Feel free to ignore the above article where the Rockets were also expecting the buyout. Comcast has other priorities right now, and can't afford to draw negative attention on itself, and its business practices, when its trying to make good to get the TWC merger approved.
I am guessing he'd be better off in the long run compromising and getting something worked out now. I don't think he could ever make those kind of losses up. Edit.... I meant to say make up for those losses as Crane has a habit of making things up.
We already know that the Astros wanted to end the relationship with the channel by taking back their media rights... or selling their shares in the network to somebody willing to buy them and assume the full media rights payments as is.
Much appreciated. I think this thread is going much better than previous attempts and I too would like to apologize and bury the hatchet.
Comcast could appeal that decision to the Fifth Circuit. If that happens and the network blows up, they would sell the assets and pay whatever debt they can with that and the rest of the debt holders would be out of luck. Of course, they could file a new voluntary Chapter 7 and administer the assets through a trustee. The scenario that makes the most sense would be to drop the appeal, convert to a Chapter 7 and liquidate the assets.
None of really know the exact math or what alternative offers he has/had on the table, but he seemed OK with losing the investment when he was ready to walk away in September. It would have led to the dissolution of the network too. The math is a bit tricky because the 326MM was for a CSN-H that owned the Astros' media rights, which was a good chunk of the valuation of the network. So if he loses the CSN-H investment but gets the media rights back, he's not losing nearly as much. Or looked at another way, if there was no CSN-H and the Astros still owned their media rights to sell to the highest bidder, the Astros part of the deal would have been worth more.
To be fair, the Astros and Rockets thought this because Comcast said they would be doing so. Then they changed their mind (presumably due to the TWC merger, but possibly also when they realized this thing is a piece of crap).
You are right. The Rockets complained Comcast withdrawing their commitment to bid on the Network. To your point, Crane was talking about expecting Comcast to submit an actual offer that week. That's different than what the Rockets are saying in the article.
“As a result of Comcast’s inexplicable and abrupt withdrawal of its commitment to bid for the network there is now no clear path to a plan of reorganization and no certainty that creditors of any rank will be paid in full,” the Rockets said. I don't know... sounds like they were expecting something imminent, hence the word "abrupt".
The 326 MM was a sunk cost and is gone (unless he wins or gets a settlement). Crane's decision was based on what would CSNH be worth in ten years, how much losses would CSNH cost him by then, how much media rights he gets from CSNH, and how much media rights he would get if he wasn't bound to CSNH. Based on logic: Comcast buyout + CSNH paying media rights > Best deal for media rights outside of media rights > Astros share of CSNH's value as a business after ten years + Astros share of CSNH losses + CSNH paying media rights (basically Astros would have to give CSNH money to give to themselves)
Did you read the words "commitment to bid"? It was an "abrupt withdrawal" of a "commitment to bid" if the Network was auctioned. It was not an abrupt withdrawal of an actual offer.
You're really reaching on semantics now on your quest to prove it's "all Crane's fault". Fact is, nobody knows what is "implied" and what is meant by random tweets/comments to the media. Bottom line is that all parties were expecting a Comcast bid/buyout/offer (whatever)... and they withdrew.
No, I am telling you what the situation was and for some reason you can't grasp it. You nitpicked Faos statement and you were wrong in doing so. Come to grips with that and move on. LOL @ you pulling the semantics card when that is exactly how you came at Faos..... If nobody knows...stop running around trying to correct people. Comcast withdrew their stalking horse bid.. Here's what that is... This method allows the distressed company to avoid low bids on its assets. Once the stalking horse has made its bid, other potential buyers may submit competing bids for the bankrupt company's assets. In essence, the stalking horse sets the bar so that other bidders can't low-ball the purchase price. An buyout offer is different than an auction bid.
Could you two do the rest of us a favor and stop trying to get this thread locked? The purpose of this thread is not to debate, but to update.
Why don't you comment on the MO of the poster who I was responding to? The one who erroneously nitpicked and attempted to correct another poster. I responded to the poster by supporting his statement and then Nick turns his sights on me. The same poster who constantly pisses on my posts by saying I am a blind hater of Crane and a loser. Those types of personal comments were supposed to be stricken from this thread but continue. Most likely waiting for me to respond in kind so I become the issue. The guy was wrong, plain and simple. Police your own side of this debate and maybe the thread will go smoother. I have made a sincere attempt to forge civil discussion.
Sorry I've seemed to have struck a "nerve". Just don't appreciate the anti-Crane sentiments, as people still believe he's the "main" reason for this quagmire. I'll be quiet... this thread should be just for updates. But if there's more anti-Crane "rhetoric", can't guarantee I won't point out inaccuracies or contradictory statements.
That's the problem in a nutshell.... Who made you the Judge of what is anti-Crane or not? And why do you think you have this duty to stand up for him via insulting and or harassing posters. What you think is anti-Crane is quite often simply the truth. Example... I said Crane was wrong when he was floating the idea he could broadcast in CSN H territory via Extra Innings. That's not necessarily anti-Crane, it was a fair statement that turned out to be true. That said, Crane deserves flack for misleading people. If Crane had legal standing to make that claim then he should have led with proof of it. Same with the unsupported claim of not knowing about the MFN. When I saw the Rockets objection to Comcast Services asking to get paid, I sided with the Rockets. I could care less about Comcast. I won't ever change to them as my cable provider because I think their service sucks and they are too expensive. Just from a business perspective, I think their side of this mess has been more right than wrong.
