Bankruptcy filing = I have no money to pay you. Motion to dismiss bankruptcy case = yes, you do have money to pay me. Got it now?
Yep. You, not so much. Bankruptcy filing was not done by CSN-H or you so the "I" is not appropriate. Motion to dismiss was that the debts were not bona fide due to the debts not being agreed to by all parties and/or not due. Motion to dismiss basically said the only one not paid when payment was due was Astros, but that they they planned to exercise rights to reacquire media rights due to non-payment.
As has been already noted, it's likely that signing up DTV does not increase CSN-H's revenues at all, and might decrease them depending on what their rate was, thankso the MFN kicking in and cutting the rates Comcast would pay. They tried both of those. We know they discussed alternative plans and we know they exchanged numbers to sell off Crane's interest to Comcast. Neither worked. There is a 3rd alternative too: free up your media rights. The agreement was specifically designed to create that possibility through the veto status. The lawyers on all sides are smart enough to know that the veto option + the non-performance clause created that opportunity, so there's no reason to assume Option #3 wasn't part of the intent of the structure of the network. This wasn't some sneaky outcome that couldn't have been foreseen. As you said, owners should forecast best and worst case scenarios - the Astros likely did and knew this was an option for them and Comcast should have and known the Astros could get out this way. If the parties didn't want that, they could have written it into the agreement.
I should add that my responses in this case have very little if anything to do with fraud case. I don't know whether Crane was an idiot for buying a piece or if fraud was committed. My response are based on the following facts and or assumptions that I don't think are in question: 1) Payments to Astros delinquent by 87 days when bankruptcy filing made. 2) It has been more than 3 days since filing. 3) CSN-H still delinquent on payments to Astros (I think it is down to 18 million if heard it right). 4) There is MFN clause. 5) Direct TV made two offers for CSN-H. Both were below projected market rates. 6) Astros have rights to reacquire media rights if payments are delinquent by 90 days. 7) NBA gets 55% of media rights from Rockets, but not profits from a TV station. 8) 2.2 households get CSN-H now 9) 5.5 is total # households. 10) Direct TV is about 1.1 households for area. 11) All partners in CSN-H have veto power. 12) Comcast is paying 3.40 per subscriber per month. 13) CSN-H was formed before Crane owned Astros or part of CSN-H. 14) Astros and Comcast are liable for all debts. (not sure on Rockets) From these assumptions/facts I conclude the following 1) It is past 90 days from when payments to Astros went delinquent and Astros have rights to reacquire their media rights. 2) Bankruptcy filing stopped Astros from reacquiring media rights. 3) DirectTv offers had to be about 2.33 (my estimation, there is some error, but expect this number to at least be 2.00) per subscriber for their offer to even cause CSN-H to break even. CSN-H losses money if it doesn't meet this threshold. 4) Offers from DirectTV are unacceptable to Astros. Astros have right to veto. 5) Offers from DirectTV would not have made network profitable. 6) Accepting offer from DirectTV has little bearing on whether Astros got paid on time. Offer would have to be around 2.80 per subscriber to get CSN-H an extra 20 million over a year's time to cover what is owed Astros currently. 7) Comcast was never meant to pay 3.40 long term. 8) Comcast was meant to pay a much higher rate than DirectTV offer. 9) Astros are better off short term and long term selling media rights to someone else than have full coverage of CSN-H at rates of DirectTV offer. 10) Rockets are better off long term with full coverage of CSN-H at rates of DirectTV offer. 11) Comcast is off short term and long term accepting DirectTV offer. 12) All parties are operating in own self interest. Unless a deal happens that is in Astros benefit, they won't sign. 13) Bankruptcy filing was meant to take away Astros rights of veto and to keep Astros media rights with CSN-H. 14) Comcast entities that originally filed for involuntary bankruptcy are owed money, but payments are not delinquent. 15) Comcast entities aren't afraid they won't get paid because all debts are backstopped by Comcast (and the Astros, but I think they are more comfortable with Comcast than Crane). Do I have any of the facts assumptions wrong?
