All I can say is that nobody involved actually believes profitability is unattainable. Whether that means it's a "good deal" for Crane in comparison to what he could have gotten elsewhere is a different argument of course, but I promise you, 100%, that profitability can be obtained. Part of the problem here is that there are multiple pots of money. There's the money that comes from ownership and the money that is paid in return for media rights. For the ownership there are losses and profits (obviously, I know you get that not trying to say you are dumb) and conflate to create a number that has been repeated.
I seriously doubt this is accurate. The question is, how much were they asking for? What fee per subscriber? Are they STILL stuck on their original asking price? I think, *at that price*, you are right - the market is not going to buy the product at that price. But that CANNOT be the ONLY price, it's impossible. There HAS to be a price that all parties can live with, which will both turn a profit for the network AND get the dang teams on the air. 'All time low for an RSN' is not likely either. They just need to find a FAIR price. It is beginning to seem to me that this entire sad affair will end up being nothing more than an extremely long, expensive and unnecessary process of forcing Crane to ACTUALLY negotiate on price, rather than stubbornly insist on the ridiculous amount he believes he is entitled to because Comcast unscrupulously 'promised' an amount that had no basis in reality.
The only offer made by direct TV would have resulted in the network ending up right where it is now... this fact has been confirmed by all parties, including an impartial judge. Don't see how that is so hard for you to grasp. The providers are also not rushing to make a "better" offer any time soon (why would they?). Additionally, I wouldn't want the teams to settle for a bad offer at this point, if it would eventually effect the on-the-field/court product. The fact that they weren't able to strike deals before, during, and now after all the melodrama is not a good sign... and this is with three separate parties doing the negotiation, not just Crane. And yes, I'm presuming they're no longer on the "original" price as the providers have made their stance pretty clear on that (and if anything, the channel has even less leverage now due to virtually zero uproar from the Houston community). Also, providers like dish network are unlikely to get on board regardless of what the price is... they just don't add channels all that easily regardless of the carriage rate, unless there's a lot of pressure from the consumers (which there hasn't been). Again, I could see them "giving it away" just to get the games on TV... but then still end up right back in this situation once the channel runs out of money. Or, Comcast (the company) continues to buy out all their competitors till its available in every single household in America, and then they don't care about other providers signing up for the channel.
The channel is hemorrhaging money... luckily, its dad (comcast) has more than enough cash to keep bailing them out.
It's not that I 'don't grasp it'. I understand perfectly. Yes. I *know* that the only 'real offer' anyone can refer to - ie the only offer that I assume was actually presented as an actual offer - was unacceptably low. I have never NOT understood that. I simply don't believe that THAT is a good enough piece of data to place all of these other assumptions and conclusions onto. In other words, I believe that THAT piece of data is simply a reflection of what SHOULD have been an 'opening low offer' as part of GENUINE negotiations. What should have happened next was Comcast goes back to the provider with a response something along the lines of 'Really? $1.50 per subscriber? Get real guys. We'll go to $3.29 per subscriber. Let me know if you're still interested.' (that's just said as an example, by the way, I don't know the real numbers) That's how it should have gone. Then the provider returns with a slightly higher offer, then Comcast comes back with a slightly lower offer, and so on and so on, until they come together at an acceptable rate. Instead, what we know is that Crane has insisted on getting the full, original asking price, and has not ALLOWED any real genuine negotiation. This is why that 'first offer' from a carrier can't keep getting tossed out there as some sort of 'proof' that 'the deals are not out there'. It's ridiculous. It was never intended as a serious offer, it was just part of negotiations. And once the carriers understood that there actually WEREN'T going to BE any 'negotiations', then they didn't even bother any more, because it was a waste of time and money to even pursue it. But once the channel, by whatever means necessary, actually begins to bargain and negotiate in good faith on price, to reach a deal which all parties can live with, then I fully believe that there will indeed 'be deals out there' to make. I ALSO believe that as long as the parties continue to hold up that one lowball deal as some sort of evidence of what is 'out there', that this process will never move forward. It says to me that Crane is still stuck on his original price, and he would rather destroy the entire network rather than lower his asking price. Not good. I don't know what else I can say to try to make the concept clear.
