OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: subnuclear on February 07, 2014, 06:26:43 pm
-
Here's the article. (http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/02/07/astros-appeal-comcast-sportsnet-bankruptcy-ruling/)
It reads like the Judge arranged for some offers to be made and the Astros thought they were no good. Not sure what $200 million in losses mean.
-
Isgur is a pretty decent BR judge. Not sure what sort of chance an appeal has other than potential leverage.
-
This doesn't sound good for getting TV coverage. A quote from Luhnow in a recent article didn't sound hopeful either:
Our games are going to be on TV. Whether everybody can get ’em or not remains to be seen
I assume the plan to use MLB Network, or streaming was if they could get their rights back from CSNH. As long as CSNH is around, I doubt they would allow that.
Also, I've never understood why this is such a bad deal for the Astros. I realize that they are locked into a deal with CSNH for their broadcast rights/product and theoretically, they could get more for their product from another network. However, unlike their present situation, they wouldn't have ownership in the other network. In short, I would assume that if their product was under-priced to CSNH, it would translate into greater profits for the network, which would then flow back to the Astros as an owner.
-
Isgur is a pretty decent BR judge. Not sure what sort of chance an appeal has other than potential leverage.
Yeah, Isgur is good. Most bankruptcy appeals get rubber stamped by the district court anyway, though it ended up in Hughes' court so who knows.
-
This doesn't sound good for getting TV coverage. A quote from Luhnow in a recent article didn't sound hopeful either:
I assume the plan to use MLB Network, or streaming was if they could get their rights back from CSNH. As long as CSNH is around, I doubt they would allow that.
Also, I've never understood why this is such a bad deal for the Astros. I realize that they are locked into a deal with CSNH for their broadcast rights/product and theoretically, they could get more for their product from another network. However, unlike their present situation, they wouldn't have ownership in the other network. In short, I would assume that if their product was under-priced to CSNH, it would translate into greater profits for the network, which would then flow back to the Astros as an owner.
I think the problem is the prices the carriers are willing to pay would not generate a profit at all.
-
I think the problem is the prices the carriers are willing to pay would not generate a profit at all.
Well, if CSNH can't get a profitable rate for the Astros from potential carriers, why would Fox Sports (or another network) have better luck?
-
The problem clearly is that the profits the team would make at the rates the carriers are willing to pay are nowhere near the bill of goods Drayton sold Crane.
-
The problem clearly is that the profits the team would make at the rates the carriers are willing to pay are nowhere near the bill of goods Drayton sold Crane.
That seems to be what the Astros are claiming.
-
The problem clearly is that the profits the team would make at the rates the carriers are willing to pay are nowhere near the bill of goods Drayton sold Crane.
I know Drayton was letting the team wither on the vine, but I don't think the business model he used when setting up CSNH was the same scorched earth model that was implemented by Crane.
A lot of blame to go around here, though, and no one's free of it. For example, Crane should've adjusted the CSNH revenue projections based on the fact that it did not yet have full distribution lined up, and he planned on putting out an unwatchable product.
-
I'm mainly responding to the team's outrageous claim that the carriage proposals they have reviewed would result in a $200MM loss. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that the reality is that they will likely earn $200MM less in broadcast fees over the life of the contract than Drayton advertised but I am not prepared to believe that broadcasting the games and getting paid to do so will result in an actual net loss which is what the team is implying.
-
Crane wore his Astro's cap while playing in the Pebble Beach pro-am this weekend.
-
Crane wore his Astro's cap while playing in the Pebble Beach pro-am this weekend.
Was it a pointy one with a big "D" on it?
-
I'm mainly responding to the team's outrageous claim that the carriage proposals they have reviewed would result in a $200MM loss. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that the reality is that they will likely earn $200MM less in broadcast fees over the life of the contract than Drayton advertised but I am not prepared to believe that broadcasting the games and getting paid to do so will result in an actual net loss which is what the team is implying.
Seems correct. Barron has an informative article up that sheds some light. Basically, the network was valued at 700 million during the purchase by Crane, but now is valued at 500 million by Comcast. There is the 200 million. This is still misleading, coming from Crane at least, since his portion is only 46% of that 200 million.
