DTV would need to have a business plan in place for their RSN complete with carriage deals with all providers along with the task of buying out Comcast. Comcast could sweeten whatever carriage rates they offered as part of the DTV RSN offering or give the Astros a little more equity.
OF COURSE he didn't PRECLUDE other options. However, if you read the order, a disproportionate amount of it is dedicated to allowing the Astros to negotiate ownership interests without fear of legal liability. You are a fool if you don't see where the judge was going with that. You already knew that though and are being contrary just to be contrary.
Absolutely not true. If DTV bought the whole RSN out, that RSN would still have a carriage agreement with Comcast. A change in ownership doesn't get you out of that contract. The RSN would then have carriage agreements with Comcast and DTV. The theory is that, that being the case, the rest would follow so as not to be left out.
The lawsuit was filed because the statute of limitations was about to run. If the time ran, he would be forever barred from bringing the suit. That is not something that you want to do because you are hoping that maybe a deal can be worked out.
Read what you wrote. I even provided a quote from Crane where he said he was looking for opportunities to go on with and without Comcast and you tried to discredit that. You are the one making a fool of yourself with your inability to admit you were wrong.
You need to learn how to read. Where in that quote did I say that Comcast wouldn't be under contract if bought out by DTV? I was saying that the offer could come in from DTV. Comcast could tell the judge that we will get the same provider rates that DTV is offering from our competitors and on top of that make a more profitable offer to the Astros via a higher Comcast carriage rate or more equity in CSN H. As big a Crane Wreck as this situation has been, the judge will want this as close to profitable as possible when he signs off on it. It's nothing but your opinion that the judge won't want everyone onboard. Didn't Crane just say in front of the judge that even with DirecTV onboard last spring that the Network would lose 200 million? DirecTV is going to have to buy out Comcast's equity and most likely the 100 mil that Comcast loaned the Network. DirecTV is going to want everyone on board too.
It was actually Comcast that testified to that figure. Also, you are just making stuff up at this point. If Comcast could have gotten anything close to a profitable rate from the other providers, they would have done so already and we wouldn't have a bankruptcy case to talk about. I guess, on the other hand, that they could hope really hard and get those rates all of a sudden in exchange for some goodwill and a unicorn to be named later.
I think the Astros made reference to it in court too but ok whatever... The Judge heard that DTV + Comcast = 200mil in losses over 10 years. That is what Crane has been crying about. So in your opinion DTV has the magic wand to turn this around...
I don't know whether DTV can turn it around or not. I do know that the status quo resulted in half a season of unpaid rights fees and a trip to bankruptcy court.
On this we agree. Making Crane the lead negotiator gave him a reality slap to the face. There’s no offer out there that is going to bring him the cash that he thought he was going to get. The lawsuit against McLane and Comcast is a desperate attempt to recoup what he feels is lost money. I agree that he overpaid for his equity in the Network but I feel that he knew that he was taking a huge risk having to cling to the best possible financial scenario to make CSN H work for him. My opinion is that his best bet is get someone to buy him out of the Network and the Network move forward with carriage agreements with all the providers at rates they were ok with last April. It seems that Crane isn’t prepared to be in a start up TV company and financially absorb the bumps and bruises until the company is in the black.
I understand why he had to file it now. I just haven't seen anything but anecdotal examples from Crane to prove wrongdoing. A media report said that the Judge said in court during the bankruptcy hearing that he hadn't seen conduct by Comcast that was offensive to him. Maybe Crane didn't go in to full detail in court of how he was illegally wronged but that too seems unlikely.
Crane may not be ready to be in the TV business. I really can't say. There are, however, three things that I think are important to address: 1. Judge Isgur not only did not find that Comcast is blameless, he specifically asked how Comcast throwing it into bankruptcy isn't collusion. When you start throwing around words like collusion, it isn't a ringing endorsement. 2. You mention the money Crane thought he was going to get. That may be a fair point. However, the testimony at the hearing is that only one provider had made an offer and that offer was at a price that would result in $20 million in losses per year. There isn't a bankruptcy judge in the entire country that would approve such a plan. 3. You state that they should move forward with agreements with all providers. Only one provider expressed a willingness to move forward at a 50% discount. IIRC, Barron stated that Dish network isn't interested at any price. I doubt that Dish really would balk completely, but that is the statement. I do think that if CSN were carried on both Comcast and DTV, that would be enough of the market to cause the other providers to reevaluate their position.
That isn't unlikely at all. If Crane was going to move forward with the suit, the last thing he would want to do would be to go into detail at the bankruptcy hearing. One, it has nothing to do with whether the bankruptcy filing was proper. Two, you would not want to turn that hearing into a chance at free discovery into the civil suit.
1. Didn't say he gave Comcast a ringing endorsement. Just said that it statements attributed to him didn't find any offensive conduct by Comcast. 2. That was also based on only 2 providers onboard and I'm sure the 100M loan and possibly interest on the loan included. 3. You seem to be on both sides of this point. As far as the "discount", I think it's more fair to say 50% off an unrealistic rate.
This statement is untrue, and it kind of negates the entire article. In the Astros' case, no deal IS better than some deal that guarantees losses for the next 10 years. For the Astros, no deal and blowing up the network and starting over is a better option - and an option that was built in during the creation of the network structure. So in portraying Crane as being obligated to investors and their interests, wouldn't it then make sense that Crane would be pursuing exactly this route? The original expectations for the network are dead in the water - forget about who's at fault or why. The reality is that what everyone thought they were going to get will not happen. For the Rockets, the lesser amount is still good. For Comcast, the lesser amount is still good. For the Astros - the largest owner in the network - it's not worth it. And the agreement specified that if anyone wasn't on board, they wouldn't move forward. It seems like people want Crane to do what's best for the Rockets and CSN at the expense of his own team - I can't grasp why this would be a reasonable expectation or make him some kind of bad businessman or owner for not complying.
That's not true at all - there may be nothing better involving CSN. But there may be better options blowing up CSN and going back to a traditional rights deal with FSSW or whomever else. That's what Crane was planning to do before the bankruptcy filing happened. You might get less in media rights fees, but you also don't take losses with CSN.
