You just said it in response to why the money is not there. It went from a multitude of obvious reasons to the subscribers didn't switch carriers to Houston is apathetic as a sports market. Glad to see you went back to the "it's all cranes fault" stance. It's your consistency that keeps you rottingley fresh and pretty much useless in having a valid discussion. At least the above string of verbal diarrhea pretty much ensures your total lack of knowledge/bias.
You have to be the worst debater in this thread. I give you reasons why the 3.40 per subscriber isn't there which is one question. I gave reasons and stated that the predominant reason is that carriers lost very little business over not having the games on so they don't feel they have to pay 3.40 per subscriber. Again..... Tell me what changed that will make carriers offer 3.40 per subscriber now. The other question is why the games are not on TV right now. You do understand that offers have been made and crane would not accept them. Crane not accepting them those offers (whether you agree with his decision or not) is the primary reason games are not shown on any system besides Comcast.
You still haven't told me why Houston is different than any other city that has introduced a new RSN and gotten widespread coverage (including smaller cities like Pittsburgh, or more apathetic cities like DC). Or why the "money isn't there" (even though you claim a multitude of reasons that I've yet to see). As far as the second point, Crane should accept the bad offers that the judge already said were bad? The offers that ultimately led to this company going bankrupt? Got it. I find it comical that you feel you're actually "debating" with people here.
Let's see what today's meeting has in store. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Here's <a href="https://twitter.com/John_Royal">@John_Royal</a> with an update on the CSN Houston/Astros/Rockets Royal Rumble <a href="http://t.co/ogsFAZmPb3">http://t.co/ogsFAZmPb3</a></p>— Astros County (@AstrosCounty) <a href="https://twitter.com/AstrosCounty/statuses/431811443441532928">February 7, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Wait, the Rockets apparently haven't been exactly scot-free themselves? What? This has to be Crane's fault somehow!
The article from above: I knew about them skipping out on the cash call they agreed to...I didn't know the rest regarding the buyout refusal (until yesterday) or the demand for $500 million in order to be the lead creditor. If that's true, wow. http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/02/csn_houston_rockets_bankruptcy.php Odds are that if you've flown an airline in the past decade you've flown on an airline going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This is the popular bankruptcy, one that lets the airline stay in business and keep flying while attempting to come up with a profitable business plan. You're also probably well aware of the awful customer service from the employees who are worried about layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts, and loss of pension benefits while the execs who caused the bankruptcy get golden parachutes. The result is a generally crappy airline that you keep flying because you have no choice while hoping that the company that emerges from bankruptcy has better management, a better plan, and happier employees. And that's where CSN Houston is right now. The employees are worried about jobs, original programming might get cut, and the executives who made this all happen are figuring out how they can profit. Looking back, it was easy to tell that the network was doomed. Comcast wasn't exactly popular in Houston. The partner with the biggest ownership interest (Astros) was fielding an awful product which had destroyed fan interest throughout the viewing region. The required viewing footprint for the Astros and Rockets was different (Astros wanting five states, the Rockets stuck in a sliver of Texas). And the operating structure was set up so that all parties had to agree to any contract, meaning that the Rockets could work out a deal to get the network carried on Direct TV only to have the Astros kill the deal if they didn't think the terms were good enough. Then Drayton McLane and Comcast allegedly oversold the value of the network to Jim Crane (thus resulting in the fraud suit field against them by Crane), which was a big deal since the network accounted for a large part of Crane's cost to buy the Astros. At the same time the non-Comcast satellite and cable providers seemed intent on gutting the network as part of some stand against rising RSN carriage fees. With no other carriage deals other than the one with Comcast worked out, the network could not make money. With the Astros threatening to reclaim its media rights from the network due to the network's inability to pay the media rights fees, the network was pushed into bankruptcy court where for several months the parties have been fighting with each other over whether the network would actually be declared bankrupt. Throughout this process the Houston Rockets have generally been seen as the innocent party, working hard to make deals happen only to have them vetoed by the greedy Astros (for what it's worth, the Astros told the Court that only one carriage deal had been presented for approval, and that was in April of 2013). And it's the Rockets who have taken the lead since November, doing everything possible to work out some kind of deal to get the Astros and Rockets on TV. But briefs filed late last week by the Astros and