If CSN-H losses 200 million over 10 years...it will cease to exist (unless it has owners that are willing to foot the bill which CSN-H in its current structure does not have). You can't make profits if you don't exist. Also, Comcast has said it will need additional deals to be profitable. CSN-H's creditors have already filed to put it in bankruptcy.
No - people are defending his legal right to do business that way. See - stuff like this is where your bias comes out. The Astros' payroll has NOTHING AT ALL to do with this case and whether the Astros or Rockets or Comcast is right. No one here cares about that or lets it affect their analytical judgement - except you. Sure he can - just not a bankrupt network who's only existing projections are losing money forever. No one has presented ANY projection that suggests the network would be profitable under Comcast's proposed terms. We know they'd lose money for 10 and no one contested that. But no one has suggested that would change afterwords. By your own standard, please point us to where Comcast or the judge has said the deal was viable long-term. Possibly. Like I said "competitive" is not a binary choice. Having $25MM more to spend per year makes you more competitive. That's one extra Cano or Fielder or Pujols. Does that make the Astros competitive? It depends on what kind of team they have before adding that player. Again, all irrelevant to the merits of this case though. As has been pointed out numerous times now, Comcast actually comes out BETTER with lower carriage fees - they save more than they lose. So of course Comcast would be OK with it. And has been pointed out, the Rockets' financial impacts of a money-losing network are different than the Astros because they are a much smaller owner that eats much less money. Even with the losses, they come out well compared to most NBA teams. As far as them being OK buying out Crane, that's pure conjecture. No actual deals have been offered as far as we know. The Rockets are now negotiating for CSN-H, the Astros don't have veto power right now, and still there is no deal. What does that tell you?
I shouldn't have mentioned Libs. I agree on that. Just saw several of them blasting Phil Robertson and here you have Crane a man who has actually been reported to have done things to hold down women and minorities. As far as the Jim Crane stuff.. it's no more tiresome to me and some others to see people mischaracterize his actions in regard to the mess. I quoted the points I felt were pertinent to the discussion and golfing wasn't one of them.
Duh... You are saying the same thing I am. Problem is Jim Crane was a fool who got in over his head and is making this worse. He needs to focus on getting bought out and let the big boys run that business.
You might be. Some others aren't. This is about more than just the case, this is where your pigeon holed view of this comes in. We are sitting here because Crane did a ****ty job of due diligence when he bought the Astros and is making it worse. If it's not about payroll why has Crane brought up payroll when discussing this situation? Care to answer that? As soon as you have where the judge has stated it wasn't profitable. Common sense would tell you that Crane would have projected the worst case scenario to the court. Which I believe he did. If Crane can afford to run the Network that he bought in to at what is current market, why is he crying about losing equity? You do know why he loses his equity right? I will take that as you conceding the point. There's no sense in misleading people in to thinking that Crane jackassness is now ever going to bear fruit in the form of us being one of those competive team that Crane yammers about. This is a nice article to read if you have time. I don't agree with every point in it but I think it gives you a good idea of what this is all about. No kidding, really? Comcast was never meant to pay those inflated rates. They should come out better because they have been artificially supporting the Network because of a manipulative jackass. So public statements by the Rockets of their willingness to buy out the Astros and Crane's statement that he would consider an offer don't mean that the Rockets would be ok with buying out Crane? I never said that there was a deal in place or that there ever would be, just that the Rockets would be ok with buying out the Astros. You just like to argue over nothing. It tells me it isn't near the deadline yet, the Rockets have stated that there wouldn't be daily chatter about negotiations. There could be a multitude of discussions going on that hopefully lead to Crane getting bought out so we can move forward.
No, we are not. You said you were talking about profits over a 20 year period. I am stating that CSN-H does not have the money to survive that long in the current arrangement as they do not have 200 million in cash reserves. The "big boys" are the ones that arranged a network that can't survive in its current state based on the "big boys" getting their little brothers to whine to "Momma" Isgur that mean ole Crane is picking on them.
