I don't really care about or buy in to the sob story that Crane is peddling. Now that we know the Astros aren't getting what Crane said he needed to compete are we doomed to mediocrity ?
As to the first paragraph, that's just nonsense. The asking price was set in the network's original business plan. Is it your contention that the original business plan (put together by the "experts" at NBC/Comcast) was concocted for the purpose of solely benefiting Jim Crane? As to the bolded sentences, I've yet to see any evidence that supports that. After it took 2 years for Comcast to find 1 crappy deal, the Astros and Rockets each took a swing at it and came up empty. If I recall correctly DISH indicated they had no interest in CSN Houston at any price point. ATT and DirecTV were at least publicly sticking to their guns that they would only be willing to carry CSN on a premium package, rather than basic cable. IF your business plan calls for carriage on basic cable by all carriers, and none of the major players have shown any willingness to do so, what middle ground can there really be? Is it not also possible that ATT/DirecTV looked at CSN Houston and figured "this network is simply unworkable, all we have to do is wait until it bleeds out and we can just buy it for ourselves and run it the right way?"
THIS. The providers took a stand, and made Houston the patient zero of a much larger war against RSN's. They knew they didn't run the risk of losing a lot of subscribers (unlike what happened with YES or NESN)... so they held out, knowing full well that the network would not be sustainable with limited coverage.
I find it funny people would blame the other carriers for this fiasco. As if the big bad carriers are evil for not just taking the numbers in the CSN-H business model. In a capitalistic society there is give and take and negotiations. During this time, the Astros were fielding a triple A team. The one offer that was made was actually accepted by 2/3 of the partnership (Comcast & Rockets) and only rejected by the guy with the team that was historically bad.
This completely ignores the fact that the bankruptcy judge has said that it was a rotten deal and they were right to reject it. What good does a carriage deal do for the club if it results in sustained losses?
I find it funny that after 740+ posts in this thread - not to mention all its predecessors - you still don't understand even the basics of what people are arguing. No one has blamed the other carriers for this mess.
Its not the other carriers fault... but those same carriers had previously caved in other markets, and paid for the channel given the demand/potential viewership/potential backlash for not showing the games. Those other factors were not as prominent in Houston, along with providers now realizing that having 4 or 5 sports-only networks is pretty costly for the consumer (especially when they're still paying for a now defunct RSN because the teams used to be there). The RSN bubble burst, and Houston was the perfect market to take a stand... the Comcast business models were based on what had played out previously in other markets.
You are correct that the ONE deal would have resulted in losses but the deals that would have fell in place after the first one was signed were not counted. Once Direct TV was in the mix it would have forced the other carriers to sign. I will not argue about this though because I do not want to see another thread closed.
Did you bother reading the two post above the one you quoted???? They basically blamed the carriers for drawing a line in the sand.
I will not waste time going back and forth on this. I am entitled to my opinion just as everyone else is. I still see Crane as the biggest issue here and that is within my rights. Others are free to feel as they want to about the situation. I do not want to see yet another thread closed by arguing who was right and who was wrong. The good thing is that hopefully we can soon all see the games as it looks like this fiasco may be coming to a close. Peace to everyone!!!
But that is exactly what happened. The carriers drew a line in the sand at a rate that was offered by DTV. The Astros said no it's a bad deal, (Judge Isugur later agreed it was a bad deal). The carriers were not interested in negotiations. I'm not sure what mythical deals you are referring to. If it is ones they may have gotten in negotiations, we've seen that it probably would not have happen either. Remember both the Astros and Rockets had the opportunity to find new deals. Neither found anything. So to say if they had just decided to negotiate they would have found middle ground is reaching. To do that the sides would have had to be willing to move towards the middle. The evidence we have shows the carriers were not interested in that. They wanted the network at a certain price-point and tier and it did not fit the business plan the teams and CSN had established. It's not necessarily the fault of the carriers, but IMO the fault of the ones that came up with the business plan and sold the teams on it.
They said the carriers drew a line in the sand. That's not saying it's their fault for CSN-H failing. Those are two completely different things.
I believe the ONE deal that was rejected, was deemed awful presuming WIDESPREAD coverage (not just DTV). This was backed up by Comcast in court. Aftert that, there were no other deals. Don't you think if it was as simple as getting that one deal signed (and then getting a snowball effect), the judge would have forced THAT to be the reorganization plan? It wasn't the plan because even the snowball effect would have led to widespread losses.
Well I have a feeling that if this were tried in 2005 or 2006 it would have worked. The Astros were a World Series caliber team, the Rockets had Yao and Mc Grady and the needle was pointing up for both franchises. Fans would have demanded to see BOTH teams. When this did happen neither team was close to championship caliber (although the Rockets have made great strides to get there in the last couple of years). I know they were in a contract with Fox so it could not happen in 05 - 06 but if it could I believe things would have been different.
The Dodgers are one of the most popular teams in the country and they are having the same problems there. . The Astros sucking doesn't help the issue, but it's not remotely the deciding factor.
I also say they would have been much better of to originally start this with one of the satellite providers whose carriage is not limited to infrastructure. More fans could have switched providers and not just the ones lucky enough (or possibly unlucky due to all the Comcast complaints I see ) to live in an area covered by Comcast. It also might have helped if Comcast acquired Time Warner before they started this venture which would have allowed them to have much more fans who would be able to switch to their service for games.
