Still think games on National TV shouldn't be blacked out. I'm not a fan of my local teams, but it did suck not being able to watch a Hawks playoff game where the game was blacked out on NBA TV, but the local channels that hold their rights weren't broadcasting the game.
NBA TV is not on all basic cable packages. Also, the teams were not going to be in favor of the NBA creating a network that aired their games without blackouts unless they got reimbursed for any potential loss in revenue. Let's say the Rockets get 10 games on NBA TV in a year. Without blackouts, the carriers would come back and want a rebate on those 10 games.
If the local sports channel isn't broadcasting it, I'm not sure what they are losing. It is like CSN deciding not to show the Rockets for those 10 games, and now every person in the Houston area watching legally are unable to watch. That helps nobody.
1) They aren't going to check every single game to see if it is broad casted locally and make a game time decision 2) Media rights include the right to NOT broadcast the game. If a national tv game was allowed to air anytime it wasn't locally distributed, the television carriers would start wanting to cut out any games that COULD be on NBA TV to save some money. To prevent this from becoming a negotiating tool, the blackouts exist even if the team can't or won't get it on local television. It may not seem fair, but particularly in the case of the Rockets, they would be hurt even more financially if the blackout rules went away.
They don't need to make a game time decision. These things are usually known well in advance. The major sports leagues should ensure that every game is available to its local market in some fashion. Nobody wins when the game isn't broadcast. When a regular season Atlanta Braves game takes priority over the NBA playoffs, it is bad for the league. There should be negotiations relating to airing games to the local market. You don't have to get rid of blackout rules, you just have to shift money around.
Again, if the league was setup to make sure that all games are available locally, the tv providers would start hardballing big time in negotiations. The Rockets would lose any leverage they might have in the league was there to ensure a game was available locally. If it was just a select few that were on NBA TV, the carriers would haggle over those, wanting rights fees reduced. Let's just think for a moment. Let's say each game is worth $0.10 per subscriber to the Rockets. At 2 million subscribers (low amount) we are talking about 200k per game. So, NBA TV airs 10 games of the Rockets. DTV, Dish, etc. come and want what amounts to a $2 million rebate on their carriage fees.
We're also not that far removed from PPV for NBA home playoff games... featured in both Rockets title runs for games not covered by NBC. Again, another aspect controlled by the TEAM in order to maximize revenue.
I don't think anyone is saying the league should guarantee this. However, it would sure be nice for each team to put in a little effort to make sure every game is televised locally. It would be a nice gesture, as a courtesy to their fans, to waive the blackout policy for games they do not plan on broadcasting or cannot broadcast. There's no reason that should be difficult other than laziness or thoughtlessness to their fans. I still do not understand the reason for this other than "it's too much trouble," which seems bogus without any details. You can sympathize with the pro teams all you want, but I don't see how any fanbase should be okay with not having a playoff game accessible locally. Totally unacceptable.
I don't sympathize with them, I just understand the parameters they work with. To you it's a simple matter of "courtesy to their fans." You aren't comprehending the issues the teams will have to deal with on their media rights if they do things like that. Part of the value in your media rights is the exclusive nature of them.
It doesn't look like the Wizards give a damn about whether the game was televised by someone else. Really think you're over analyzing this. Seems like the situation where a game isn't televised locally sounds more like a gray area cause someone was just too lazy to figure out the proper policy or just lazily assumed all games were televised locally. I really don't think it's a huge media right negotiation issue like you're making it out to be. This only happens a handful of times and typically only under unusual circumstances. I don't know if this applies to NBATV, but the NBA League pass policy states: Nowhere does it mention anything about a game not being televised locally.
Alright here's the NBATV policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/10/09/why-the-wizards-were-blacked-out/ As I expected, just an overly rigid rule that helps no one. Would it be that difficult to ask the team for a simple thumbs or thumbs down on the black out in cases where the games aren't televised locally? I'm sure the vast majority of teams would want their fans to see the game in those rare cases.
