Looks like everyone is against the Astros now!!! David Barron @dfbarron 1m CSN Houston studio landlord at Green Street complex also joining as petitioning creditor. Astros say Rockets' move as creditor is improper.
David Barron @dfbarron 3m Crane says Astros' share of network when he bought team was $326 million. Total net valued at $700 million in 2010.
Unpopular opinion alert: Comcast and the Rockets knew the terms of the agreement when it was signed. They understood that they needed the Astro's consent to strike a deal, and now they're trying to back out on their word. Classless, regardless of Crane's ridiculous hard line stance on carrier fees.
It's not unreasonable for Comcast and the Rockets to expect Crane to be reasonable though, because Crane is ONLY looking out for himself, everybody else is suffering, especially the fans. Maybe someone should start a petition to make Crane promise NOT to televise his games.. that would be pretty funny.
Sorry for the backwards tweets David Barron @dfbarron 1m That would have cost CSNH even more money, Crane says. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More David Barron @dfbarron 2m Comcast had most favored nation status, so it would have paid less for CSNH sub fees had DirecTV deal gone through, Crane says. Expand
So is there a good chance that nobody will be able to watch the Rockets on tv this year? even people with Comcast ?
He does have the support of the MLB commissioner, but Selig is a b*stard, so... Yeah, Crane vs. the world.
It's not classless, it's business. The bankruptcy reorganization laws are designed to save otherwise viable businesses by allowing them to break certain promises that they are unable to keep. If CSNH refuses to enter into carriage agreements in accordance with the Astros desire to hold out for higher fees that the marker has refused to pay, it cannot sustain itself on the income from only 40% of the Houston market. So, the business reality seems to be that either you make CSNH/Comcast/Rockets keep their promises and basically force CSNH to close its doors, or you allow CSNH to break its promise to the Astros and it stays open. It's kind of in the nature of any insolvency situation that at least some people won't be getting what they bargained for. Now the legal issues are more nuanced than this, and there are arguments supporting the position that you should protect the Astros even if it means CSNH fails (resulting in the loss of investment and jobs), and these issues are what the court is here to sort out.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Crane says Astros opposed May 10 distribution offer by unnamed provider because it would have not made CSNH profitable by itself.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/394872734640926721">October 28, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Comcast says offer might have had domino effect on other carriers, but Crane says net was on path to lose up to $200 mil.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/394873307981307905">October 28, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
David Barron @dfbarron 1m Comcast says offer might have had domino effect on other carriers, but Crane says net was on path to lose up to $200 mil. Expand David Barron @dfbarron 3m Crane says Astros opposed May 10 distribution offer by unnamed provider because it would have not made CSNH profitable by itself.