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/02/catching-up-on-some-of-the-csn-houston-case-fine-print/ (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/02/catching-up-on-some-of-the-csn-houston-case-fine-print/)
-
From David Barron's latest blog (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/02/key-upcoming-dates-in-csn-houston-case-plus-judge-lynn-hughes-best-one-liners/), quoting the appeals judge (who apparently is quite the character):
- Addressing the 18 lawyers seated in front of the bar, representing Comcast, the Astros, the Rockets, McLane and other entities: ”Is there a lawyer in the Western Hemisphere I have not admitted pro hac vice (a Latin term meaning “in this case”)? If so, you’re admitted.”
- On the reliability of the Internet as a research vehicle: “The Internet is like a bridge that goes 70 percent across the river.”
- Suggesting that the parties work out their problems among themselves: “You don’t want to turn this over to two aging bureaucrats with tenure like Isgur (the trial judge) and me, because that is what you’re doing. You’re letting me run a sports league and a network. I guarantee you that’s like doing eye surgery with a chainsaw.”
-
Having this appeal in front of Judge Hughes should be wildly entertaining as he suffers no fools.
-
Having this appeal in front of Judge Hughes should be wildly entertaining as he suffers no fools.
You sure don't want to piss him off.
-
So much for your powers of prediction, Jim: (http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/03/17/comcast-backs-out-of-csn-bankruptcy-bid/)
Comcast said Monday it will not enter a bid to purchase Comcast SportsNet Houston out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, throwing more uncertainty into the 5-month-old saga over the future of the Astros-Rockets-Comcast partnership.
The statement came less than a week after Astros owner Jim Crane said he expected Comcast to make a bid for the portion of the network that it does not own.
Crane, who said the Astros believed Comcast “is going to make an offer to either lend the network some more money to proceed or put an offer out to both teams,” was not available for comment.
-
I didn't know about this, but the Dodgers are having similar problems getting carriage. Seems that cable and satellite providers have drawn a line in the sand.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/fyi/x1984790267/How-local-sports-could-change-all-of-television
-
I didn't know about this, but the Dodgers are having similar problems getting carriage. Seems that cable and satellite providers have drawn a line in the sand.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/fyi/x1984790267/How-local-sports-could-change-all-of-television
Bubble burst
-
Bubble burst
I'm wondering if nervous ripples are running through the players union?
-
They seem to continually revise those articles at the Chronicle. Yesterday, there was some mention about a potential bidding process which might include Direct TV, AT&T and Fox. Can't find that stuff in the article now.
At any rate, it is still confusing to me, both in the nature of what happens in a bankruptcy court and by what has been reported. I'm sure there is understandable speculation on why Crane expected a bid from Comcast, and on why Comcast no longer chooses to bid, but it hasn't been reported. Also, what's on the plate at the hearing today (or maybe next Tuesday).
-
I'm wondering if nervous ripples are running through the players union?
Just imagine if this Astros experiment pays off. The bottom will drop out of the high-priced free agent market*.
* Which is a good thing. Unnecessarily, exaggerated, stupid money for "name" players just drives up the cost of everything from tickets, to beer, to corn dogs, to carriage rates for cable networks all the way through to demands for new edifii of greed at taxpayers' expense. Eventually, just like the NHL, there's a breaking point when all the revenue has been maximised and the product can't sustain any further increase in operating cost.
It's long overdue for sports, especially one as (relatively) gentle as baseball that does not carry high risk of career-ending injury, to reign in salaries and make it affordable again for Joe Public, and not just the corporate overlords who want to sell whatever shit they're hawking, ironically, to that same Joe Public who now can't afford to go to the games and can only watch it on TV...maybe.
-
Just imagine if this Astros experiment pays off. The bottom will drop out of the high-priced free agent market*.
Don't see this happening. There will always be the 'New York Yankee' (and at this point Los Angeles Dodgers) types who will write the big checks, and other clubs who will try to compete with 'limited' resources available to them...
-
Looks like Judge Hughes is applying his unique brand of jurisprudence to the appeal. He has ordered Crane, Alexander and Robert Pick (Comcast suit) (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/03/csh_houston_lynn_hughes.php) to appear before him without their attorneys for an "informal discussion."
-
Looks like Judge Hughes is applying his unique brand of jurisprudence to the appeal. He has ordered Crane, Alexander and Robert Pick (Comcast suit) (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/03/csh_houston_lynn_hughes.php) to appear before him without their attorneys for an "informal discussion."
Under what authority, praytell, does a judge have the right to order a party's representative to come without counsel? It might be a good idea, but if I was a lawyer on the case, i'd be pissed off.
