And the bankruptcy keeps delaying the inevitable that would/could/should have happened without it... thanks for proving my point (that the courts should never have gotten involved in the first place, and those responsible for it don't give a damn about the Houston sports fans... yet you're "rooting" for them).
I realize that... just funny that he continues to be hypocritical by harping about "contractual obligations" (when CSN-H violated that to begin with), and about how "it is what it is" (just like Crane is the Astros owner, and nothing about that is going to change any time soon).
Yep, you are 100% correct. Out only chance of this ending anytime soon at all , and soon is relative here, is a liquidation. At least we have that possibility, the Dodgers fans might be in even worse shape
I dunno... they've already sold more than 3 million tickets for the upcoming season in LA. The interest in that team is sky-high, and in the "entertainment" capitol of the world, I'd say they're able to get a deal faster than what is being done here (which, as Pallilo put it, is a nice big "circle jerk").
You don't have a point. Both sides took legal action, the court ruled against the Astros. Period. It doesn't matter which way you think was best or quickest.
Maybe the lawyers can help me out. I think there is agreement, including acknowledgment by Isgur, that the original bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. The bankruptcy met the good faith creditor criteria at some later date with a few other entities joining. So my question is this...could the Astros make the case during appeal that if the bankruptcy had not been filed in bad faith, just before the threshold for re-obtaining their media rights had been reached, that they would have reobtained them before the good faith creditors had a bankruptcy claim? Is there legal reasons that the timeline is not relevant here? Is there a way that the Astros can make this case without being chastised for not acting in the best interest of CSNH?
If Network couldn't afford to pay the teams they have a right to file bankruptcy. When did I say that Crane wasn't going to be the Astros owner?
On the contrary, that's exactly what matters here... all fans need to be able to see the teams play, and they deserve the quickest/fastest/easiest/best solution. Your blind hate for Crane and your willingness to see it through till the end has completely clouded that... and you're alone in here rooting for the "legal process" to work itself out, when it hasn't come any closer to creating resolutions (and has them resorting to non-legal "mediation" sessions that have nothing to do with the formal "legal process"). We get it, you want Crane to "lose"... but he won't ever really lose, the Rockets won't ever really lose, and comcast won't ever really lose. The fans are the ones who suffer, and anybody rooting to perpetuate that is a definitive "loser".
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge Lynn Hughes has set another conference in the CSN Houston case for April 11 in his chambers.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/450810115541585920">April 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge Hughes' order stipulates that only the parties that were part of the March 28 mediation session can attend the April 11 conference.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/450810847682494466">April 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>That's Les Alexander, Tad Brown & atty Alan Gover (Rockets), execs Robert Pick & Arthur Block & attorney Craig Goldblatt (Comcast) ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/450811789630902272">April 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>And Jim Crane, Giles Kibbe & Margaret Barradas for the Astros.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/450812125875679232">April 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
No doubt they are very good and we are really bad, I'm just not sure how much that really drives these deals.
Interest/demand certainly can... and there are less working parts (i.e. - no Astros/Rockets/CSN with equal veto power) to deal with. Add to the fact that the Dodgers have a clause saying they get paid a certain amount, no matter what the distribution is... it should help them get a deal done sooner than the cluster that is still going on here.
The Astros could argue that the petition wasn't proper at the time it was filed. I haven't done research to see the merits of that argument. However, the jointer of the Rockets prior to the hearing may well make that argument a loser. I think that a bad faith argument doesn't have a lot of merit behind it at this point. I do have to wonder whether, if Judge Hughes is unable to broker an agreement, if he will toss the bankruptcy case. Trying to broker an agreement at this point just smells of a judge seeing no realistic possibilities for reorganization.
I don't understand why you have to make personal comments / name calling instead of debating the subject. Coulda sworn that wasn't going to be tolerated. Ref and I have both made strides toward civil discussion so much that Id like to apologize for a shot I took at his professional abilities.
How about debating the subject? We were talking about an update that once again made Crane appear to be delusional or a liar or both. Care to comment on that?
I don't know much about the specifics of the Dodgers deal, but if they don't have separate groups with veto power no doubt that will help them. I just think that with deals as long term as these, how good the team is and how much immediate "demand" there is doesn't play nearly as big a role as some would think. Even for a big "name" team like the Dodgers, and one with a lot of current support, how much "demand" is there really in comparison to all of the other options for entertainment in a city like LA? The Rockets are really good this year, before Bev went down I would say they had a legit shot to get to the conference finals and at that point who knows . . .and even with that, wonder how many have actually dropped Directv, Uverse or the provider of their choice, to watch the Rockets? I also think we are moving into a world where there are so many options for people to get entertainment at home, providers are going to be much more careful about what they pay for these regional networks. In 10 years, what percentage of the population will still get their TV from a provider the way that we do right now? Hard to say, but you can bet that is a pretty big issue to the providers when negotiating these deals right now. Maybe the judge calling the same parties back so soon is a good sign, doubt it, but maybe
Agreed totally... just think its literally a different ballgame over there. And even though LA has a lot of entertainment options, they've already sold 3 million Dodgers tickets for the season, before their first home game... which is probably the best in baseball.
