OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: OregonStrosFan on September 27, 2013, 09:04:09 pm
-
Here ya go... LINK (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/09/bankruptcy-petition-filed-on-behalf-of-comcast-sportsnet-houston/)
Affiliates of Comcast/NBC Universal filed an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition Friday in Houston on behalf of the struggling Comcast SportsNet Houston regional sports network that it owns along with the Rockets and Astros. The action apparently came as a surprise to the Astros...
-
The action apparently came as a surprise to the Astros...
The Astros are either lying again, which is entirely possible, or the Rockets and NBC are re-organizing to do and end-run around Crane because they're tired of his bullshit, which also strikes me as possible.
-
Thanks for the heads up. I assume this is good news for fans who want more carriers, but bad news for Crane's business plan. I hope it gets resolved quickly.
-
The Astros are either lying again, which is entirely possible, or the Rockets and NBC are re-organizing to do and end-run around Crane because they're tired of his bullshit, which also strikes me as possible.
I'm betting on the latter.
-
The Astros are either lying again, which is entirely possible, or the Rockets and NBC are re-organizing to do and end-run around Crane because they're tired of his bullshit, which also strikes me as possible.
It could be both. Comcast could have been threatening the Astros with this for awhile, then finally pulled the trigger when the Astros failed to budge. I doubt the Astros could not have seen this as a possibility.
The last thing the Rockets need is to begin the season with the team they've put together with only 40 percent of the city able to watch.
-
I must have missed this when I read it the first time. Can someone make sense of this part:
In a two-paragraph statement issued Friday night, the Astros indicated that they had issues with the NBC Universal-Rockets-Astros partnership that also could have led to litigation or, at least, potential changes in the partners’ relationship.
“Comcast has improperly filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition in an attempt to prevent the Astros from terminating the Media Rights Agreement between the Astros and Houston Regional Sports Network,” the statement said. “HRSN failed to pay the Astros media rights fees in July, August and September, and we have invested additional money in order to keep the network viable through our season.
“Despite not receiving our media rights fees, our objective has not changed. We will continue to work toward obtaining full carriage so that all of our fans are able to watch the Astros games while making sure that the Astros are able to compete for championships.”
-
Astros were trying to dump CSNHouston and move back to Fox Sports SW is one rumor out there...
-
Astros were trying to dump CSNHouston and move back to Fox Sports SW is one rumor out there...
I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the one of the major reasons for the sanguine financial outlook for the club was based on the premise that the astros would own a significant portion of their own television network, a la the Yankees or Dodgers.
I know there is a lot of anger among the fans for not being able to watch their team--and rightly so--but, as an Astros fan, CSN Houston succeeding was also high on the wish list in that it suggested a larger future bankroll for the club.
-
It seems apparent that whatever the Astros were offering (and had used to project future revenue) the carriers werent taking. Either the Astros were going to have to lower their # or look elsewhere. Looking back, the hiring of Postolos who had no baseball experience, was a disaster.
-
It seems apparent that whatever the Astros were offering (and had used to project future revenue) the carriers werent taking. Either the Astros were going to have to lower their # or look elsewhere. Looking back, the hiring of Postolos who had no baseball experience, was a disaster.
I'm not sure why you need sports experience to negotiate a non-stupid TV deal.
-
no more free t i c k e t s
-
I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the one of the major reasons for the sanguine financial outlook for the club was based on the premise that the astros would own a significant portion of their own television network, a la the Yankees or Dodgers.
I know there is a lot of anger among the fans for not being able to watch their team--and rightly so--but, as an Astros fan, CSN Houston succeeding was also high on the wish list in that it suggested a larger future bankroll for the club.
*Ding, Ding, Ding*
TeamCrane let everyone know (who was listening) that this was indeed the case. You want me to spend, then I need the best deal possible from our television carriers. Seems all of that is about to go by the wayside. So what's plan B, Mr. Crane? I hope they knew this was a possibility and the ability to fund a winning club at a budget much more in line with spending in the MLB (at minimum, mid-level budget, not some crazy budget that one player like A-Rod can out earn) can still be in play.
If this part of the issue is not resolved, then you can welcome in George Springer and the rest of the new talent from the minors... for only the amount of time they are under club control. That would be, in essence, the Pittsburgh Pirate model of the 90s and some of the aughts, when they had good young talent, and then shipped them off to Chicago when they were due their pay-day as free agents.
Let's hope this is not the case and Crane actually thought this through to the Plan B, C, and even D if he had to go that way.
-
*Ding, Ding, Ding*
TeamCrane let everyone know (who was listening) that this was indeed the case. You want me to spend, then I need the best deal possible from our television carriers. Seems all of that is about to go by the wayside. So what's plan B, Mr. Crane? I hope they knew this was a possibility and the ability to fund a winning club at a budget much more in line with spending in the MLB (at minimum, mid-level budget, not some crazy budget that one player like A-Rod can out earn) can still be in play.
If this part of the issue is not resolved, then you can welcome in George Springer and the rest of the new talent from the minors... for only the amount of time they are under club control. That would be, in essence, the Pittsburgh Pirate model of the 90s and some of the aughts, when they had good young talent, and then shipped them off to Chicago when they were due their pay-day as free agents.
Let's hope this is not the case and Crane actually thought this through to the Plan B, C, and even D if he had to go that way.
Surely they had to know that failure was a possibility?
-
If they win, the money will come. The cheap guys and the smart guys have to win. The free money isn't coming.
-
It's all about winning. Right now they're one of the shittiest clubs in history. Until something changes that is the new group's legacy. All Luhnow has contributed to the Astros history so far is the worst three year span in franchise history.
-
All Luhnow has contributed to the Astros history so far is the worst three year span in franchise history.
Let's not forget that the first year of that three-year span happened during the McLane/Wade regime. It's not like the major league team suddenly became awful when Crane/Luhnow took over. They were already fucking terrible, just a lot more expensive.
-
Let's not forget that the first year of that three-year span happened during the McLane/Wade regime. It's not like the major league team suddenly became awful when Crane/Luhnow took over. They were already fucking terrible, just a lot more expensive.
For two years in a row, Luhnow has put a team on the field that has gone from fucking terrible to even more fucking terrible.
-
For two years in a row, Luhnow has put a team on the field that has gone from fucking terrible to even more fucking terrible.
2011: 56-106, $76.9 million payroll
2012: 55-107, $60.8 million payroll
2013: 51-111 (at worst), $26.1 million payroll
They've taken a huge leap forward in $/win, at least.
-
2011: 56-106, $76.9 million payroll
2012: 55-107, $60.8 million payroll
2013: 51-111 (at worst), $26.1 million payroll
They've taken a huge leap forward in $/win, at least.
The money being spent on payroll for 2011 and 2012 was about Carlos Lee and several other misadventures in spending. Granted, the mantra now is "why spend money on free agents when at best you get 10 to 15 more wins per year". True. However (and you knew there was a "but" somewhere in there, eh?), you win with talent and the players knowing how to win and play for an extended marathon of a season. Truthfully speaking, the mix between veteran and young player during 2011 and 2012 was bad. Meaning, I don't think Hunter Pence was all that, Lance Berkman was done (in 2010 and he was supposed to be the leader), Roy Oswalt was never a leader, and I will say that Carlos Lee did his best. So you did not have a baton passing of leadership (veteran presence) from Bagwell/Biggio to Berkman, Oswalt, and Lee that went as well as it should have. So thusly, you had no veteran leadership and thus you had no one to really teach the young guys like Pence how to play the game right. One can only imagine the way Bagwell would have treated Pence with some of the misadventures he had. But that is water under the bridge.
What about today? Well, truth be told, you cannot win consistently in the major without veteran presence. There, I said it. Not that veteran equals to win because they contribute only to the bottomline of winning with their talent. No, veterans have leadership skills that no... repeat... *NO*... young player coming up from the minors has. You might ask "Well, what about the coaches, isn't that their job... to lead.. you know, help these young kids learn how to win?" Yes and no. Ballplayers police their own and quite frankly, when a Jeff Bagwell is busting his tail running the bases and not doing anything stupid, the young kids will learn from his leadership *on the field*. This is very different than a coach who sits on the bench and can only tell a player how they should handle a situation. Good luck having those kids listen too. So when you spend on skilled veterans... I say this... look for leadership skills. See if the players goes about his business as a major leaguer the right way. If you're just worried about winning 10 more games a season, you're being very shortsighted with said view (IMHO). As much as you're investing in the youngsters by letting them play... you also will hit a wall with that young talent who do not have a clue how to play in the bigs... much less a marathon season. A right mix of leaders and young talent will yield a lot more and a lot quicker results that translates to wins eventually.
And for that, you just have to pay a little more than 29 million a year. If anyone thinks that it will get better by having an approach to winning baseball *at the major league* level is all about young talent, well... you're going to be dissappointed watching these kids hit the wall every year. And then when they get it, that will be about the time you have to sell them off to another team that can pay them. And you start the cycle all over again with young talent. This year's crop of youngsters should tell you that without any veteran presence and leadership, you're going to get very stupid play out there that usually a guy like Bagwell would have taken care of quietly in the clubhouse. Instead we see the same thing being repeated out in the field over and over again. Enjoy watching these kids try hard and then run themselves out of an inning because of it.
-
I'm not arguing any of that. My point was that even with the likes of Carlos Lee, Wandy Rodriguez, Bud Norris, etc. the Astros were still a 100-loss team when Crane/Luhnow took over, and there was next to nothing coming up from the minors to make things better. What real difference does it make if the big club wins 56 or 51 games? If you need to execute a top-to-bottom rebuild of the organization what's the point of paying a handful of players big contracts in this type of situation if it's not going to make much of a difference in wins and losses?
