pitches a surcharge - <a href="http://t.co/A761E12OYk">http://t.co/A761E12OYk</a></p>— John Royal (@John_Royal) <a href="https://twitter.com/John_Royal/statuses/448892714856103937">March 26, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Blackout warning as Comcast sports network pitches a surcharge BOB FERNANDEZ, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER LAST UPDATED: Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 1:08 AM POSTED: Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 5:50 PM Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, already one of the nation's priciest regional sports networks, is seeking a subscriber surcharge on behalf of the wallet-busting, 25-year, $2.5 billion TV rights deal it negotiated with the Phillies in January. As part of the deal, at least 33 Phillies games will relocate from the over-the-air - and free - TV station WPHL17 to the cable sports network. Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia is asking pay-TV operators, including Comcast itself, to pay for those additional games on cable, according to multiple pay-TV operators who declined to be identified. The sports network has warned that it would black out 33 Phillies games on the TV systems that decline to pay. Comcast Cable has agreed to the extra charges. Pay-TV operators will either pass the surcharge along to customers with cable-TV rate hikes, or absorb the new costs. Comcast said it has no changes to announce to its cable rates. Verizon Communications Inc.'s FiOS TV service "has not yet reached an agreement regarding the surcharge," company spokesman Lee Giercynski said Tuesday. DirecTV and Dish, the nation's two satellite-TV operators, don't carry Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, which also televises the Sixers and Flyers. The quick take: People who watched Phillies games only on free rabbit-ear TV will go from watching about 50 games to fewer than 20 games. Comcast Sports Philadelphia, now part of Comcast-owned NBCUniversal, confirmed the surcharge but declined to specify the amount. Pay-TV operators also declined to specify the amount, citing confidential negotiations. Under the previous Phillies TV contract, Comcast SportsNet televised 100 Phillies games and WPHL televised 45 games. With the new contract, Comcast brings all the regionally televised Phillies games under its corporate umbrella on the cable sports network or NBC10. There will be at least 133 games on Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, and 12 or 13 on NBC10. Fox, TBS and ESPN also have national TV rights for Major League Baseball games, including those of the Phillies. WPHL is part of the Tribune Broadcasting Co. and televised 90 Phillies games in the mid-1990s. Phillies games, like most professional and big-time college sports games, have retreated in the last decade behind the TV pay wall, where they can be part of the cable bill. Vincent Giannini, vice president and general manager of WPHL, said Tuesday that his station will air at least one Phillies game, on April 16, because of the oddity of a "triple conflict" - Sixers, Flyers and Phillies playing on the same night. "There is some disappointment," Giannini said, regarding the loss of the Phillies games, "but we had a great . . . run." WPHL acquired Big Bang Theory and Modern Family reruns but, Giannini said, "It's hard to replace live sports." A 24-page report on the sports programming costs from J.P. Morgan released on Tuesday listed Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia as the nation's sixth-most-expensive regional sports network, costing cable companies $3.90 a month per subscriber, a cost then passed on to customers. That cost is significantly more than most general-interest national cable channels. "Sports have emerged as far and away the most valuable entertainment programming in the U.S.," wrote Alexia S. Quadrani, managing director and media analyst with J.P. Morgan, adding that "advertisers increasingly turn to sports to reach large audiences." Madison Square Garden/MSG, at $5.44 a month, or about the monthly cost of ESPN, tops the list as the most expensive regional sports network, according to the report. "Comcast SportsNet is proud to offer viewers additional Phillies games in 2014 and pleased that we've already reached agreement with the vast majority of our affiliate partners. We are in negotiations with a remaining few and believe they recognize the value these additional games present to their customers," NBC Sports Regional Networks spokesman Tim Buckman said in a recent statement. The network is looking for the surcharge during a season in which the Phillies could struggle, and fail to send TV ratings soaring. The Phils won 73 games in 2013, their worst season since 2000. The majority of their aging and expensive roster was retained for this season. Opening day is Monday at the Texas Rangers. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>My latest <a href="https://twitter.com/fangraphs">@fangraphs</a>: FanGraphs: Padres Fans Finally Get Team On TV; Dodgers & Astros Fans, Not So Much <a href="http://t.co/2u3oS7k5Sn">http://t.co/2u3oS7k5Sn</a></p>— Wendy Thurm (@hangingsliders) <a href="https://twitter.com/hangingsliders/statuses/448893287760281600">March 26, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Padres Fans Finally Get Team On TV; Dodgers & Astros Fans, Not So Much by Wendy Thurm - March 26, 2014 Two years after signing a new local television contract with Fox Sports San Diego, the Padres will have their games carried by all the major cable and satellite operators in the team’s viewing area. The same cannot be said for the new Dodgers network called SportsNetLA, or for the year-old Comcast SportsNet Houston, which broadcasts Astros games. In their inaugural season with FSSD in 2012, Padres games were broadcast only on Cox Cable and DirecTV. Last season, DISH Network and AT&T U-verse came onboard, which still left Time Warner Cable customers — more than 180,000 households or approximately 40% of the market — without access to the Padres on TV. TWC finally cut a deal with FSSD last month. Come Opening Day, anyone in San Diego or Hawaii with service from Cox, DirecTV, DISH, AT&T U-verse or TWC will be able to watch Padres games. FSSD’s slow rollout reflects the economic realities of sports on TV. Advertisers love live, DVR-proof programming that’s watched by 18-to-45-year-old men, and they spend wildly on commercials during those programs. Sports networks — regional and national — see the money the advertising generates and bid obscence amounts for the broadcast rights. But the ad money isn’t nearly enough to cover the fees paid to the leagues and teams, and still turn a profit. For that, the networks turn to the cable and satellite operators that would like to offer the sports programming to their customers. The two sides negotiate the carriage fee — the price the cable and satellite operators will pay, per customer, in order to “carry” network as part of its sports programming packages. The Padres-FSSD contract is valued in the range of $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion, putting average annual payments to the Padres in the $50 million to $75 million range. It’s thought the initial payment for 2012 was closer to $30 million. Before the 2012 season, Cox and DirecTV reportedly agreed to pay FSSD $5 per subscriber, but TWC, AT&T and DISH balked at that fee, leading to the impasse. It is not clear whether the holdouts eventually came around to a $5 per subscriber fee or if FSSD agreed to a lower fee to get those cable and satellite operators to join on. The battle over carriage fees isn’t limited to regional sports networks, as I explained in this post last July. But when it comes to local sports programming, cable and satellite operators are digging deep — beyond the ratings reported by Nielsen — to understand who watches the local sports teams, when and for how long. Based on that information, many pay-TV providers simply have decided that paying carriage fees in the range of $5 per subscriber doesn’t make financial sense for them or for their customers. SportsNet LA launched in February with around-the-clock Dodgers programming, but only customers with TWC or Bright House can view the network in their homes. Every other cable and satellite operator in the Los Angeles market has balked at the network’s carriage fee demand. And TWC hardly counts as an arms-length agreement, as it is the Dodgers’ broadcast partner in SportsNet LA. Indeed, TWC will essentially pay itself the carriage fee for SportsNet LA, and then pay the Dodgers their monthly rights fee as part of the 25-year, $8.3 billion megadeal. TWC CEO Rob Marcus apparently isn’t worried. He recently told a media conference that Opening Day has a way of making these deals shake out. But according to the Wall Street Journal, DirecTV is pushing for an a la carte pay structure with SportsNet LA; that is, DirecTV will pay the carriage fee only for those customers who specifically subscribe to the network. The Dodgers have rejected that proposal, and for good reason. The economics of their deal don’t make sense if customers can pick and choose whether to pay for the network. Bad economics are precisely what unfolded in Houston, where the Astros are embroiled in several lawsuits and a bankruptcy proceeding involving CSN Houston and the Astros’ broadcast rights. I explained what led to the legal mess in this post from last November. In short, CSN Houston couldn’t reach carriage fee deals with any cable or satellite provider other than Comcast. Disputes arose between and among Comcast, the Astros and the Houston Rockets — which collectively own CSN Houston — over how to negotiate the carriage fee deals and at what price. Comcast forced the parties into bankruptcy court. The Astros sued former owner Drayton McLane, claiming he misled new owner Jim Crane on the financial viability of the new network. Four months later, nothing’s been resolved. There is a glimmer of hope for Astros fans, though. The Houston Chronicle reported this week the Astros are hoping to make their games available in the Houston area through the MLB Extra Innings Package. Typically, local games are blacked out on Extra Innings or MLB.tv, as a way of protecting the regional sports networks’ economic interests (often called their monopoly). It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which CSN Houston willingly allows games to be broadcast on Extra Innings, as that would further undercut the little leverage the network has in trying to reach carriage deals and work its way out of bankruptcy. At some point, you’d think sports networks would stop dolling out huge rights fee deals.
Damn, Crane's influence runs deep. He's not even willing to lower his demands for Dish or DirecTV to carry CSN Philly.
