Crane doesn't want a rate. This is what has been missed. What the Astros were upset about was that no matter what the rate came in at, they were going to get their carriage fee and that was it for the next five years. Crane wanted profits to divide up in that time span. DTV or Fox may be willing to give him cash now to make up for that, operate the network at a loss like Comcast was going to, knowing that long term they are going to profit off of the network.
The issue with the offers was that they were not going to make the network profitable. The whole reason the Astros originally wanted to own part of their own network was to get the profits. The Astros were guaranteed a fixed rate regardless of what the fee came back at from the carriers, but if it was too low there wouldn't be anything else.
It's happened with other RSNs. I believe the Trailblazers RSN has been fighting this fight for many years now. Longhorn Network held out for years, without even having any carriage in Austin until year 3. "Pragmatic" being that the network should take losses for a decade. And pragmatic also meaning that Comcast would end up saving money on the backend by lowering their own carriage rates, so they wouldn't suffer nearly as much. And the Rockets, being the smaller owner, would only bear half the brunt of the losses that the Astros would be required to take. So pragmatic for Comcast and the Rockets is far different than pragmatic for the Astros. Again, different alignment of interests doesn't mean that one side or the other is being unreasonable. There could just be no solution that works well for all the parties. If you believe he's a greedy pig, then it wouldn't make sense for him to cost himself millions of dollars out of spite. In this scenario, if DTV takes over, they have incentive to cut a carriage deal, in part because they own the network and some of the money they pay flows right back to them. If Comcast's MFN status holds, then they likely have a good reason to pay the higher rate, because lowering their rate would also lower Comcast's. And since they get an ownership cut, they can afford more. Basically, they are in the position Comcast was in - except instead of having to make a deal with the other major provider, they've already got it locked in. FSSW can offer more because they aren't giving away a share of the ownership profits and because they have much wider distribution in places like Austin and San Antonio for the Astros games, something that is unlikely to happen with a new network because it would only have the Astros (FSSW has Big12 football, etc). There's no evidence that he hasn't been willing to budge even a penny. In fact, that judge made exactly that point to the Comcast exec when he said that Postolos was asking for a better business plan rather than jut outright rejecting everything. All we know is that Crane rejected the one offer Comcast brought to the table that would have resulted in 10 years of losses - that's very different than rejecting any and everything.
Absolutely. And the Astros and Rockets had veto power to make sure they bought off that the offers would make the network profitable. I'd be pretty disappointed if I partnered with Comcast and in a year they literally brought back 2 offers from one carrier. I think I'd want to try my luck with someone else.
Same reason Comcast was willing to pay a higher rate: they get part of it refunded to them in the form of ownership profits from the network. Except when Comcast did it, they couldn't get DTV on board. DTV doesn't have that problem because Comcast would already be locked in. For example, one (purely theoretical) solution would be for DTV to buy Comcast's stake, but get a larger share in the new organization. So instead of owning 25% or whatever Comcast owns, they own 40%. The Rockets and Astros' stake goes down. Now you have a potentially profitable network where DTV is getting compensated by getting a larger share of the profits. The Astros and Rockets maintain their media rights deals but just get a smaller share of a profitable network with carriage at both DTV and Comcast.
No one did. They all testified as to that. Comcast's attorney said in his opening statement that they didn't see it coming.
Not sure why anything Crane has done can convince you that anything good can come of it. The judge let him off on the "I'm new" card. I actually blame MLB and Drayton more than Crane. Crane has been trying to get a team for years and the owners wouldn't approve him because his financing is a house of cards. I can't see how MLB didn't make damn sure that Crane didn't understand what the ramifications of this TV deal where on his revenue in the best possible scenario and the worst which is what we have today. MLB surely knew that Crane didn't have the cash flow to withstand only having 40% of the TV market. Crane did what he felt he had to do after buying a team he really couldn't afford, which was gut the team down to basically nothing and start trying to renegotiate a deal he had agreed to upon buying the team. Welcome to PennyBall.
Comcast is a bad business partner. I've said that from day one. Most of their success stories with RSNs come from ones they bought that were already established with carriage deals in place. Their startups have been really bad including ones that have had judges slap them for violating ethics laws.
Nor did anyone else, or they wouldn't have structured the organization the way they did. But we know that the Astros have been talking with other parties since earlier in the year to find alternative solutions. Can you say that about Comcast or the Rockets?
Your Crane hate is ridiculous. I'm a Rockets Only Fan. I have zero interest in the Astros and even I am not going to lay all the blame here at the Astros/Crane's feet. Crane is going to end up making a better deal for him. All that pisses me off is that the Rockets have been screwed in all of this.
No he didn't. All the legal people pointed you to the fact that Comcast had no case long before this ever started. The Astros have plenty of cash to survive this - no one is claiming the Astros are losing money here. Complete and total nonsense. The deal that was agreed that Crane bought gave him veto power that he used. If the deal didn't intend for the Astros to have veto power, it shouldn't have been set up that way. The only people trying to renegotiate the deal is Comcast through the bankruptcy farce.
Comcast wasn't willing to pay a higher rate forever, if signed Comcast locked in at a rate lower than DTV offered. I doubt UVerse or Dish or whomever else offer much more than DTV offered and that keeps Comcast south of that number. Wasn't Crane losing about losing equity in the Network?
The original plan Comcast had was that everyone paid the higher rate - that's what all the projections were based on. So, unless Comcast was lying, they built the business on the idea that they'd pay the higher rate. I'm not sure what you're meaning to say here, but Crane's concern seems to primarily have been about taking long-term losses on the network until some theoretical period 10 years out where it might become profitable, according to Comcast who's been wrong about all their projections so far. If he could get a profitable network, he may be willing to take a small share. (or technically, even an unprofitable one, since he'd be responsible for less of the losses)
Haven't had issues with you in the past, and understand you have different opinions and I appreciate you stand up for your opinions.... but your hatred of Crane comes through in your posts at an unbelievable level. How you feel outside of this message board, I don't know.... but on this board it is EPIC.
It will be interesting to see what Crane and co come up with. I'm pretty certain at this point that the carriage fee that they were hoping for is not going to happen. DirectTV, U-Verse and the like have no incentive at this point to move from their previous positions with regard to that, I would think. But there are other things that the Astros could negotiate that Comcast might have been unwilling to even consider, like changing the name of the channel to not include Comcast's name, for instance. I'm sure there are other things I haven't even considered. But ultimately I think it will come back to the carriage fees and I don't see how there is anything the Astros can do or say now that would entice the other providers that Comcast wasn't doing or saying before.
I agreed that this was just a ploy to get carriage rates without Crane having veto power. I didn't predict that the case would get tossed right away like some (not all) of the legal people here did. The Network was projected to lose 200M in the short term. Crane sure was worried about that. You did hear through all of this that Crane wanted to restructure the partnership last fall, right? That's what I'm talking about.
And the blind loyalty for the word of a guy who has done nothing but alienate a lot of fans and his business partners while tanking at an embarassing level the last couple of years is equally EPIC. I still don't have issues with you or anyone else as I'm not that concerned about how you feel about me, Crane, the Rockets, Comcast or each other. It's an F'n message board.
