As far as profits generated by the ownership stake, I have no idea what that would be. But if there are, say, 3 million households in the theoretical CSN-H footprint, that would be 3 mill x $3.40 x 12 months = $122 MM in revenues. $80MM of that goes to the Astros in rights fees, and then presumably much of the rest goes to the Rockets in their rights fees. Additional revenues would come from whatever advertising they get; additional expenses come from everything involved in running the network itself. Obviously, I have no details, but I don't see how the annual profits from that would bridge the gap between those other teams in rights fees alone, even ignoring those teams' ownership stakes.
The original report was $150 million ($3 billion deal) but it was corrected down to $80 million a year after that, and the latest report I saw pegged it at $80 million in RIGHTS FEES.
Yep, I'm pretty sure only the Angels have over $100 million in rights fees in the division after further study. The Angels got lucky with their timing as Timewarner was snatching all the sports teams which would really have hurt Fox Sports.
Here's a good article about most of these AL West teams: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mariners-gamble-on-majority-stake-in-root-sports-northwest/ It seems a lot are structured differently in terms of guarantees vs rights deals vs profits from the networks (which aren't subject to revenue sharing). All in all, it seems that the Astros with $80MM + CSN-H profits are in the same ballpark as everyone else, minus the Angels who appear to have $150MM guaranteed. But if CSN-H is losing money or even not generating a profit, then the Astros wouldn't be at that same level. One thing none of us really know is what CSN-H has to charge to just break even and pay the rights fees with no actual network profits.
To mattj's point, the economics of baseball has changed dramatically in the last 5 years with these TV deals. For comparison, the Dodgers made $45MM/yr back then off media rights. Now, they make $280-300MM. They are the extreme of the ridiculous overvalued deals, but it shows why looking at being competitive then is different than being competitive now.
I wish we knew the number that Crane/Postolos and the Astros allegedly turned down from the providers this time last year.
The Astros have to have standing. The argument that they don't have standing is one of the silliest legal arguments I have ever heard. As for the rest of it...those are the arguments. Those arguments may very well carry the day. You know that in court proceedings, things are seldom that cut and dry. I can tell you that in bankruptcy courts, it is almost never that cut and dry. There will be equitable arguments made that, in a bankruptcy court, are very important. They are almost as important as the legal arguments. I have an odd gut feeling that the judge will ask questions that have nothing to do with the facts that have been pled.
This is going to be a full evidentiary hearing, I would imagine. That means that both sides will put on witnesses to establish the facts they allege and those witnesses will be subject to cross examination. The fact that one of the parties filed a 30 page Exhibit List should tell us that this will not be a short hearing and that it is unlikely that a decision will come down right away. It might, but I believe that the judge will take this matter under advisement and issue a very well thought out decision based on the exhibits and the testimony.
I would be shocked if it isn't taken under advisement. The Judge will want to make sure his decision takes into account all the case law on the issue. I am sure clerks will research it and other Judges will confer prior to a decision being rendered.
A look at the hearing calendar show that this is the only hearing on his calendar for Monday. To be honest, I'm not sure the hearing won't spill into a second day. It all depends on how many witnesses will be called. I ultimately agree with you that the argument for dismissal is a strong one. I do, however, have an odd feeling that this hearing will take an unexpected twist or two.
you're right he didn't complain to them. he just didn't let him see his favorite team on television anymore. semantics, he is pissing the avg joe off.
you guys watch baseball and basketball do the math yourselves. its much easier to estimate the costs as opposed to the revenues. one of the creditors in the lawsuit is a company that manages television stations. they outsourced that job, and they have a very specific number and what time it represents in the lawsuit. they have the payment that the Astros owe them. you have player salaries you can do research on. you can research what it costs to run a minor league. remember those guys sale tickets at the minor league games. their minor league system had more than one team in their league championship series. that's why I say he spent money on to revamp the league. the hardest number to get are facts on things like the television deal. this is a rare opportunity to get into how much these teams make. that is why I am following this. I don't give a crap about who is responsible for what, I just want to know how much these guys make.
The Astros were supposed to get $80million this year in TV revenues from CSN. However, they did not get their payments for the last three months. By my math, CSN owes the Astros $40 million. Remember, the Astros are a partner, but they are also a creditor...the only creditor whose payments are in arrears.
not trying to be a know it all. I wrote that earlier in this thread a couple of days ago. they probably got $40MM. three months of payments on a six month term.
Perhaps part of the issue is that the deals that were offered and rejected wouldn't support the $80 million per year in rights payments. I don't know that, but it certainly possible.
Possible but not probable since Crane is only whining about being competitive and not about the station running in the red.
