CSN Updates Thread

It was always unlikely. It was broken. The point of the order was to change the company structure. So much so that the judge specifically put selling interests in theme company into the order.

Of course the order does not preclude any other options, but that just isn't going to happen. Anybody with more than 3 brain cells knows that.

Oh...and LOL on Barron being your legal go to guy.

 

Oh my god if you disagree you're a troll?

You can ride their dicks through email

 

Refman has been unbiased. This was a business transaction before it went to court. Most of what has been debated on how this partnership fell apart. Anyone can speculate on it. Crane has kept someone's off television and he is upset and he has opinions. Its not that big of a deal.

People get butthurt over the dumbest crap

 

I know everyone Respect's max but I never thought I would see him throw the I'm a lawyer card out so much. I wouldn't care but he threw it me in the locked thread and people are piling on Granville without having read the thread.

 

I do as well for what it's worth and said as such the day the ruling came down. It is POSSIBLE though and no order from the judge required them to be bought out.

I don't see a scenario where Comcast AND the Astros are still business partners. One or the other will have to be out of the partnership.

 

My opinions on this case are formed completely out of my own personal experience in the practice of law..in commercial litigation, corporate planning and bankruptcy for the past 13 years. That's the only basis I have for my comments on what I think the judge may do with this case.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to lord that over you or someone else. It wasn't my intention.

 

I understand that and Granville can be abrasive but think people are just fired up about their team and that can affect opinions even educated ones.

 

I will take this as admission of your earlier statement to the contrary as being wrong.

 

You are right. Lots of people around here look at the posters name and blindly agree with them. Lots of puppy dogs waiting to get their head scratched.

You and I were strongly on opposite sides of the GZ case and that obviously didn't carry over here. I'm a Republican who is for gun control. I think for myself. I can tell that you do the same.

None of us in this thread or the one that got locked are 100% correct on this subject.

 

Wow you guys have derailed the thread with all this back and forth. Who cares..

Let's just keep the updates coming..

 

Human nature I guess. I really am not bothered by anything but the piling on. Especially when right or wrong your opinion is an informed one. You have a disagreement with a poster that happens. I hate when the peanut gallery feels the need to show loyalty or whatever. It happens in all aspects of life it just never stops being weird.

 

You seem to be mixing up what the agreement legally allowed vs what the actual purpose of the the agreement was and the practical reality of it. Refman never said the order didn't allow the Astros and Comcast to be partners - he said it's purpose was to allow the Astros to look at alternative arrangements. From a practical standpoint, that opens the door for the Astros to find a way to get Comcast out of the picture. That's the one scenario the Astros couldn't explore before - everything else available to the Astros was already available before the order.

 

So serious question. Is the separate lawsuit an option under that ruling. I know it seems ridiculous but it can be spun that crane feels it is necessary to move forward.

 

The lawsuit and the bankruptcy are two separate filings - the bankruptcy ruling has no impact on ability to file a lawsuit. The bankruptcy ruling is about a way to move forward today; the lawsuit is about alleged fraud a few years back. The two could end up getting intertwined, but it's possible they remain totally separate and distinct from each other.

 

That's actually not true. The Astros did not have the right to negotiate with other parties about anything that would restructure the CSN partnership. That isn't limited to getting rid of Comcast. It could be as simple as bringing on a fourth partner such as DTV to setup a Comcast-ROOT join agreement (which does exist in other markets).

There are many different options that you guys don't consider. The CSN partnership could make a deal with DTV that gets an influx of cash for the partnership in exchange for profit percentages going to DTV in a variable manner with or without ownership.

CSN could negotiate a broadcasting agreement with FSN that would let FSN carry CSN produced programming on THEIR networks for a fee. They could do joint productions.

There are a lot of different options that were not on the table for the Astros to negotiate (or really anyone to unilaterally negotiate) under the old agreement.

 

You are the one who is mixed up on this.

This is his statement that we are referring to. "The point of the order was to allow Crane to find somebody to buy out one or more of the partners."

Had he said "One of the points of the order" that would be a different situation entirely.

Dude could have just misstated his point and offered up a my bad like I did with you. Nope...he can't admit a mistake.

 

Let me ask you this... What if Crane comes back with an offer from DTV to replace Comcast and Comcast says "Your honor, we will match that offer and even go so far as to lower it by 10 dollars".

What happens then?

 

If the Astros come back to the judge with a business plan they say would work and they can prove it would be in the best interest of the partnership, Comcast could contest it obviously. If the judge forced them to that route (which I guess he could since it is bankruptcy court) then I guess Comcast could appeal and get this tied up in court for awhile?

I'm not really sure on the legal aspects of this if Comcast is an unwilling partner.

But keep in mind, the judge isn't going to approve a deal that kicks Comcast to the curb without them getting value for that. And on the flipside, Comcast probably wouldn't reject a deal that freed them from this mess if they recouped their investments and made some of the profit they projected.

 

His details weren't good, but I get what he is asking. Basically he wants to know what happens if the Astros come back with what they consider a workable deal and Comcast fights it.