-
Looks like Judge Hughes is applying his unique brand of jurisprudence to the appeal. He has ordered Crane, Alexander and Robert Pick (Comcast suit) (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/03/csh_houston_lynn_hughes.php) to appear before him without their attorneys for an "informal discussion."
Breakfast Club?
-
Under what authority, praytell, does a judge have the right to order a party's representative to come without counsel? It might be a good idea, but if I was a lawyer on the case, i'd be pissed off.
Shit, that's a ton of billable hours for all the lawyers and their respective entourages of non-speaking, non-essential, hourly-billing minions.
PS: the article quotes the word "invited", not "ordered".
-
Under what authority, praytell, does a judge have the right to order a party's representative to come without counsel? It might be a good idea, but if I was a lawyer on the case, i'd be pissed off.
The law according to The Honorable Lynn Hughes, of course.
-
PS: the article quotes the word "invited", not "ordered".
When a federal judge "invites" parties in a matter before him to do something, you can go ahead and treat it as an order.
-
When a federal judge "invites" parties in a matter before him to do something, you can go ahead and treat it as an order.
You're right about that. I represented a number of federal judges in their estate planning. When things were good, I was on a first name basis with them and they'd call me directly. When they were unhappy about something, their secretary would call and say "hold for Judge....
-
but if I was a lawyer on the case, i'd be pissed off.
If you were a lawyer on this case I'd beat you half to death with a garden hose.
-
If you were a lawyer on this case I'd beat you half to death with a garden hose.
POTW
-
If you were a lawyer on this case I'd beat you half to death with a garden hose.
You don't think that I would be a calming influence on the proceedings?
-
wait there are proceedings?
-
Per David Barron,The Astros, Comcast and Rockets have agreed to allow U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes to mediate a potential resolution in the Comcast SportsNet Houston bankruptcy case.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/03/29/astros-rockets-and-comcast-sign-mediation-agreement/#comments
-
The trend is spreading. DirecTV is not carrying the Dodgers channel or the Phillies channel. I'm sure there are others.
Every time I think to myself I'm going to switch to comcast so I can see the Astros, I stumble across a rant about how horrible comcast. The KPFT general manager went off on them Tuesday morning and Marc Maron has been focusing his special brand of bile on comcast the last couple of weeks. There's enough angst being an Astros fan already, I don't need this extra shit.
-
The trend is spreading. DirecTV is not carrying the Dodgers channel or the Phillies channel. I'm sure there are others.
Every time I think to myself I'm going to switch to comcast so I can see the Astros, I stumble across a rant about how horrible comcast. The KPFT general manager went off on them Tuesday morning and Marc Maron has been focusing his special brand of bile on comcast the last couple of weeks. There's enough angst being an Astros fan already, I don't need this extra shit.
Us Austinites and others along the I-35 corridor wish we had the choice to switch to Comcast.
-
The trend is spreading. DirecTV is not carrying the Dodgers channel or the Phillies channel. I'm sure there are others.
Every time I think to myself I'm going to switch to comcast so I can see the Astros, I stumble across a rant about how horrible comcast. The KPFT general manager went off on them Tuesday morning and Marc Maron has been focusing his special brand of bile on comcast the last couple of weeks. There's enough angst being an Astros fan already, I don't need this extra shit.
I have a love-hate relationship with Comcast. Right now, I'm ok with them. It took them 3 or 4 goes to get my X1 shit working properly, and each new tech would blame the previous tech for fucking something up. At one point, we had a tech hanging out in our place, waiting for over an hour for a box that he could've gone and got in about 20 minutes. I chased him out. Phone tech service remains awful, but I have had better luck with the online techs (which only works if your internet isn't the problem).
However, the aforementioned X1 shit is pretty impressive. The DVR interface is slick and that thing can hold a ton of recorded content. The whole house DVR service works perfectly too. The internet service remains lightning fast. The only struggle there being getting them to shut down the router/wifi functions of the modem if you have your own router/wifi kit - it can only be done back at Comcast's lair, and the phone techs won't know what the fuck you're talking about unless you use the key words "bridge mode".
-
The Roberts family, who owns Comcast, paid for a fancy cancer research center I worked in for a while.
-
So, you're not a nuclear rocket scientist?
-
So, you're not a nuclear rocket scientist?
It was a really nice facility, but no rockets sadly.
-
It was a really nice facility, but no rockets sadly.
The Anti-Toyota Center