someone may have already said this, but if the astros could block any deal, its the same deal isn't it?
I don't have any loyalty for Crane. I wouldn't trust him or Les Alexander, and I certainly do not trust Comcast. They are all buisnesses and do what is in their best interest. As far as Crane tanking, no I didn't have a problem with it, because the farm system was BARE and the big league club was old. I will take a crash and burn approach over long term mediocrity. Now... if the Astros are still spinning their wheels in 2 years then I will get the pitchfork and join you. However, so far Crane has hired an excellent GM and the farm system is one of the 3 best in baseball... so the rebuilding results early are positive. I don't expect you to care what I think about you, as I don't know you.... the inverse is true as well.
Maybe we are disconnected on this. Comcast had favored nation from jump street. They could pay $3.90 day 1, but if someone paid $2.90, Comcast then pays $2.89 or lower. My point is he isn't willing or most likely not able to wait until the Network does become profitable. Not sure how you get what Crane thinks is a profitable network at this point unless the DTV takes a lot less money or strip this network to bare bones.
So, basically, those that initially distrusted Crane still do. And those that have given him and the Astros the benefit of the doubt still are. Shocking turn of events here.
Look into the history of Comcast sports in Philadelphia. This wasn't a startup, but it has an ugly history where Comcast had judgments filed against them, FCC rulings, etc. Basically there is a law that REQUIRES a network like Comcast to offer their channel to other providers (at a fee of course.) Comcast had a loophole in Philly they tried to exploit where they outright refused to negotiate with Dish and TV. They got sued and taken before the FCC and lost.
See, this right here.. this burns me up. Has there been any kind of definitive history written about the process, from the beginning, of the then-owner of the Astros and the owner of the Rockets getting their heads together and talking about jointly forming a new network which would give them control instead of having to feed at the trough of Fox like common plebes? What I want to know is, who is actually responsible for how this went down? I seriously doubt Alexander or McLane had much to do with it. So who did? My curiosity is: who is responsible ultimately for the decision to get in bed with Comcast? Who thought it was a good deal, and why? And who can be held responsible for the complete lack of due diligence in understanding what the market would bear BEFORE putting this whole thing together? Some heads need to roll, and I for one would love to see an investigative reporter dig into this and spill the beans. It's one thing for Comcast to spin a fancy yarn to the two teams, promise them the moon, and then act shocked - SHOCKED I say! - when they suddenly 'discover' that the market will never pay the price they assured the franchises they would get. That's not surprising, apparently everyone but the Astros and Rockets already knew that Comcast is a dog turd as a company. But it's another thing entirely for the franchises themselves to steal entire seasons from fans, disrupt lives and careers with a doomed local network, all while apparently only ever listening to Comcast's promises and never once doing any due diligence on their own. That's what I want to know: who in those organizations was responsible for the horrendous decisions for which we are all suffering today? They willingly got in bed with the devil - what did they THINK was going to happen??
I think they got in bed with Comcast because Comcast is the big boy in Houston by a pretty wide margin. I don't really know though. But, if you look through the list of CSNs that have carriage on non-Comcast cable companies, you will see that almost all of them are ones they bought out that already had deals in place. They were networks previously owned by Cablevision, Fox Sports, etc. There are some examples of startups that worked though. I think CSN Chicago was a true startup and has true carriage. It's not like it's impossible to work with Comcast, but they are not a well liked business partner, nor are they well liked by consumers.
"Don't underestimate the other guy's greed" Tony was about to partner with the Diaz brothers and Omar Suarez to start up the Cocaine Channel and got this sage advice from Frank. If only Tad Brown had paid Frank Lopez a visit... we'd all be watching the Rockets tonight.
As someone that has been involved with contract formation and interpretation with Comcast... I can say that if anything you are being kind.
It appears to be an ugly business. When the judge talked about collusion, I thought for a moment that he may have been referring to the other providers getting together to agree to holdout and make lowball offers to drive down the carriage rates so that this venture would fail.
My involvement with it was limited to drafting agreements and offering advice as to whether to enter into contracts with Comcast. However, based on what my client was telling me, it is a very cut throat business that constantly results in disagreements and suits. I don't think that Comcast is unique in the industry, but they very much have saturated the market as far as the success in the industry is whom you know.
This is more than having authority to block a deal...this is having sole right, subject to court approval, to go make one that potentially involves a buyout of Comcast's interest in the entire network.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Working on follow story on CSNH bankruptcy decision. Everything is up in the air on Astros' and Rockets' TV futures.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/395619193753567232">October 30, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Jim Crane has until Dec. 12 to build a new plan. Unfortunately, for Rockets fans, that likely will mean more delay on carriage deals.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/395619417217712128">October 30, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Of course, nothing was getting done under old system, given Crane's opposition to what he saw as money-losing proposals from NBC/Comcast.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/395619852980740096">October 30, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Now we will see if Jim Crane can succeed in TV as he has succeeded in other businesses. If he can, viewers will benefit.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/395620456952127488">October 30, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Of course, the judge will have final say on anything that Crane proposes. Rockets and Comcast also will be kept in the loop..</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/395620917608321024">October 30, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Order reads: "The Astros, at their sole discretion, may involve the Rockets or Comcast in negotiations with third parties ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/395621076102688768">October 30, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"... and Comcast and the Rockets will cooperate with the Astros in such efforts in a commercially reasonable manner."</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/395621232755752961">October 30, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Right - but over that same 10 year time period, the Astros would get over $600MM in rights fees vs the $100MM or so of their share of the CSN-H losses. The Astros have never had any cash flow problems here. They are just trying to get a deal that makes more total profit than what was being offered. Sure - that's because Comcast failed to deliver on their end of the deal. Comcast's solution was to ask everyone to take losses. Crane's was to come up with a different idea. Both were within the rights of the parties to suggest and of the other party to reject.
Agreed. But in the original plan, everyone was supposed to pay $3.90 or $3.50 or whatever - that's what Comcast's projections were based around. In that case, Comcast's would also be paying that amount because no one would be paying $2.90. And with that setup, they thought it was a good deal for them to pay that $3.90 or $3.50, given that they'd be getting a share of the network profits. It could be the same for DTV now, especially if they have Comcast locked into that same rate. In fact, if DTV owns the network, it actually incentivizes DTV to pay that higher rate because lowering it would lower the rate that Comcast pays as well, so while DTV saves $1, it costs the ROOT Houston or whatever $2. It depends on how DTV works - but if they can keep Comcast in at the higher rate and they are willing to pay the higher rate since they get ownership, maybe you can get much closer to the original projections that had the network being profitable. The whole reason they couldn't get profitable is that the carriers weren't willing to pay the high amount. But here, you have a scenario where you could potentially get two of the carriers paying the higher amount. Does that domino to get the others? I have no idea. I also don't know what share DTV controls vs UVerse and whoever else is out there.
