Absolutely. All the parties would have been better off without the bankruptcy. I think the Rockets really have to be kicking themselves because they enabled the bankruptcy in the first place and then quickly realized they messed up. They paid the price not only financially but with their premiere season with Dwight Howard not being on TV.
No. But it seems if he doesn't stay the bankruptcy plan in the next couple weeks, it is the functional equivalent of denying the motion to stay. In other words, it would be nearly impossible to stay the bankruptcy reorg plan once all the reorg steps have taken place, i.e., once the network is turned over to Root Sports to manage. The bankruptcy experts can correct me if I'm wrong.
That's the way I understand it too. Refman and I talked about this on Saturday actually. The practical reality is that once ROOT hits the air, a stay is unnecessary and unlikely. At that point the genie is out of the bottle. I have to say, from what I understand, I think it's very unlikely a stay is ordered...but I certainly don't speak from direct experience in bankruptcy proceedings like this.
Yes, agreed, seems like the network (CSNH) has already taken steps to get ready for the plan to be implemented by laying off most of its workforce. So a stay seems unlikely in light of the steps already taken. A stay is meant to preserve the status quo, but this reorg seems to already be on an irreversible trajectory. But I don't know any of the details outside what I've read on this board and the Chronicle, so maybe there's more to it.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes has set a hearing for 2:30 p.m. Wednesday on Comcast's stay motion in the CSN/Root Sports case.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/529693387645931520">November 4, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As an Astros fan living in Oklahoma, it is difficult dealing with not being able to see them play without watching the Rangers. I also have U Verse so my assumption is Root Sports will be available here as we are part of Astros territory. That being said, I appreciate the information available in this forum. I just joined and I promise not to be a douche bag.
Okay, just wondering. Let's say Lynn does approve of the stay. Can Comcast move to another judge? Or that's all she wrote for Comcast?
Comcast wants the stay so if Hughes approves it then the network gets at least postponed. If he denies it, I think Comcast can move to an appeals court .
Not true. The process of turning over the network is happening. It will continue to happen unless a judge agrees with Comcast and chills it all out with a stay that stops everything. Until there's an order saying otherwise, there's an order saying that the reorg is on.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Stark talk from Root Sports Houston proponents: "A stay could kill the Plan to restructure the Network & likely force its liquidation."</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/529820692653416448">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
All bets are off then... the Rockets would probably have to scramble just so their games could get on the air somewhere.
This is why I think a stay is unlikely. It could happen, but I think it is unlikely. I do think Hughes will,rule on the stay quickly...perhaps even from the bench.
Ahh..finally discussion on the bond. I wondered what they'd ask for with that. At this point I'd be shocked if a stay was granted. Bankruptcy courts prefer reorg over liquidation. I think it's likely Hughes bends over backwards to give Isgur the benefit of the doubt on his rulings...particularly since overruling them means chaos and liquidation.
Isn't this a mild for of collusion. We wont take the channel because it doesn't meet our price,but yet we would to buy the network. I dunno seems fishy. Oh well, the market in the end determined that the demand for this channel was not high.
I don't think that is fishy at all. When ATT/DirectTV turned down offers to the channel, I doubt they had any idea it might end up with them owning it. Even if they did know about it....there is a big difference in paying for channel and Comcast getting portion of the profits and paying for the channel and Comcast paying you.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge Hughes just noted that this is Guy Fawkes Day. Seriously.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530097983124414465">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Comcast atty CraigGoldblatt:“What Comcast wants is to be paid.It’s not looking to stand in the way to keep this network from going forward.”</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530097290334461953">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Spoiler <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Goldblatt suggests doing briefing before the end of the year. Judge Hughes: “I was thinking about a couple of weeks.”</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530097619499249665">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge Hughes suggests that briefs on the appeal be submitted by Nov. 19. This does not preclude work on transition from continuing.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530100114912989184">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>More Craig Goldblatt from earlier: “We are asking for a determination that we are entitled to be repaid the balance of the ($100m) loan.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530101913568944129">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Goldblatt: "The suggestion we are trying to block the plan from going forward, that we are trying to prevent a competitor from entering ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530102110848032768">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>"... the market or to obstruct the organization of the network, those allegations are just false.”</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530102226480791552">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Goldblatt's comments seem to clarify Comcast's goals: full repayment of the loan, not an effort to keep CSN Houston on the air.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530102711514320896">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The amount of the Comcast loan in question, to remind everyone, is $74 million.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/530103329901514752">November 5, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
