CSN Updates

And who made you the judge about which Crane statements are "true" or "not true" and what he "deserves" to be blasted for?

My point is that what he says (or doesn't say) really has nothing to do with the CSN outcome at this point. Its a multi-tiered problem, with every party having fault (and in most of the dealings, Comcast's actions and business practices have IMO, extended this process out far longer than it needed to be).

Assigning "most" of the blame to Crane, or reacting to every little thing he says (vs. the actions of Comcast) isn't needed or productive.

 

Even though:

A. They have failed to pay the Rockets and Astros?
B. They implied they were going to buy out the network then abruptly changed their mind?
C. They did not bring any good business deals to the Rockets or Astros according to the judge?

 

If this was a debate thread, then it should've been started in the D&D

 

Comcast did not fail to pay Astros and Rockets.

I would add that Comcast was the party with the most experience. The whole CSNH business plan was based on the assumption that Comcast could get the rates they said they could get. They were so wrong that the business model is not profitable. This mistake predates Crane.

Crane could have done everything perfectly and it would not correct this mistake. The Grocer would still own the Astros' share of CSNH. The case would still be in bankruptcy unless the Grocer was smart enough to push for judgement on Comcast's initial filing before the Rockets could join to "cure" the bad faith motion instead of trying to negotiate the carriage rates for CSNH instead.

 

A: The Rockets and Astros at one point refused to infuse more cash in to the Network. It's not the responsibility of Comcast to solely fund the Network . You can't run a Network and pay bills with no cash so they went the bankruptcy route to reorganize.

B. They stated to to the court an intent to submit a stalking horse bid in the event the Network was auctioned. Comcast withdrew their stalking horse bid. They could still bid on the Network if it is auctioned.

All parties have implied that they might have an interest in buying portions of the Network that they don't own at one point during this fiasco. Spread your disgust around evenly.

C. Comcast brought the deals that were out there. Do you want them to bust heads at U-Verse until they get a deal that Crane likes?

 

So the next person that posts anything other than an update, you got beef with that?

 

It's called an opinion on the subject matter, Nick. Jim Crane is part of the subject matter. What you perceive of others motives behind their posts isn't. I'm not constantly accusing you of being a Comcast hater and a loser when you post things I find to be inaccurate or possibly biased for whatever reason.



So if Crane says he can get MLB TV on in the Houston market and that becomes true, that doesn't have an effect on CSN H? It undermines negotiations with potential providers.

Other providers may say, well now my subscribers have access so I don't have to worry with ever picking up the channel. The providers have already asked to put this on a separate tier which CSN H fought strongly against. This would pave the way for the way for having to pay a subscription fee for Astros and Rockets games which would be much higher than what normally gets tacked on to your bill since the cost is traditionally spread out over all customers and not just those who like watching the teams.

If I say Jim Crane is wrong for suggesting that Astros baseball can be broadcast on Extra Innings in Houston and an article comes out saying he can't. Jim Crane was wrong unless he can prove he wasn't.

If Jim Crane makes controversial statements that he can't prove, he deserves to be blasted.

 

Yeah, we got it the first time you went all-in on the Crane hate.

Now you've jumped the shark by trying to defend it, and seeking a burden of "proof" with each of his statements.

Give it a break, dude... get over it. The longer this drags out, and the more these issues pop up in other cities, further proves it isn't all his fault. He may spew verbal diarrhea from time to time, but doesn't mean he's completely off-base, or isn't trying to "help" the awful situation. It also doesn't mean he's in the clear of any wrong-doing either.

Again, let it go... you're not helping your case with these continued responses.

 

Again stick to the subject matter, Nick.

 

Well, no, because I'm not taking this as seriously as you are.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Astros file another appeal in CSN Houston case, this one involving civil suit against Comcast and Drayton McLane: <a href="http://t.co/jsGKdIhpyL">http://t.co/jsGKdIhpyL</a></p>&mdash; David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/451786858930765824">April 3, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Astros file another appeal in CSN Houston case
Posted on April 3, 2014 at 1:10 pm by David Barron

The Astros are appealing a second case to U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, this time involving the civil lawsuit filed against Comcast and former Astros owner Drayton McLane.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur last month denied the Astros’ request to return the civil case to state court, where it originally was filed last November. The lawsuit, which accuses McLane and Comcast of conspiracy and fraud-related charges associated with the sale of McLane’s share of Comcast SportsNet Houston to Crane’s Houston Baseball Partners group, was moved by Comcast to federal court to be heard in conjunction with the CSN Houston bankruptcy case.

Isgur ruled that Comcast followed proper procedure in having the case moved to bankruptcy court, turning down the Astros’ request to strike that action. The Astros now will ask Hughes to overturn Isgur’s decision.

The Astros also have filed a separate motion seeking to have the case moved back to state court, Isgur is scheduled to hear arguments May 12 in that case.

Hughes previously was assigned the Astros’ appeal of Isgur’s order in February that placed the CSN Houston partnership under Chapter 11 protection. The parties held a seven-hour mediation session last week, and a second conference is scheduled for April 11.

 

I respect your opinion, but this is where you lose me big time.

Even the judge has suggested that no one has brought a viable deal to the table...that all deals have been terrible...and the Rockets have verified the same in their letter to the judge. This isn't simply about getting a deal that "Crane likes."