You seem to be confused. The "first offer" you're referring to was the end result of the negotiations between Comcast and DTV that you think should have happened. It's not just an opening bid and Comcast says "cool, we accept!". It's the offer that Comcast and DTV negotiated and agreed to, and then took to the board of CSN-H, which then rejected it.
Really? Do you have some kind of evidence indicating the original asking price ever came down at all? If so, cool, I have never seen that. But if not, then it's not 'negotiations'. If Crane made it clear he would veto any offer below the full original asking price, then that leaves no room for negotiations. Perhaps Comcast brought the offer to the board in order to try to get Crane to understand that he HAD to be willing to come down from the original price. I don't know. Because of all of the information which has been tossed around in this mess, they still absurdly insist on redacting the actual numbers. Unless I missed it. Has anything been entered into evidence showing that Comcast/Crane ever came down at all from the original asking price?
There's just as little evidence out there to know what the original asking price even was, or if it was just Crane or Crane+Rockets vetoing. All we know is that the eventual price that DTV was willing to pay to carry the channel would have resulted in the channel going belly-up... and that has been confirmed by COMCAST, and agreed to by the judge. When the parent company of the channel itself agrees that its a bad deal, what do you want the teams to do? Accept the bad deal? As long as the teams are part-owners, they have every right to refuse a deal that doesn't make sense (which the judge confirmed, it doesn't). Also, you say they should then negotiate more... well, what do you think the Astros and then Rockets did for the past two months, after Comcast failed in their negotiating tactics? Both independent parties entered separate negotiations and both could not get a deal done. Also, what incentive to the providers have to make a "better" offer at this point? Nobody is switching away from them, nobody is banging on the doors demanding their CSN, and even if they do lose the occasional customer, it hasn't been enough to make them reconsider. They also have no problem throwing further discounts at their customers to keep them from switching. The only thing that breaks up this stalemate is the channel being offered at an all-time low rate (which would likely lead to the channel's demise), or they dissolve the channel now and give the media rights back to the teams. Also, the former likely only happens if Comcast agrees to buy out the team's ownership share, as they can withstand short and long-term losses more-so than the teams can.
Do you really know this? Do you have some kind of evidence that says they were the only limiting factor? I don't see how you criticize others for explaining things, when you're basing your entire premise on yet another assumption (which likely has some truth to it, as the Astros... being the largest majority team owner of the channel... have the most to lose by a "bad" deal). Again, stick with what is actually known... the DTV offer that was deemed bad by the judge, the rights fees not paid to the Astros by the network, the company declaring bankrupt which prevented the Astros from terminating their agreement due to lack of rights fees paid, the judge feeling the bankruptcy should proceed but that they need "better deals", and the "company can succeed with a good deal."
I would say it's common sense. You seem to be obsessed with creating all sorts of conspiracy theories to explain away things that need no complicated explanation.
No, you're right. The specific information necessary to properly judge this situation has been deliberately hidden. I think a legitimate question at this point is 'Why is that?' However, yes, again, you're right. Stick with what we know. I trust the Judge in this, and the Judge (who I assume has all the necessary and unfiltered information) seems to believe that the channel CAN be a viable business, and is worth preserving, and seems to be taking steps which specifically prevent Crane from torpedoing negotiations, and subsequently the network itself. I will speculate that the Judge believes that it is the Astros who are primarily standing in the way of getting this thing moving in the right direction. And just to be clear - I have NEVER said that they should have taken the 'bad deal'. I simply see the bad deal as evidence that the negotiations failed to reach an acceptable middle ground, and again the important question to me is 'Why?' How many major sports markets are served by all these various carriers, and out of ALL of them, how many do not offer the local sports teams? I guess there may be others, but I know for sure of only two - Portland and Houston. So obviously, the local sports teams have value to the carriers and the customers. So why are they not carrying the channel here? I can think of only one reason: the price is too high. This all reminds me of that old Simpson's episode where Homer's long-lost brother lets him design the 'perfect family car', and Homer designs it, putting in everything he wants. And he does. And when it is revealed, it's kind of a nightmare, and the price tag was something like $120,000 each. Obviously it was a disaster. Seems like the Astros and Rockets built this nightmare of a network, and made it so big and expensive, and only now are realizing they are never going to get the price they need to get based on the costs of the thing they have built. They are going to have to make some serious cuts in costs, and be willing to try to make up some lost revenue in some other way. And hopefully bankruptcy will put the network into the hands of people who are able to objectively analyze it, evaluate its operating costs, make the appropriate cuts, and arrive at a price the market will actually bear, while still making a profit.
