but it all balances out to the same amount. there is a market value on the media rights for the Astros. it doesn't matter if they come mostly from the broadcast rights are a mix of broadcast rights and carriages. whatever that market value is, I think it is lower than what crane expected.
You don't seem to understand where the money comes and goes. There are costs to running the station - if CSN doesn't exist, those costs go away. FSSW already has carriage agreements, so it takes their getting funding off the table. And there are not multiple owners splitting revenues and costs in various amounts in a media rights deal. The financial model for CSN is completely different than a simple media rights deal - there's no reason at all that it would "just balance out" for all the parties involved. And it clearly doesn't just balance out, based on Crane's willingness to blow up CSN for the FSSW (or whomever) deal. And not everyone shares the losses on CSN equally - Crane has to cover far more of them than the Rockets because he's the largest owner. Comcast has to cover some, but they also save money through lowered costs due to their MFN status so they actually come out pretty well in the deal. There's far more incentive for Comcast and the Rockets to accept CSN losses than for the Astros.
crane made $80MM in broadcasting fees from a company that he partly owns. I don't care HOW MUCH OF THE $20 he is claiming was allotted to the Astros, he made plenty of money. I wish you guys would get off this $20MM in losses over time. please stop telling me I don't understand. if he isn't partner in that station he doesn't get $80MM but he doesn't share in the losses. it balances out. either he gets lower broadcasting fees and no ownership or higher fees and more ownership. do you think he gets $80MM if he has no skin in the station?
Does every else feel like all Crane wants is that Comcast Most Favored Nation status is gone and that Comcast must pay the $3.40 per subscriber no matter what DTV, UVerse, DISH and others pay. That he will end this madness and make the subscriber deals and fund CSN until profitability.
Except he didn't, because he was only paid about half of that. The problem is you don't understand. What if he can get the same media rights without ownership? Then it doesn't balance out. You can't just say "things balance out" when you have no idea what the numbers are. It's lazy math and that's why I tell you that you don't know what you're talking about - you're just making things up, as you have done before on this topic. Yes. In fact, possibly more. From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet_Houston The Astros/Rockets group held talks with Comcast, DirecTV, and AT&T U-verse; but no carriage contracts for any of those providers were officially announced. Continuation of the Astros and Rockets broadcasts on Fox Sports Houston was on the table as the network offered $1.2 billion over 10 years. However, it was ownership in a regional sports network that the two teams wanted. This led to the teams agreeing to a $1 billion contract with Comcast, which included a 77.307% ownership in the network.[3] If this is true, the teams took *less* in media rights in the CSN-H deal than they could have gotten from FSH specifically to get an ownership stake in a profitable network. If the network isn't profitable, then FSH would be a better deal. Whether it's still available, who knows - but Crane clearly was ready to move somewhere else. Again, that is his right based on the structure of CSN-H. Regardless of whether YOU think he could get more money elsewhere (based on no facts at all), he certainly believes he could. And his obligations are to his team and his investors - so why should he pursue a crappier option just because it works well for the Rockets and Comcast? Their mutual interests when out the window when the reality of what the network was supposed to be fell apart.
Crane is trying to get media rights for Astros back from CSN-H after the business model that Comcast, Rockets, and Astros agreed failed. After CSN-H failed at getting the amount that Comcast, Rockets, and Astros agreed, he has basically gone for the deathblow to CSN-H since CSN-H cannot give him a deal that meets Astros needs. There would be no network for Crane to be getting a higher fee for if he got his way. The bankrupcy judge has given CSN-H a temporary reprieve as the Astros have been given the power the try to save CSN-H in some form.
I may have not understood that the bankruptcy was meant to break up the partnership but I never make up numbers homeboy
I doubt they split it 50/50 the Rockets produce almost half as many games as the Astros do. I believe it is part of the reason why the Astros have a higher stake in CSN too. Notice that a 50/50 split of $1Bil over 10 years is also not 80 million.
Sorry for two posts The other thing to consider is why would fox allow them to walk if they were prepared to offer more
Fox did offer more and they still walked, because they wanted ownership in the company and Fox didn't offer that. These decisions were made before Jim Crane so you can't fault him for that. Who knows maybe he chooses to go with FOX if he is the owner when the deals are made because it offers more Rights fee money and less of his money for start up.
I do not disagree and I believe crane doesn't see value in ownership. Ownership has value if the station increases in value. That goes against the prevailing theme: these stations are overvalued. Longhorn network anyone?