This thing will either be resuscitated by Comcast money (they're the 800 ton gorilla) or it won't. If it's not, it's history. As of now, all indications are that they are not willing to to buy the others out. If that's the case, I seriously doubt that this bankruptcy proceeding has even a remote chance of reorganizing this entity.

 

The biggest problem I had with Crane was his bashing of the company to the media. Granted, he answered questions asked of him, but there is no way that helped this situation.

 

Which company? Comcast?

The Rockets just bashed them as well. Its always been a double-standard in blaming Crane for this mess, but letting the Rockets go blame-less (simply because they haven't been as vocal about it).

Its pretty clear that these providers have been dead-set on taking a "stand" from the get-go.

 

I don't one thing Crane has said has mattered one iota. This issue is bigger than him and it's bigger than this market, alone.

 

I'm still trying to understand Comcast's gameplan here. Prior to the TimeWarner merger, it made sense that they wanted to buy out the Astros and Rockets shares and own the network and just pay them their rights fees. That way they still had the channel With them backing out of that option due to the merger, what benefit is there for them to hold on to this network that at best will be allowed to Chapter 11 Bankruptcy under a trustee?

Given everything else in the market of regional sports networks, general state of the economy, etc., I just don't see how they would ever make it out of Chapter 11 solvent in the long run because no other service seems to want to negotiate at all for the channel.

Is this just stall, to get to a point in time when that option would work out or is this just a stall to prevent competitors from getting the Rockets/Astros' broadcasting rights?

 

CSN the network. Crane decided to air it out in the Chronicle very early on while negotiations with providers were still going on. The Rockets kept it quiet.

And yes, the providers did take a stand early on. Had the network been ready to take over 5 years ago we wouldn't be here discussing this now. (I realize they had to wait for the Fox contract to end.)

 

http://www.theday.com/article/20140...sing-YES-channel-has-Yank-fans-crying-'Oh-no'

Losing YES channel has Yank fans crying, 'Oh, no!'

By Lee Howard and Brian Hallenbeck

Publication: The Day
Published 04/03/2014 12:00 AM
Updated 04/03/2014 11:33 PM


For 61-year-old physician Vijay Sikand of East Lyme, who has been following the Yankees since the days of Whitey Ford and Mickey Mantle, Tuesday was going to be highlighted by a relaxing night watching his favorite team on television.

But when he clicked onto the YES sports channel through his MetroCast cable service, all he saw was a blank screen and a line of type streaming across the top indicating that the channel had gone dark. The message on the television guide portion of the screen indicated that MetroCast and the YES Network, owned by Fox Television, could not reach an agreement on programming terms and that YES had therefore stopped sending its signal to the cable provider.

"There hasn't been a single warning of any kind to any customer that I'm aware of," Sikand said Wednesday. "As an avid Yankee fan, I was shocked, surprised and disappointed."

MetroCast, whose coverage area also includes Montville, New London, Waterford, Jewett City and Griswold, acknowledged that its contract with the YES Network expired at midnight Monday. The company, which said it could not reveal the percentage increase sought by YES, added that "the cost of the network was a major factor in the matter."

MetroCast spokesman Andrew Walton said there are no active discussions with YES to resume offering the channel to subscribers. He added that Service Electric Cable TV Inc., a family-owned cable service covering parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, also was unable to come to terms with the YES Network.

Pennsylvania-based MetroCast, which is part of the National Cable Television Consortium, reached an agreement with another key programming provider, Viacom, at the 11th hour, but Walton said the company was unable to come to terms with YES.

"Sports channels account for a very large percentage of the fees paid by cable and satellite companies - by some estimates up to half of the total programming cost," Walton said in an email.

He added in a phone interview that the fees are expected to increase substantially in the years ahead, thanks largely to pricey contracts between networks and professional and collegiate sports leagues.

An article last year in The Wall Street Journal indicated that sports channels as a whole account for 20 percent of the cost of a typical cable or satellite bill. That's nearly $15 a month on a TV bill that last year averaged about $73.44 per household, according to The Journal.

The draw of sports programming is the fact that 97 percent of viewers watch the shows in real time, so advertisements are more likely to be seen. By contrast, other programming is seen in real time - rather than later on DVD recorders - by only three-quarters of households.

Yet the audience for sports is small, said Walton, and MetroCast must weigh whether satisfying 4 percent of viewers is worth the cost that would have to be borne largely by those not interested in watching. He added that the company began notifying customers last week through its website and through social media when it seemed likely that an agreement with YES would not be reached. More information was extended to customers through the same methods and with the help of MetroCast's customer service team after the network went dark.

Yankee fan Sikand was not mollified by explanations. "When I went to work today, I encountered many Yankees fans who were equally upset," he said.

They might have been upset as well that the Yankees wound up losing the game, 6-2, to the Houston Astros as pitcher CC Sabathia had a rough outing. Sikand found nothing amusing about the fact that MetroCast still offers NESN, a sports network that broadcasts Red Sox games.

"Dropping YES hits a raw nerve," he said.

 

Brian McTaggart (@brianmctaggart): [Dexter] Fowler says he couldn't watch Astros games because no Comcast: "I don't know what's going on with this TV deal...we gotta fix something."