Conspiracy theory? That's exactly the opposite of what I think. I think the answer is obvious: if the negotiations had resulted in an acceptable price for all parties, we would be watching these teams on our various carriers right now. The fact that we are not indicates to me only one thing: the price is too high and the carriers are not buying it. Is there supposed to be some OTHER explanation?
Yep, give the baby the price he wants and he stops holding the TV rights hostage. Thats the OTHER explanation. All in good business.
Because Comcast asked for those to be kept confidential when they were at the first hearing. CSN is trying to negotiate with multiple carriers, ultimately. Comcast is doing so similarly throughout the country with other RSN's. They're not interested in divulging numbers derived from negotiations with one particular carrier and making those public so that other carriers will see those. That's standard fare in commercial litigation.
Your conspiracy theory is that the DTV offer was not actually the best available deal and all your other beliefs are premised on that. That's not supported by the facts. No one has claimed it was not the best available offer. No one has claimed that Crane was interfering. No one has claimed that, if not for Crane, Comcast could have negotiated a better deal with DTV. If any of those things were true, Comcast would have mentioned that in court in trying to discredit Crane - and yet they didn't. The only one claiming such a thing is you. Thus, a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
I understand that concept, but that belies the 'falling dominoes' theory, which maintains that 'once one carrier gets on board, the rest will follow'. Are we to assume that information is never made available to the various carriers? If that were true, then we would not have heard all the numbers from the other markets prior to this situation. I am not buying it. They may not know the exact numbers down to the penny, but they sure as heck know the range.
You're presuming that their production costs are what is driving up the price...whereas I feel it's primarily a rights fee issue. Pretty sure they haven't done anything out of the ordinary with CSN Houston that they haven't already done with CSN Chicago, or CSN philly. If anything, rent for studio space and pay for on air talent is likely cheaper in the Houston market vs those other cities. The network needs to generate enough money at a minimum to cover the rights fees. That relies on widespread coverage as the comcast subscribers alone have led to a lack of rights fees payments. Houston is the battleground in a much larger war. And unfortunately, the fans in Houston have shown the ability to take the shaft without much complaining or national outcry, which makes this city the ideal candidate for providers to take a stand (just like the move to the AL all over again).
Sorry, no, I have never said that the DTV offer was not the best available deal. So the rest of your criticism here is invalid. And yes, plenty of people have claimed Crane is the one interfering, beginning with the report from early on that Crane vetoed the 'bad deal' (and rightly so, but don't pretend it wasn't Crane who did that). Also, um, the fact that Crane's own business partners in CSNH had to force this thing into bankruptcy court in the first place, because Crane refused to act in the best interest of the channel.. I mean, really? Nobody has claimed Crane was interfering? My only contention is that by all indications, CSNH has never been willing to budge from their original asking price, and the carriers have never been willing to pay it. I believe that had CSNH been willing to actually negotiate, and come down from their too-high price, that there WOULD have been other, better offers, and we would not be in this situation we are now in. I am not claiming there WERE others offers - it never even got to that point. The only evidence needed is the obvious: the channel has not been picked up by the carriers. If it were priced reasonably, it would have been. Do you disagree? That really doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to me. And as I have said all along, I am well aware that I do not know the details of the contracts and the internal numbers of these companies. I fully acknowledge that I am probably wrong. All I can do is comment on what we have actually seen and heard. Then look at it and ask 'Why?' That's all I want to know. Why is the channel not on the carriers? Are the carriers colluding? Is the price too high? Did Comcast deliberately fail in negotiations? And what can be done to fix it? - because it's the fans who suffer and that's just wrong. And I am not running around calling other peoples' thoughts 'ridiculous', at least.