Maury Brown's article today on all this...I'm only posting the 2nd half, as the first half just itemizes all the facts and the allegations from the pleadings: http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...y-transparent-attempt-to-acquire-the-network/ In a case of how important media rights are to clubs in Major League Baseball, while the Comcast affiliates claim that they are not being paid, the Astros are not only not reaping rewards from rights fees, they’re having to infuse cash into CSN Houston. Based on the agreement with the three partners, the Astros receive the rights fees to show their games in equal payments at the end of each month from April through September, but only garnered a fraction of that—approximately 30 percent—for the 2013 season. They received full payment for April, but for the next two months, cash calls were made to CSN Houston by the Astros, Rockets, and Comcast to meet rights fees agreements, meaning that ostensibly money moved from one hand to the other from the partners to allow for contractual obligations to be met. For the last 3 months, no rights fees have gone to the Astros, a loss of tens of millions of dollars. According to multiple reports, the Astros had been projected to gain an average of $80 million annually from the media rights deal. Based on the lack of fees being collected, two sources in Major League Baseball have said that for 2013, the Astros will rank dead last compared the other 29 clubs in Major League Baseball based on local media rights fees. The issue is one that pits the escalating media rights explosion over the cumulative weight of all not only all the massive deals reached recently (Texas Rangers – $3 billion; LA Angels – $3 billion; LA Lakers – $4 billion; and massive NCAA Conference deals) against what carriers such as DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, et al, can pass on to consumers through their ever growing cable bill. The Astros have been locked in a dispute with Comcast over gaining carriage for CSN Houston to the major distributors DirecTV, Time Warner and Suddenlink. To date, only Comcast shows the regional sports network, which is available in 40 percent of the households in the Houston area. The Astros—with support of Major League Baseball—believe that based on other recent media rights deals from clubs such as the Rangers, Angels, and San Diego Padres, they should see fees that are at least equal with what the market has been able to yield. According to prior reports, the Astros have been seeking $3.40 per subscriber per month for CSN Houston which would be one of the higher sub-fees for a regional sports network. What makes the timing of the Chapter 11 filing by the Comcast affiliates all the more compelling is that according to several sources, in the days leading up to it, Astros owner Jim Crane and Comcast were negotiating the sale of the Astros equity in CSN Houston to Comcast. An offer was made by Comcast, and the Astros countered. When Comcast came back, and the Astros again sent back a counter-offer, communication broke off and the Chapter 11 filing occurred catching the Astros off-guard. The Astros claim that this will not adversely affect player payroll plans for the 2014 season. Crane has been harshly criticized for making deep cuts in player payroll. According to Cot’s Contracts, the Astros had total player payroll of $26,105,600 for the 2013 season, by far the league’s lowest. Crane and the organization have said repeatedly that cuts were done to remove bad contracts and that their minor league system was in shambles. The aggressive model they are working from works on the premise that long-term sustainability comes from producing solid minor league talent that can then be infused with free agent signings. Crane has often cited the St. Louis Cardinals as a model franchise the Astros would like to emulate. Whether Crane sticks to those promises will only be known over time. In a day when television media rights have become the most critical revenue stream for each club in Major League Baseball, the CSN Houston dispute will – at the very least– create payroll flexibility issues. Clubs such as the Tampa Bay Rays have been able to be competitive for several years now with low revenues and player payroll. The difference for the Astros is the “deep pain for long-term gain” strategy that the club is taking. That has played into the hands of Comcast as the Astros finished with more than 100 losses for the third straight season. At the same time, Comcast doesn’t appear to be treating CSN Houston as damaged goods. Whether the Astros claims in their motion are true or not, if they were in negotiations to buy out the Astros equity share, they understand the value in owning a regional sports network in the Houston region. After all, Comcast already owns several RSNs. One thing is certain in all of this: any claims of the 2013 Astros being the most-profitable this past season, let alone, all-time, is a massive strikeout.
That guy claiming that the previous Forbes article that listed the Astros as the most profitable team in the league is a "massive strike out" must think that is a hugely clever line because he used it in both articles.
Is there a requirement that the loan presently be in default? Section 303 does not seem to require it. There would need to be a finding that the Section 303 requirements to file an involuntary petition were met and that the debtor is, in fact, insolvent. It seems that the Astros are claiming that the petition was filed in bad faith. If the Court finds bad faith, the Astros could be awarded their costs in defending against the petition under Section 303(i)(2).
I think to fully understand the dispute we need to know what was agreed to on how the money was spent. i think part if that loan is comcast saying we will give you time to negotiate carriage fees but there was a deadline. just my opinion
Debtor has to be unable to pay debts as they come due. The Astros are arguing bad faith...they're also arguing that you need 3 creditors with bona fide, undisputed debts....and 2 of these debts are disputed as to amount and, according to the Astros, were oral agreements with affliates of insiders that weren't ever approved by the Rockets or the Astros....in fact, they're saying those obligations were never even presented to the Rockets or Astros for consideration, as required by their agreement. Did you see the case law they cited to out this court where the court said an involuntary bankruptcy filed in this way by affiliates of a partner in the midst of a partnership dispute was properly dismissed on those grounds?