This is a myth that I may have contributed. The veto doesn't affect CSN-H ability to pay Astros as CSN-H's revenue is not going up or not going up significantly. DirectTV's offer would have needed to be $2.80 per subscriber and accepted a year ago for CSN-H to make the $20 million Astros are still owed. It would probably need to be more as CSN-H is delinquent by at least 130 days to Astros and are now delinquent to the Rockets. This doesn't even count the Comcast entities that want to be paid even though their bills aren't due or even agreed on.
Certainly true for the short-term this year. But in the larger term, each parties' veto rights gives them the ability to blow up any long-term business plan they disagree with, which basically opens the door for the network to be blown up and for the parties to get out. Unless the lawyers for each party are really stupid, they all knew that was one of the options available to each partner based on the way they structured the agreement.
And to add, I really want CSN-H to work as I think if it works it makes the Astros stronger in the long run. That goes double for the Rockets. I don't like ESPN. I don't have anything against Comcast and was planning to switch to them before Rockets season, but stopped as I want to make sure I get both Astros and Rockets. I was going to switch before Astros season, but I was afraid I would claw my eyes out if I could actually see the Stros on a regular basis.
Not just the lawyers for each party...league attorneys as well. MLB attorneys and NBA attorneys, presumably. Particularly NBA since so much of local TV money is shared revenue with the league.
Well Crane's lawyers must be stupid if they missed the MFN clause. Under the scenario you lay out where these lawyers agree to leave a loophole that creates this blow up plan, it's kinda hard to believe the MFN never came up. You can't have it both ways.....
So none of these additional attorneys ever brought up the MFN clause in front of the Astro's attorneys...... That's what you expect rational people to believe?
I was only talking about the current delinquent payments to the Astros. Others (and myself before looking at rough numbers) on the board have made it seem like if Crane accepted offer that Comcast negotiated from DirectTV, Astros would have been paid this year on time. Crane has been called stubborn for vetoing this issue and causing this mess. If he doesn't veto, we are still in this mess except CSN-H has less money and it may have happened a month sooner. CSN-H was organized before him. Comcast was negotiator before him and brought no offer that would have avoided the Astros not getting paid this year. The only decisions Crane has made prior to bankruptcy filing is buying a piece of CSN-H (which if it is stupid, the same can be said of Rockets and Comcast), exercising rights to try to reacquire media rights, vetoing DirectTV deals, and negotiate with Comcast over buying him out. First decision is very risky, but may turn out okay if Rockets buy the whole enchilada. Second decision is no brainer that Crane is right. Third decision, this would cost him money and is the correct decision unless you are of the opinion that Crane and Astros are under an obligation to hand tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to Comcast based on errors Comcast made in projections. Fourth decision, I have no idea what Comcast is offering, but it is on Comcast to make Crane an offer Crane likes better than reacquiring media rights. *disclaimer All my numbers are rough based on assumptions/facts listed earlier in this thread.
The only deal he was offered would, by Comcast's admission, result in a 9 figure loss over 10 years. If not jumping at such a lucrative offer makes him a stubborn jackass, then you have a pretty twisted view of what stubborn jackass means.
You could not be more wrong regarding this bankruptcy case. This bankruptcy never had anything to do with what the Astros are owed. Read the pleadings in the case and section 303 of the bankruptcy code before trying to educate everybody regarding what this case is about.
As has been pointed out over and over and over now, signing the carriage deal that was on the table would not have increased CSN-H's revenues. Thus this IS NOT TRUE.
Major, don't you understand that Crane is the boogey man? It is his fault that the Astros are bad (even before he bought the team), he is the cause of global warming and he was the second gunman in the grassy knoll.
Crane is a mean man. Comcast screwed up by making bad projection. Comcast could not negotiate a good deal for CSN. I understand that Comcast was never suppose to pay 3.40 indefinitely. Crane is just being mean by exercising his responsibility to protect network. Ps. I am serious on Crane being mean.
I know. I can't believe how mean spirited he is being, refusing a deal that would lead to $200 million in losses. :grin:
