That's because I don't write the contract, they do. I won't go back to DirecTV for their bush league BS ever again. They didn't give a damn about me until my contract was almost up, even though I over the phone they told me a 1-year extension to my current contract, which apparently was really 2.
That doesn't surprise me, i've never said ANY of these companies are very good when it comes to PR. Fact is, there are so few of them that they can get away with being bad. My only point is, a company like Directv (or any of the others) isn't "liable" to carry a channel just because the local teams have switched to that channel. They aren't obligated to just pay whatever it takes to make sure they have that channel. They should do whatever is best for them as a company. Like Crane said, if thousands of us were switching to comcast then they would probably "fall in line" and pay whatever him, Les and CSN is demanding. Where I differ from some people here is that I think it is on Crane and Les to make the Astros/Rockets available for us as fans, they own the teams and the channel.
Same model a lot of other sports and non-sports channels operate under. If cable didn't quit giving me huge discounts, I would have gone to streaming content exclusively a long time ago.
Which is going to be where all this ends up, and might be a little part of the reason some carriers aren't going to guarantee millions or billions or whatever it is for a rsn. I mean it was during my lifetime that the whole cable tv stuff took off. I vividly remember espn being the channel I watched Australian Rules Football on. And MTV being music video's. That was a huge change from what television was for my parents. To think that what we know as cable tv now will always be how it is would be a little crazy.
You're right that they aren't liable, and they shouldn't pay any amount. I just hate the idea of being stuck under contract like that. I'd also be disappointed when the guy in another region is paying the same fee, but getting the same national channels and getting their regional sports network. Life isn't fair.
I hope it does. I really just hate it for everyone in Houston. I get to watch every Astros game living in GA, while 60% of you don't, even if you pay for MLBTV, which is ridiculous.
Yep, it is crazy. When Drayton and Les were dreaming all of this up many years ago, the Astros were in the middle of a great run of being a legitimate contender every single year, and Drayton at that time had no clue that the way they were ignoring the farm system would ruin the competitive nature of the franchise like it has. What he saw at that time was a team that was in high demand and that the fan base would revolt it television rights were taken away from them. He saw a situation where all they had to do was get the right channel developed and then rake in as much money as the "big boys" Well, if we were still in the middle of that run of success, you can bet your azz this would be going down a lot different than it currently is. And I fully understand this isn't about a deal for "right now" and that the current success shouldn't "be a major factor" in negotiations. But the fact is, it is a major factor. If I am a private business like the other providers, and i'm being asked to pay the same rate for the Astros that the DFW metroplex is paying for the Rangers, I would have to pause. Yes, it is a long term deal they are looking for. But consider this. If Crane decides to spend money long term, in a few years when the team has (hopefully) some great young players and we feel like building the payroll to 100 million + will produce a championship caliber team, and that plan works, then I have no doubt the ratings for Astros games will rise to the levels at or above what other markets our size are BUT . . .what if Crane decides to do what Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Montreal (even Washington till the ownership change) and other have done, and just develop players and trade them when they are about to make big bucks, never sign high dollar free agents or trade for them, and just make a profit having a low payroll and counting tv dollars . . . .if they pay the same rate as other "comparable" markets, but take on that future, then the providers would be screwed with a big money deal and horrible ratings Crane is demanding money as if he has a track record of being a great baseball owner, and that isn't exactly the truth at this point
Nor do I, but if I were a business thinking about spending millions/billions of dollars on his product, i'd damn sure be thinking about that
Great point, and many signs point to this model coming to fruition. I have been considering this very scenario for a few months now and was considering making it a separate thread. The worst part is if this does come to be, we won't know for 2-3 years. In that time some of us will drink the Kool-Aid and will want to believe that this ownership group will shell out the money when it comes time. We have been given no real indication this will be the case though. Nonetheless, we will continue to watch the terrible product on the field and we will intently follow the farm eagerly anticipating when the big club will no longer be a doormat for the rest of the MLB b/c that is the only option a baseball fan, at least one currently in Houston and rooting for the Astros, has to do. Yet in the end, no matter how well Lunhow executes his plan, it will all be for naught if the business side determines that the on field talent is a never-ending assembly line meant to serve as a training ground for big market teams. This is a very real possibility where the only winners are the ownership group. They will make a profit hand over fist. What will we, the fans - who are asked to call our cable providers on behalf of the team, and who are forced to pay the now scaled gate cost, and who have been offered a terrible on-field product - get? Best case scenario, two to three years of talented, cheap, young talent who will tease and whet the appetite of the fan base only to be shuttled out in return for the next generation of prospects.
Well you have a little more negotiating power when you go to back to back world series or recently won an NBA championship. Not a good comparison, despite the market size difference, which isn't much.
The deal they're talking about is for 20 years or so, per Crane. As such, you have to look at the fortunes of the franchises involved for the last 20 years. Not just the past 2 or 3. The real difference in negotiating power between Dallas and Houston is that the latter group made a complete startup of a network. That gives more leverage to the providers because it's not tied contractually to anything else and there's no established history of it being on rival carriers. They're using that leverage.
Jeff Luhnow is a brilliant guy. He had other opportunities. He wouldn't have taken this job if ownership weren't committed to spending on a proportional level to the market. The other situations mentioned (Pitt, KC, etc.) are nowhere near Houston in terms of revenues. Fans of those teams may b****, but the reality is simply that those markets don't have the revenues to sustain the level of payroll they'd like. Houston does.
It's a guess at best by Luhnow. Crane has no history, no track record. I'm not saying Crane will be that guy but he has been changing things on the business side to maximize one thing and one thing only...His Profit. He has Partners he has to look out for as he always says. I do think that the Market gives him no excuse to be that cheap though. A beautiful park, rich corporate sector and gullible fan base that's begging to give money to see winning baseball.
It's not a guess. Luhnow point blank asked Crane, as any good GM candidate would. Could Crane have lied? In theory, yes, but it's quite unlikely because it would ruin Crane's credibility and prevent him from hiring capable GMs in the future. And without capable GMs and at least some hope, you're not going to get the fan base to buy in at the level he needs to be profitable. I agree that Crane wants profit, but that's true of any owner. The bottom line is that the TV deal is only part of the "profit" equation. Another big part is filling the ballpark as much as you can (remember the enormous crowds a few years back?) and getting added revenue from postseason games. That's where payroll and building a quality team comes in. Crane's not going to be Steinbrenner, but he understands this and will spend at a proportionate level for his market revenues to try and tap into the attendance/postseason profits. That proportionate level in Houston far surpasses that in Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Montreal, etc.
I genuinely question both assertions (not with regard to the revenue streams, but how Crane intends to redirect that money back into the on-field product). In all seriousness, please provide some evidence that Lunhow ever had this conversation with Crane. Are you speculating or have you actually read as much? Along the same lines, I'd also be giddy to see any comments Crane has made about team payroll being in line with revenues once the prospects arrive and begin to perform. I have never run across anything of the sort. Matter of fact, I have only seen circumstantial evidence to the contrary. If you have links, please provide.
I don't have a link to provide you, but I've read articles very recently where he said they would be players in free agency when it made sense to be.
I'm not going to look it up for you, but indeed those are the reports. Luhnow asked Crane during his interview about payroll, and the complete teardown is the idea Luhnow pitched to Crane. Crane has said a number of times that payroll will rise with revenues. MLB would step in if they didn't believe Crane was going to reinvest in the payroll. You can question his sincerity, but you can't question whether or not this has been said repeatedly without showing that you don't follow the team.