Comcast make the Rockets out to be anything but an innocent victim. Why are the Rockets seen as the only innocent party? Comcast's brief to the court in favor of the bankruptcy stated that the Astros media rights fees were to be paid in six equal installments from April through September. CSN Houston was able to make the first two payments thanks to a loan that Comcast made to the network. In late May, knowing it would not be able to make the June payment, all three partners agreed to provide $30 million, in three installments. (Comcast Petitioning Creditor's Trial Brief, page 9). The partners made those payments in June and July allowing the Astros to get its media rights fees for June and July. But when CSN Houston requested the August installment in late July, the Rockets refused to pay, instead demanding an appraisal of the network. As a result, the network was unable to pay the Astros the amount due for its media rights. (Comcast Petitioning Creditor's Trial Brief, page 10). In its brief to the Court requesting the bankruptcy be dismissed, the Astros state that Comcast offered to buy the Astros shares for an implied enterprise business value of at least $500 million. But due to the operating agreement, the Rockets would have to sign off on the deal. The Rockets instead demanded that Comcast also pay them at least $500 million for its share of the network. Comcast declined the Rockets offer with the implication being that this torpedoed possible deal for the Astros. (Houston Astros Closing Brief in Support of its Own Motion to Dismiss, pages 11-12) The Astros also stated that when Comcast began considering the bankruptcy, it asked the Rockets to be the lead creditor. The Rockets would do so only if paid $500 million by Comcast, which Comcast would not do. (Houston Astros Closing Brief in Support of its Own Motion to Dismiss, page 12). So instead of being the innocent party trying to get CSN Houston on TVs for all Houston, the Rockets instead appeared to be attempting to extort money out of Comcast while reneging on an agreed to cash call that prevented the Astros from getting money owed. The Rockets have been pretty quiet during this whole endeavor, and neither the Astros nor Comcast attempt to explain the Rockets actions. But those actions are perhaps among the biggest reasons why the network's currently in bankruptcy and why the Astros were not paid its media rights fees. The parties return to court today in the first step towards reorganizing the network, finding a way to make it earn a profit, and getting in on the other carriers. The Court didn't appoint a trustee, so it'll be up to the partners to make what hasn't yet been able to work now somehow work (though as Crane stated in Court in October, the network can succeed with the right plan) with Judge Marvin Isgur being the party who will ultimately sign off on any plan that takes CSN Houston out of bankruptcy. It can be a bumpy trip, as anyone who's ever flown on a bankrupt airline can attest. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. But the only thing for sure now is Rockets and no Astros on your non-Comcast cable TV.
That's very interesting. Not being a contract lawyer, my initial reaction is that the Rockets realized they were being forced to throw large chunks of money down a toilet, and decided to take a different course. Of course that could be wrong, and it certainly seems that the word 'extort' being used in the article is inflammatory and biased, but again, I don't know any of the details.This all makes me wonder who exactly is the 'lead' person on each side, the Astros and the Rockets. In other words, is it Alexander pulling the Rockets' strings here, and Crane pulling the Astros' strings in these negotiations? Or is it all being handled by underlings? I guess what I mean is, is this becoming a 'Crane vs Alexander' deal? Or something beneath both of them, 'just business'? Is there any kind of comparative profile, business experience, histories of negotiating tactics, etc? I don't know much about either guy, but something tells me you don't really want to be messing around with Alexander.
Absolutely. I agree. Sometimes you breach a contract to force an issue. Or you stop paying to stop the bleeding. I don't think the Rockets' position speaks well for the notion that CSNH is sustainable operation. They wanted cash to get out. They want cash to move on. Letting the Astros walk forces a "move on" but doesn't provide a cash pay out for the Rockets. It doesn't let them recover any of the cash they put in. And I think that's why they like the idea of a reorganization but really don't like the idea of a trustee who might reassign their own media rights. No pro sports team in America wants a trustee appointed in this case to start assigning media rights and setting a precedent on that issue.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>We're back in bankruptcy court today for a status conference in the CSN Houston case.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/431833000217546752">February 7, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I don't expect a lengthy hearing today. This most likely will deal with housekeeping issues as case moves forward. Then again, who knows?</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/431833335619256321">February 7, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Except for the unanimous vote stuff that they agreed to, none of the parties here are stupid. They're all looking out for their own best interests. That's been the story the whole way through.
