That is why I don't have a problem with crane. He doesn't want to be stuck in something he sees no value in. unfortunately he has investors he sold on the complete structure.
I can agree with this. On another note about the fees, and once again these are legitimate questions not me being confrontational. Do the Astros have to get $80M from someone else? They get about $56M in rights fees and the rest in equity from ownership right? So do they have to pay to keep the company running? If so does that cut into the $80M? Or is the $80 after they have paid in?
Comcast will not pay $3.40 if no one else does. They insisted on the MFN clause because they felt strongly no one else was going to pay $3.40. They agreed on that fee because the Astros and Rockets insisted on that being the rate and a starting point for others. The logic being that if Comcast paid lets say $2.50 from the get go that $2.50 becomes the benchmark Crane needs to be bought out and let people with the money to make the Network run do so. Crane is currently tanking 2 businesses.
The 80mm would come had things run smoothly. Then they were going to lose on their investment over the first ten years. Other than that we need the value of their investment in the partnership
I really don't think the actual station is worth much. I've said that from the beginning. Its the contracts, and advertising. Its carriage fees vs broadcasting rights.
IMHO The problem with these stations is that espn has a lock on non sports broadcasting. If the local team sucks that drives down the value. I used to personally give fox shows a chance. They sucked. I know others have said csn has some descent shows I just can't see it.
From what I recall 80m was the yearly average over the contract term. It escalates from 56m with the reasoning that it helps offset startup costs in the infancy of the agreement.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Looking at court docs before Thursday <a href="https://twitter.com/CSNHouston">@CSNHouston</a> status conference and find appearance notices by five more attorneys.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/409770983826784256">December 8, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
What I mean is the actual studio space cameras and employees I mean think about it channel 8 is a station. You make it valuable by making the teams winners
With any network the value is in the broadcasting. So Comcast pays you rights you want more take stake in the station and field a winner
I'm guessing not getting paid money owed to you will do that. Seems Comcast has a bit of the Pot/Kettle disease going on. Maybe they shouldn't have given the Astros Veto power in the initial negotiations. Once again it is Comcast saying "We are mad that the Astros were vetoing agreements that don't benefit them, even though it is their right to do so. Judge please take that right away from them so we can take any agreement we want even though it may not benefit the Astros. "
wow, i never would have guessed the astros have that much equity in the station. i would like to see the entire balance sheet. i just don't get it.
The station gets paid from carriage fees. They aren't on 60 % of their market because he won't agree with other carriers. No matter what about his right to do that his decision has eaten into the income stream that would pay him.
I'm guessing Major I would think there is verbiage in the contracts about getting paid while not allowing your partners to make money
Uhhh, that's exactly as it should be. I doubt Comcast is going to put CSN-H's interests over their own either. Comcast is the one that couldn't deliver on their projections. At that point, each of the parties *should* re-evaluate the network and consider what's in their own best interests. The Astros would be idiots to put the needs of CSN-H over their own.
I think you are making an assumption that crane had different projections. Crane is the only one claiming that including drayton