The current arrangement being that Crane pouts, threatens, bluffs, whines and sues....yes, you are right, the Network won't survive unless the bankruptcy court rules in their favor. Under the scenario discussed with DTV being onboard, and I believe that's where the 10 year numbers came from. The Rockets and Comcast wanted to move forward with that meaning they had the wherewithall to withstand the the 10 year period. The big brother analogy makes no sense....sorry.
You are the one that started the "big boys" analogy. If it makes no sense that Comcast had its smaller entities run to court first because Crane had them pinned down, that is your mistake, not mine. I am happy with the way the judge has operated as it could save CSN-H which I think is in the best interests of the Rockets. As much as the Rockets want the deal, I don't see how they get it to work without buying out the Astros.
Again, we agree. Crane can't afford to hang with the big boys. It would work for the Rockets if the Astros stayed in and got their losses covered by Comcast in exchange for equity. That's obviously not good for Crane but the judge asked him to put up or shut up and it looks like he finally shut up and let the Rockets do the talking. Hopefully a buyout of the Astros involving Comcast and or the Rockets happens soon. Unfortunately, it's my opinion that when not if Crane doesn't get the outrageous revenue he thought he was going to get from the Network, here comes the excuses that lead to us being a small payroll team from here to eternity.
I apologize to the rest of the board. I'm sorry, but I love reading Granville's posts too much. I still can't fathom how he expects the Astros to lose $300 million over 10 years so that the Rockets and Comcast possibly make modest profits. If it is truly a good business plan, one of the "big boys" would definitely give Crane the ~$340 million Crane spent on CSN-H plus the extra needed to cover the Astros for agreeing to a smaller media rights fee. BTW, if you consider the rates the Astros agreed to as outrageous without knowing what they were....Comcast must have known this and committed fraud.
Not sure why you feel the need to apologize as if there is no one else that shares similar views as I do on this subject. I can point to editorial commentary pieces that support my views as well. What some people fail to understand is that there is no easy solution here and it's about more than the case. If Crane had a workable fallback plan, we would have heard about it. He wouldn't have turned this over to the Rockets and lost his veto rights. You don't have any idea if the Astros have been offered 340M or more. None of us do. What extra are you talking about to cover a smaller media rights fee???? If you had been paying attention, you'd know that Comcast insisted on the MFN because they had concern over the rates being accepted. BTW Why the hell would Crane agree to buy the team without knowing where the revenue was coming from? This was a gamble by all parties. If you want to believe that no one told Crane this by all means go ahead but I have also pointed out statements from former business partners saying Crane's word is not so good.
So, how many pages of crap am I going to have to page through to find any actual CSN updates? The debate going on in here is pointless crap that's getting in the way of useful information.
Name them. Sure - because it was the plan he laid out long before this mess ever came up. He's always said the low payroll stuff was temporary and that they would spend when needed. You're the only one that ever has claimed that he's not spending because he's poor or whatever other nonsense you've come up with. Nothing the Astros have done with payroll under Crane's ownership has been unexpected, and all of it has been telegraphed well in advance. You're just too clouded by hate to see it. So in other words, you can't. Or maybe 10 years is all they can reasonably project. Common sense would also tell you that Comcast would try to show the best projections they could, and yet they never showed anything suggesting long-term profitability. Again, what does that tell you? Because he has a better alternative: walk away from the network entirely and get higher media rights fees with no losses. In case you didn't notice, he's happy to lose all his equity in that scenario with CSN-H collapsing. What he's "crying" about is losing equity while having to accept lower media rights fees at the same time, which the Astros only agreed to because of potential CSN-H profits. Ah yes, the biased opinion again with no basis in fact and no relevance to the case at hand. I think it's funny that you think - with no numbers at all to back you up and no evidence of anything - that you can definitely conclude he won't be "competitive", which is something you can't even define. Then you really should stop claiming that Comcast pushing the deal is someone evidence that it's a good deal for CSN-H. All it demonstrates is that it's a good a deal for Comcast. Yes, it's called good PR for everyone. The devil is always in the details. If they agree to terms, great for everyone. Comcast and the Astros already tried this prior to bankruptcy. Finding proper value is the key - remember, the Astros have an alternative better than the status quo, so the Rockets have to be willing to pay to beat that deal. And the Rockets paying that may not be so appealing to them. I like to argue based on reality, instead of a imaginary world where the Rockets and Comcast are angels just trying to do the best for everyone and the Astros are greedy pigs it in for themselves. Ah yes, of course. This didn't apply when you were b****ing about the Astros not finding a deal prior to the deadline though. different players, different rules for you.