David Barron <s>@</s>dfbarron<small class="time"> </small>The Astros say they will appeal Judge Isgur's order placing the case in Chapter 11. They also want a stay of the judge's order placing the network under bankruptcy protection. Astros say they should not have to act in best interests of network but best interests of Astros, which they say may not always be the same. There will be a 2:30 p.m. Tuesday hearing on the Astros’ motion for a stay of the Chapter 11 case, pending the outcome of their appeal. Btw, hearing is adjourned. Expect Astros to file appeal this afternoon.
But but, that is so wrong of them. They should all be looking out for the interests of CSN-H, even if it puts their other interests in the crapper. Reading this, I think the ultimate difference between the Rockets and the Astros is that the Rockets want to try to exhaust all chances of getting something out of CSN-H, not in an extortion kind of way, but to make sure CSN-H is really dead before they pronounce it dead. The Astros seem more like they are ready to cut their losses and move on. They see CSN-H on life support and are ready to just pull the plug and move on with their lives.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The Astros say they will appeal Judge Isgur's order placing the case in Chapter 11.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/431836057479282689">February 7, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>They also want a stay of the judge's order placing the network under bankruptcy protection.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/431836155844100096">February 7, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Go away. I don't care what happened elsewhere and I don't know if RSN bluffed providers in those cities and lost like what happened here. Geez, once again... you asked why the games are not on TV and I told you now. I even prefaced it with whether or not you agree with Crane. I'm done with your idiotic questions.
Hillarious... I guess everybody telling you to get out is finally rubbing off on you (also, I've been here awhile... a lot longer than you... I'm not going anywhere). Stick with "I don't know"... and you don't. Precedence plays a pretty big role in these negotiations, and it was only because you claimed there were a "multitude" of reasons as to why it is failing here in Houston, and its "so obvious," that I naturally questioned you what those reasons were, and why its succeeded elsewhere but won't happen in a similar market. Pretty easy to say you're done when you haven't answered any of them... but feel free to bash Crane some more. I think everybody here could use some more of that from you. For the record, I've been against Crane from the start... whether it was due to the LF signs, or the order to stash players for cash, or masquerading as a small market team in a top 10 market, or his overall snide comments in general. I'm just not going to go with over-the-top bias hatred for the guy and blame him for everything that is wrong with this deal. He's not the only guilty party.
5th Circuit, I believe. And Refman and CarlHerrera might be better sources of info on the time frame. Honestly, I'm not sure. I do believe they can request the appeal be heard in an expedited fashion, but I've never been involved in that process.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/02/07/astros-appeal-comcast-sportsnet-bankruptcy-ruling/The Astros asked a federal judge Friday to overturn an order placing the parent company of Comcast SportsNet Houston under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and also asked the bankruptcy court to delay action in the case until the appeal is decided. Friday’s actions by the Astros, while not unexpected, could result in further delays in the contentious CSN Houston case at a time when the Rockets are in the midst of a second season without full carriage and the Astros are nearing a second season without access for fans across most of their five-state territory. However, Astros general counsel Giles Kibbe said the Astros are better served if an order by Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur placing the Astros-Rockets-Comcast partnership under Chapter 11 is overturned and if Isgur places the case on hold during the appeal. “The best carriage deal that Comcast presented to us would have resulted in $200 million in losses over the next 10 years,” Kibbe said. “On Tuesday, Judge Isgur stated that Comcast presented the Astros with “rotten business deals” and that we made sound business decisions in rejecting them. “Now we’re facing an order that attempts to strip us of our contractual rights and pressure us into accepting value-destroying business deals that will make it extremely difficult for us to field championship-caliber teams throughout the next 20 years. We have no choice but to appeal.” The Rockets and Comcast, who along with the Astros are partners in Houston Regional Sports Network, the parent company of CSN Houston, had no comment on the Astros’ notice of appeal.
The report on the Chronicle blog does not sound like this is a direct appeal to the Fifth Circuit. If that is the case, it will go to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The District Court case would take a normal amount of time for a federal suit (barring a dismissal on some procedural ground). A scheduling order would be issued setting Rule 26 deadlines, briefing deadlines, dispositive motion deadlines, etc. a scheduling conference would also be held to set discovery deadlines and set a pre-trial conference and trial date. This would be months. After that, I would expect the losing party to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. I do not know what the schedule for the Fifth circuit would be, but due to the deadlines in the Court's briefing requirements, that would also be months. Then we would likely have to wait a month or two to actually get the opinion. For an appeal to the District and then to the Circuit, a year is probably not an exaggeration. The other thing to keep in mind is that it would be even longer if the ruling is reversed because a specific legal test was not addressed and the ruling is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