Last year there was a Jim Crane is a bad owner thread. Couldn't you guys find that and have your pissing contest there and leave this for updates on the TV deal?
Agreed!! Seems every morning I go through a page and a half and leave without being any the wiser. Stop the BS and keep this thread for factual posts.
So you feel singling out one of several people involved in discussing the rare updates is productive. You have added nothing to the updates or debate about the significance of the updates. I disagree with some of the posters here but do appreciate that they try to add to the discussion. You just come to make cheap shot comments. I have even received words of appreciation via the rep system for making this an interesting debate from someone who was calling on posters to put me on ignore. The Rockets are the lead negotiators now and have stated that there will be no daily updates. Those of us on opposites of the debate are not standing in the way of updates since there are none and an official update isn't due until Jan 12.
He is smashing the post count top 5 with his answers. Username Posts Granville 136 otis thorpe 66 MadMax 65 Refman 52 Major 43
There are no real updates - it's not like there's new news on this everyday. If all you want is that I would recommend following David Barron on Twitter or going to www.chron.com.
I'm not dragging people in to the dogpile act of yours and others. There are several posters who have stated that Crane is a douchebag and or that Comcast is evil. Go back and inventory all the responses yourself if you want that information so bad. Most people are just plain frustrated that the games aren't on TV. That's the bottom line. Where did I claim he was not spending because he was poor? I said that he can't afford to be in the TV business under the deal he willingly signed off on. And no I don't believe he was duped. I have also said that he is leveraged to the hilt and likely has investors clamoring for a return on their investment rather than having to contribute more money to the make the Network profitable at some point in the future. I have also said that Crane is trying to turn quick profits on a baseball team and not treat it like McLane did as a long term investment. Again with comments directed at me in a personal manner. I'm not clouded by hate. Not sure why you keep doing that after all of us have been advised not to do so. I like some others can take all the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion that Jim Crane's manipulative and unethical dealings, of which are part of his history, are the primary reason that we are where we are. Are the authors of several commentary pieces done on this situation that provide support to my stance clouded by hate? MLB had concerns with the way Crane's finances were structured, are they haters too? Crane has also said that he needs TV money like the Rangers to have a big payroll. He has also asked fans to write checks for players. Was that part of his well laid out plan too? So you want me to prove something that hasn't been stated? He's so happy that he is suing to get some or possibly all of it back. I am laughing hard at your desperate attempt there... Do you know how silly that is??? What Crane or you won't admit is Crane is signed on to a deal at a price that he needed maximum revenue to support the shaky financial backing he has. That maximum revenue is not possible now. So comments like being happy to lose his equity are fact and not your opinon. Get real. Ask Jim Crane to define competitive. He's the one crying that he needed the top dollar deal to compete with the Rangers and others. Where did I claim it was a good deal? It's a better deal for the Network itself to adjust to what the market is now rather than being held hostage by a manipulative partner. I have to chuckle when any situation involving Crane and his tenure as a sports owner or this situation itself and good PR is mentioned. Yes, proper value key. And in your reality world, you'd be better off not calling the Rockets offer a PR move when you don't know that. Or you could just call it your opinion of why the Rockets made that offer. The latter is better because that is all any of us are doing. So in your reality based world, show me where I called Comcast or the Rockets angels. I think that all 3 parties screwed up setting such high revenue expectations. I think the Rockets and Comcast were better positioned to adjust their expectations as were the Astros under McLane. Jim Crane lacked the ability to do so from the get go and rather than back out of buying the Astros because of this significant risk, he gambled on the high revenue projections and lost. I don't recall the Rockets boasting about them being in the overnight business and being able to get something done..... or coming to update meetings with not jack **** to report....or an impromptu update being, hey everyone,just to let you know, I am not solely focusing on finding a deal, I'm also suing one of my partners but not the other one because I need them once I destroy this Network. Jim Crane begged for the opportunity to be front and center and failed miserably.