They haven't come out and said as much, but the sentiment I've been seeing from Luhnow/Porter quotes is that they're at or near the point when they become buyers instead of sellers.
-
2011: 56-106, $76.9 million payroll
2012: 55-107, $60.8 million payroll
2013: 51-111 (at worst), $26.1 million payroll
They've taken a huge leap forward in $/win, at least.
This made me laugh. It's all about perspective, man...
-
I guess Luhnow is doing the best he can with what he has to work with. And the seeds to my frustration with all the fucking losing were planted by the previous regime. But, I just don't have the confidence that most have that this dude is the new "smartest man in baseball." He doesn't have some secret formula and he has been put at a competitive disadvantage. I hope I'm wrong, I hope they become World Series winners, but I'm already tired of waiting.
-
But they're playing the Yankees!
-
I guess Luhnow is doing the best he can with what he has to work with. And the seeds to my frustration with all the fucking losing were planted by the previous regime. But, I just don't have the confidence that most have that this dude is the new "smartest man in baseball." He doesn't have some secret formula and he has been put at a competitive disadvantage. I hope I'm wrong, I hope they become World Series winners, but I'm already tired of waiting.
I can totally understand this sentiment. Many of you hold current ownership responsible for the current state of the club and hold them in great antipathy. My eyes will be on what happens in the off-season. I'm looking for a marked step-up in free agent acquisitions of proven leaders who also can play. If we get another round of Bedard, Humber and Pena, then I'm going to be very disappointed.
-
I can totally understand this sentiment. Many of you hold current ownership responsible for the current state of the club and hold them in great antipathy. My eyes will be on what happens in the off-season. I'm looking for a marked step-up in free agent acquisitions of proven leaders who also can play. If we get another round of Bedard, Humber and Pena, then I'm going to be very disappointed.
No money from TV, no marked step-up in free agency.
-
No money from TV, no marked step-up in free agency.
If they use that excuse and roll out a sub 30 mil payroll then, CraneCo should be forced to sell the team. Houston shouldn't have the lowest payroll in baseball by 10 million bucks.
-
If they use that excuse and roll out a sub 30 mil payroll then, CraneCo should be forced to sell the team. Houston shouldn't have the lowest payroll in baseball by 10 million bucks.
I'm sure Crane will be happy to invite you to write a $10 million check again.
-
Free agency is going to be a tricky thing to manage. If you believe that you have guys coming up that will be ready in a year or two, you don't want to block them with a FA on, say, a 4-year deal (unless you can get them on a contract that will let you trade them when their replacement is ready). And I doubt that there are many free agents worth hiring that will entertain a one- or two-year contract.
-
Free agency is going to be a tricky thing to manage. If you believe that you have guys coming up that will be ready in a year or two, you don't want to block them with a FA on, say, a 4-year deal (unless you can get them on a contract that will let you trade them when their replacement is ready). And I doubt that there are many free agents worth hiring that will entertain a one- or two-year contract.
Exactly right. I expect some plug-ins for the bullpen and maybe some chum for a SP, maybe a retread catcher but not much else. This first wave of young players is going to get its chance.
-
Exactly right. I expect some plug-ins for the bullpen and maybe some chum for a SP, maybe a retread catcher but not much else. This first wave of young players is going to get its chance.
I think you're right as well.
-
They still need someone who approximates a major league shortstop.
-
Exactly right. I expect some plug-ins for the bullpen and maybe some chum for a SP, maybe a retread catcher but not much else. This first wave of young players is going to get its chance.
I think Luhnow said he would sign a position player. Or that was me fantasizing or something. Anyway, I think they should think about adding a player who is good at hitting.
-
I think Luhnow said he would sign a position player. Or that was me fantasizing or something. Anyway, I think they should think about adding a player who is good at hitting.
Problem is Crane and Co. will have a problem negotiating a favorable tv contract with the present team. Payroll is negligible but they still have a ton of debt, so do they delay spending for several more years?
-
Problem is Crane and Co. will have a problem negotiating a favorable tv contract with the present team. Payroll is negligible but they still have a ton of debt, so do they delay spending for several more years?
I don't know the first thing about the team's finances, but the team is going to have some pitching next year and some more the year after that. Someone on a three or four year contract might help this team go from last to somewhere in the middle. Maybe its too early, but I don't think so.
People bitched about his contract, but Jayson Werth has been an enormous part of getting the Nationals competitve. Not many Werths out there, though, admittedly.
-
I don't know the first thing about the team's finances, but the team is going to have some pitching next year and some more the year after that. Someone on a three or four year contract might help this team go from last to somewhere in the middle. Maybe its too early, but I don't think so.
People bitched about his contract, but Jayson Werth has been an enormous part of getting the Nationals competitve. Not many Werths out there, though, admittedly.
It's hard to get the 1-1 when the team finishes somewhere in the middle.
-
I hope the farm system is great like everyone seems to think, and that better times are soon ahead.
But, I'm looking at a team that just lost 111 games in a season, including tanking the last 15 of them.
Motherfuck, they have problems - on the field, off the field, everywhere ...
-
The pitfall to avoid is equating "youth movement" with the players that were on the big-league roster this season and last. Most of those guys are keeping seats warm until the real talent arrives, which is still mostly in the minors. If you want to see what the 2015 or 2016 Astros are going to look like, I would skip almost all of the Houston roster and check out Oklahoma City, Corpus and the A-ball teams. For example, concerning yourself about whether there is a big-league quality shortstop in the Astros line-up right now is a waste of time. What you should be worried about is whether there is a shortstop who is major-league material in the farm system.
-
The money being spent on payroll for 2011 and 2012 was about Carlos Lee and several other misadventures in spending. Granted, the mantra now is "why spend money on free agents when at best you get 10 to 15 more wins per year". True. However (and you knew there was a "but" somewhere in there, eh?), you win with talent and the players knowing how to win and play for an extended marathon of a season. Truthfully speaking, the mix between veteran and young player during 2011 and 2012 was bad. Meaning, I don't think Hunter Pence was all that, Lance Berkman was done (in 2010 and he was supposed to be the leader), Roy Oswalt was never a leader, and I will say that Carlos Lee did his best. So you did not have a baton passing of leadership (veteran presence) from Bagwell/Biggio to Berkman, Oswalt, and Lee that went as well as it should have. So thusly, you had no veteran leadership and thus you had no one to really teach the young guys like Pence how to play the game right. One can only imagine the way Bagwell would have treated Pence with some of the misadventures he had. But that is water under the bridge.
What about today? Well, truth be told, you cannot win consistently in the major without veteran presence. There, I said it. Not that veteran equals to win because they contribute only to the bottomline of winning with their talent. No, veterans have leadership skills that no... repeat... *NO*... young player coming up from the minors has. You might ask "Well, what about the coaches, isn't that their job... to lead.. you know, help these young kids learn how to win?" Yes and no. Ballplayers police their own and quite frankly, when a Jeff Bagwell is busting his tail running the bases and not doing anything stupid, the young kids will learn from his leadership *on the field*. This is very different than a coach who sits on the bench and can only tell a player how they should handle a situation. Good luck having those kids listen too. So when you spend on skilled veterans... I say this... look for leadership skills. See if the players goes about his business as a major leaguer the right way. If you're just worried about winning 10 more games a season, you're being very shortsighted with said view (IMHO). As much as you're investing in the youngsters by letting them play... you also will hit a wall with that young talent who do not have a clue how to play in the bigs... much less a marathon season. A right mix of leaders and young talent will yield a lot more and a lot quicker results that translates to wins eventually.
And for that, you just have to pay a little more than 29 million a year. If anyone thinks that it will get better by having an approach to winning baseball *at the major league* level is all about young talent, well... you're going to be dissappointed watching these kids hit the wall every year. And then when they get it, that will be about the time you have to sell them off to another team that can pay them. And you start the cycle all over again with young talent. This year's crop of youngsters should tell you that without any veteran presence and leadership, you're going to get very stupid play out there that usually a guy like Bagwell would have taken care of quietly in the clubhouse. Instead we see the same thing being repeated out in the field over and over again. Enjoy watching these kids try hard and then run themselves out of an inning because of it.
I think there's something to this, but I wouldn't take it too far. I don't think the 1991 Astros developed into a three-time division-winner later in the decade in any significant part because of the leadership of Ken Oberkfell, Jim Clancy and Rafael Ramirez on the 1991 roster.
-
Free agency is going to be a tricky thing to manage. If you believe that you have guys coming up that will be ready in a year or two, you don't want to block them with a FA on, say, a 4-year deal (unless you can get them on a contract that will let you trade them when their replacement is ready). And I doubt that there are many free agents worth hiring that will entertain a one- or two-year contract.
I disagree with this mentality. Sign a few FAs and help the team to avoid becoming a team with a culture of losing. If the kids in the minors are good enough, they will push the FAs out. It also doesn't guarantee them a spot...they have to fight for it. If you have a block situation, make a trade to strengthen yourself elsewhere or replenish the minors.
-
It's dangerous to look into the minors and try to project what the big league club will look like in a year or two or three. For every Harper, Trout or Puig there are countless guys who tore it up in high A who never did anything in the big leagues.
Since the team totally fucked up the local TV deal they'll continue to cry poverty and I can't see them signing any free agents that will amount to anything more than the free agents they signed at the beginning of the season that just ended so mercifully.
-
Since the team totally fucked up the local TV deal they'll continue to cry poverty and I can't see them signing any free agents that will amount to anything more than the free agents they signed at the beginning of the season that just ended so mercifully.
Are we certain the current owners didn't buy the team with every intent to deep six the TV deal?
-
Are we certain the current owners didn't buy the team with every intent to deep six the TV deal?
I thought they *created* the TV deal.
-
Are we certain the current owners didn't buy the team with every intent to deep six the TV deal?
Considering the current owners paid a $200MM premium *because* of the TV deal, they'd be pretty fucking stupid if they did.
-
I thought they *created* the TV deal.
I thought it was done before the buy.
From the Postolos hire to what's transpired (or hasn't) since it seemed to me this was either "we get our deal or we close the shop."
-
they'd be pretty fucking stupid if they did.
I'm not sure we can rule that out.
-
I thought it was done before the buy.
The Astros/Rockets partnership with Comcast was announced in October 2010, over a year before the Astros sale was finalized. The network launched on Crane's watch but he inherited the deal.
-
The Astros/Rockets partnership with Comcast was announced in October 2010, over a year before the Astros sale was finalized. The network launched on Crane's watch but he inherited the deal.
Ok, thanks. I was mixed up.
-
Crane is thanking his dark lord for Matt Schaub today.
-
The Astros/Rockets partnership with Comcast was announced in October 2010, over a year before the Astros sale was finalized. The network launched on Crane's watch but he inherited the deal.
And as HH noted, paid a premium for it as well (setting up the RSN was considered a 'selling point' in the deal...).
-
This could get interesting... (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/09/jim-crane-astros-will-fight-bankruptcy-case-against-comcastsportsnet-houston/)
-
I wonder if the Astros' offer was "you can have our equity stake if you give back our broadcast rights."
Any idea on why those rights are more valuable to Crane than to CSNH? Maybe Crane can sell the rights for a short period of time, hoping for an increase later while CSNH wants a long-term deal which presumably limits the upside if the team is more desirable in the future.
-
please tell me it cant get worse
-
Maybe he can get the Astros on U-52 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toNsPh-pxgc).
-
This could get interesting... (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/09/jim-crane-astros-will-fight-bankruptcy-case-against-comcastsportsnet-houston/)
It's not uncommon for a partnership or joint-venture agreement to have buy-sell rights in case the parties cannot reach a decision on important matters, especially where the board seats are allocated like the reports say in this case (two for NBC/Comcast, one for the Rockets, one for the Astros). If NBC/Comcast went to bankruptcy court just to avoid those provisions, that's chickenshit, and the bankruptcy judge should say as much.
-
I disagree with this mentality. Sign a few FAs and help the team to avoid becoming a team with a culture of losing. If the kids in the minors are good enough, they will push the FAs out. It also doesn't guarantee them a spot...they have to fight for it. If you have a block situation, make a trade to strengthen yourself elsewhere or replenish the minors.
This the opposite mentality is what got them into the culture of losing in the first place. It's Drayton McClane's obstinacy in trying to win through free agency and refusing to rebuild sooner that's necessitated this rebuilding being so drastic. The cupboard was bare. Even teams who spend like the Yankees and Red Sox have to rely on some home-grown talent to succeed.
Give me a 100-loss team with a clean slate and a lot of young guys in the system any day over a 85-loss team with a bunch of guys who need to be put out to pasture.
-
It's dangerous to look into the minors and try to project what the big league club will look like in a year or two or three. For every Harper, Trout or Puig there are countless guys who tore it up in high A who never did anything in the big leagues.
Since the team totally fucked up the local TV deal they'll continue to cry poverty and I can't see them signing any free agents that will amount to anything more than the free agents they signed at the beginning of the season that just ended so mercifully.
True, but when your farm system has produced almost nothing for a decade, you've got to rebuild it from scratch, and that has to be where your emphasis is, and it doesn't bear fruit overnight.
-
It's not uncommon for a partnership or joint-venture agreement to have buy-sell rights in case the parties cannot reach a decision on important matters, especially where the board seats are allocated like the reports say in this case (two for NBC/Comcast, one for the Rockets, one for the Astros). If NBC/Comcast went to bankruptcy court just to avoid those provisions, that's chickenshit, and the bankruptcy judge should say as much.
I cannot imagine the Comcast giving up broadcast rights. If they did, what's the point? It's the only product they have, and there'd be no reason for their existence.
-
Comments on the Astros Motion to Dismiss filed on Monday (Maury Brown article at Forbes: LINK (http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/10/10/astros-claim-comcast-doing-end-around-on-csn-houston-bankruptcy-transparent-attempt-to-acquire-the-network/))
-
Can someone give me the Cliff notes of this? This is how what I think is happening, but I'm not confident I'm right:
Crane went back and forth with Comcast to sell the Astros equity piece of the network. Comcast wanted to buy the Astros piece so that they could negotiate subscriber fees without the Astros approval, since the Astros seem to be pretty stubborn about holding out for a good long-term deal for the club. They could not make a deal so now Comcast is filing for bankruptcy in an effort to have its creditors come in and facilitate a sale of their piece of the network because they don't believe a deal will happen as long as the Astros are the controlling partner. The Astros are filing a motion to dismiss it because they are saying there is enough money to pay the creditors and the only ones not being paid 100% are the Astros themselves. Furthermore, the Astros believe that Comcast can't sell/assign their media rights services because that was an integral part of the original partnership contract between the three parties and is actually bound by law.
What do I have wrong?
-
I believe the bankruptcy is being forced on CSN Houston by creditors and that the Astros argue that the forced bankruptcy is unnecessary and legally inappropriate.
-
I believe the bankruptcy is being forced on CSN Houston by creditors and that the Astros argue that the forced bankruptcy is unnecessary and legally inappropriate.
But it's not third-party creditors that are driving the bankruptcy action. According to the Maury Brown article, the only third party creditor is owed something like $10 grand.
-
But it's not third-party creditors that are driving the bankruptcy action. According to the Maury Brown article, the only third party creditor is owed something like $10 grand.
I think the bankruptcy proceeding was brought about by CSN Bay Area who for some reason count themselves as creditors.
-
Aren't the creditors Comcast subsidiaries? So, from one view, the bankruptcy amounts to a means for Comcast to gain control over the ability to price and sign carriage agreements, and thereby price the Astros' product. From Crane's view, it is about him having final say on pricing his product.
The articles talk about Comcast buying out the Astros, but fails to clarify if the Comcast buyout offer leaves the Astros TV rights with Comcast. I'd assume it does as Comcast needs content.
What is never really explained is whether Crane is indeed being very unrealistic is his pricing demands, and exactly why Comcast and the Astros interest do not align, which is implied by Crane's public statements.
-
and exactly why Comcast and the Astros interest do not align
because the moon is in the seventh house and jupiter aligns with mars
-
But it's not third-party creditors that are driving the bankruptcy action. According to the Maury Brown article, the only third party creditor is owed something like $10 grand.
As I understand it, this is the Astros' beef. They claim that *they* are the only ones owed money, and they're not asking for it, so there is no need for CSN to file for bankruptcy.
-
I think the bankruptcy proceeding was brought about by CSN Bay Area who for some reason count themselves as creditors.
And somehow the Portland Trailblazers are still left out.
-
More FACTS! revealed in recent filings: (http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2013/10/15/astros-threaten-to-take-game-broadcasts-away-from-csn-houston/)
In one case, [the Astros' filing] says the Rockets and Astros have the right as of the network’s first anniversary, which was Oct. 1, to force Comcast to accept carriage agreements. Comcast, the Astros said,does not have that right and is making an improper bid to expand its authority.
Also, the Astros say the team and Comcast agreed in May to make capital contributions to the network, payable in three installments. But Comcast refused to make its third contribution unless all three partners agreed, and the Rockets “elected to secure an appraisal of the network prior to making a funding decision.”
-
Also, the Astros say the team and Comcast agreed in May to make capital contributions to the network, payable in three installments. But Comcast refused to make its third contribution unless all three partners agreed, and the Rockets “elected to secure an appraisal of the network prior to making a funding decision.”[/i]
Using bankruptcy as leverage to undo something that has already been put into effect...how on earth could they come up with such a ridiculous idea?
Eh? Oh.
-
Using bankruptcy as leverage to undo something that has already been put into effect...how on earth could they come up with such a ridiculous idea?
Eh? Oh.
PoTW
-
The Rockets choose the middle path: (http://blog.chron.com/ultimaterockets/2013/10/rockets-take-different-stance-than-astros-on-csn-houston-bankruptcy/)
The Rockets also said the team has “no interest in placing blame on any party as it relates to the current predicament.” By contrast, the Astros say Comcast is trying to take the team’s equity interest in CSN Houston through an improper bankruptcy filing, and Comcast subsidiaries say that the network’s success has been stymied by the Astros’ opposition to carriage agreements that the baseball team feels do not provide sufficient revenue.
However, the Rockets also oppose Comcast’s request for an interim trustee. Naming a trustee, they say, “will defeat one of the core purposes of the chapter 11 process in this case – namely, to bring divergent parties together to forge a consensus that will maximize value for all stakeholders.” A trustee, they say, “could well discourage negotiations among the parties.”
Instead, the Rockets propose naming a “responsible officer” to run CSN Houston’s day to day operations and suggests that the court order Comcast, the Astros and Rockets to negotiate for one week “to attempt to reach consensus on a path forward.”
-
The Rockets choose the middle path: (http://blog.chron.com/ultimaterockets/2013/10/rockets-take-different-stance-than-astros-on-csn-houston-bankruptcy/)
The Rockets also said the team has “no interest in placing blame on any party as it relates to the current predicament.” By contrast, the Astros say Comcast is trying to take the team’s equity interest in CSN Houston through an improper bankruptcy filing, and Comcast subsidiaries say that the network’s success has been stymied by the Astros’ opposition to carriage agreements that the baseball team feels do not provide sufficient revenue.
However, the Rockets also oppose Comcast’s request for an interim trustee. Naming a trustee, they say, “will defeat one of the core purposes of the chapter 11 process in this case – namely, to bring divergent parties together to forge a consensus that will maximize value for all stakeholders.” A trustee, they say, “could well discourage negotiations among the parties.”
Instead, the Rockets propose naming a “responsible officer” to run CSN Houston’s day to day operations and suggests that the court order Comcast, the Astros and Rockets to negotiate for one week “to attempt to reach consensus on a path forward.”
"How about we make a campfire...sing a couple of songs?"
-
Long article by David Barron at the Chron about the debacle. (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/article/Just-what-went-wrong-with-Comcast-SportsNet-4929307.php?t=3ccf48a5d9cc308649#/0) He's been on the Houston sports media beat for long enough to cut through the crap.
-
Long article by David Barron at the Chron about the debacle. (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/article/Just-what-went-wrong-with-Comcast-SportsNet-4929307.php?t=3ccf48a5d9cc308649#/0) He's been on the Houston sports media beat for long enough to cut through the crap.
I hadn't considered the differences between NBA and MLB geographic rights. Why should a carrier in Round Rock pay the same as a carrier in Katy when the Round Rock channel can't show half of the network's marquee programming?
-
Long article by David Barron at the Chron about the debacle. (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/article/Just-what-went-wrong-with-Comcast-SportsNet-4929307.php?t=3ccf48a5d9cc308649#/0) He's been on the Houston sports media beat for long enough to cut through the crap.
This quote, or something similar, has been in many of the articles but continues to confuse me:
The Astros counter that Comcast, by encouraging the Rockets and Astros to accept below-market carriage rates from DirecTV and others, is engaged in a "smoke screen" effort to slowly bleed away the Astros' and Rockets' majority share of the network for itself.
How is their equity reduced by below-market deals?
Also, why would Comcast be OK with below-market carriage rates?
-
Long article by David Barron at the Chron about the debacle. (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/article/Just-what-went-wrong-with-Comcast-SportsNet-4929307.php?t=3ccf48a5d9cc308649#/0) He's been on the Houston sports media beat for long enough to cut through the crap.
Good read. It never fails to amaze me that professional organisations can combine the collective brainpower of their highly paid executives, and comprehensively brainfuck the shit out of a deal that could (almost) not fail to make money for all concerned.
-
In short: A deal with network equity as opposed to higher rights fees that worked for McLane, who had owned the Astros since 1992, and Leslie Alexander, who bought the Rockets in 1993, hasn't worked as well for a new owner like Crane.
"That's one of the risks you must have when you put together these RSNs. You must have staying power," Cramer said. "You've got to be able to weather a bad year in advertising revenue or in carriage deals. If you can't, you shouldn't be in the RSN business."
oh boy. *sigh*
-
David Barron (https://twitter.com/dfbarron) is tweeting the hearing.
Hihglights: The Rockets have finally picked sides and are joining Comcast in the petition.
CSN currently owes the Astros $18 million.
Crane was the first witness, and says the network is on path to lose $200 million.
-
Crane and Postolos are saying the offers they turned down would have resulted in losses for the network. Documents supporting it.
Crane called Fox to talk to them about making a deal.
-
Or, how about this tweet from Barron:
Postolos: McLane adviser Steve Greenberg, told Astros bidders CSN would grow enough in value to pay for team and network share by 2020
Well, if the seller says so, it must be true.
-
David Barron @dfbarron 1h
Most of this afternoon's CSNH hearing discussion involves offers and counteroffers between NBC, DirecTV and others in 2012-13.
David Barron @dfbarron 1h
These figures are not being made available for viewing on the courtroom screens because NBC/Comcast demands that they be kept secret.
Protecting themselves during any future carriage negotiations?
-
David Barron @dfbarron 1h
Most of this afternoon's CSNH hearing discussion involves offers and counteroffers between NBC, DirecTV and others in 2012-13.
David Barron @dfbarron 1h
These figures are not being made available for viewing on the courtroom screens because NBC/Comcast demands that they be kept secret.
Protecting themselves during any future carriage negotiations?
That and trying to not piss of their customers.
Love Barron's PBP.
-
Are Comcast's attorneys allowed to question at this point? All of Barron's tweets make the Astros side look very favorable, but I feel like it could just be the questions the Astros attorneys are asking.
-
David Barron @dfbarron 1h
Most of this afternoon's CSNH hearing discussion involves offers and counteroffers between NBC, DirecTV and others in 2012-13.
David Barron @dfbarron 1h
These figures are not being made available for viewing on the courtroom screens because NBC/Comcast demands that they be kept secret.
Protecting themselves during any future carriage negotiations?
Daddy, what was "the public interest?"
-
All this has gotten a lot more interesting than I thought it would. Here's Barron's late night recap. (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/10/judge-tells-astros-rockets-other-networks-could-be-answer/)
-
His article said that arguments may continue into next month? Hopefully he means Friday.
-
That and trying to not piss of their customers.
Love Barron's PBP.
Barron does his job well. Makes me question why he's still at the Chron.
-
Well, if the seller says so, it must be true.
This just seems to follow the pattern of Crane being so desperate to own a sports franchise that he'd swallow any amount of shit to get it done. He ended up taking a deal that was so shitty that its fucking up another team in an entirely different sport.
Congrats to McLane, Crane and Co. You've fucked this more comprehensively than anyone could've possibly imagined.
-
This just seems to follow the pattern of Crane being so desperate to own a sports franchise that he'd swallow any amount of shit to get it done. He ended up taking a deal that was so shitty that its fucking up another team in an entirely different sport.
He had to buy the team in order to find out what was in it?
-
He had to buy the team in order to find out what was in it?
NUTHIIIIING! ABSOLUTELY NUTHIIIIING! STUPIIIID! YOU ARE SO STUPIIIIID!
Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb8MUsezbLc)
-
This just seems to follow the pattern of Crane being so desperate to own a sports franchise that he'd swallow any amount of shit to get it done. He ended up taking a deal that was so shitty that its fucking up another team in an entirely different sport.
Congrats to McLane, Crane and Co. You've fucked this more comprehensively than anyone could've possibly imagined.
What? It's not like he forced the Rockets to enter into this agreement. Les Alexander had a part in this bed-making.
-
What? It's not like he forced the Rockets to enter into this agreement. Les Alexander had a part in this bed-making.
True. Although Alexander may not, at the time, have known just how big a sinkhole Selig, McLane and Crane were about to create.
-
True. Although Alexander may not, at the time, have known just how big a sinkhole Selig, McLane and Crane were about to create.
So are you going to excuse him but not excuse Crane for getting into a bad business deal with Comcast?
I still don't understand the anti-Postolos/Crane sentiment here. Based on the information from Barron's tweets, Comcast has come off like a joke.
-
Comcast has come off like a joke.
In just about everything they do. Kabletown. (http://www.kabletown.com/)
-
comcast would come off like a joke if you could find it
-
So are you going to excuse him but not excuse Crane for getting into a bad business deal with Comcast?
I still don't understand the anti-Postolos/Crane sentiment here. Based on the information from Barron's tweets, Comcast has come off like a joke.
The way I see it (obviously, from the outside):
1. McLane and Alexander sold Comcast on two viable ratings getters.
2. McLane then sold Crane the Astros
3. Selig hobbled the Astros by moving them to the AL
4. Crane accepted Selig's hobbling in return for not enough of a discount
5. Crane asset-stripped the Astros down to a middling AAA team
6. Ain't nobody got time for that shit.
Now, I am no fan of Alexander (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=107768.msg251402#msg251402), but I can see how he somewhat victimized here by the craven antics of his MLB counterparts. The fact that no one at the Rockets saw the mis-matched regions as an issue is on them, however. Basically, the three combined to group-think this thing into the mess it is today, but I would judge the Rockets to be the least culpable here.
-
Yes, it seems plausible that Alexander and McLane most likely agreed on the amount they needed from carriage deals. Alexander and Crane do not, as Crane needs more lucrative deals to justify (pay down) the price he paid. Alexander's biggest mistake was not having an out in the scenario the Astros (his co-owner) were sold to a new owner with greater financial needs.
If Crane is allowed to shop his product around, I wonder if his return will be much different than the Comcast/Direct TV proposal. At the end of all of this, he might still have much less revenues than he expected when he priced the club.
-
4. Crane accepted Selig's hobbling in return for not enough of a discount
What qualifies as "enough" of a discount? Would another potential owner have been able to get more of a discount? Would you have preferred to see a lame duck McLane continue to mismanage the club?
-
If Crane is allowed to shop his product around, I wonder if his return will be much different than the Comcast/Direct TV proposal. At the end of all of this, he might still have much less revenues than he expected when he priced the club.
If I were Alexander, I'd be trying to cut loose the Astros like the dead weight that they are. The Rockets have a market, the Astros and their Blutarsky ratings do not. Who on earth would pay Crane to carry the Astros?
-
If Crane is allowed to shop his product around, I wonder if his return will be much different than the Comcast/Direct TV proposal. At the end of all of this, he might still have much less revenues than he expected when he priced the club.
Maybe, but at least he'll be getting his money and his games will be on TV. He is getting neither of those things right now.
-
What qualifies as "enough" of a discount? Would another potential owner have been able to get more of a discount?
It was not "enough" of a discount because it did not come close to the loss of revenue that resulted from the move to the AL (coupled with Crane's talent-gutting plan that is somewhat derivative of the reduced revenue caused by the move). I am not claiming that anyone else could've negotiated a greater discount; I am asserting that Crane should've told Selig to stuff it unless the Astros stayed in the NL Central.
Would you have preferred to see a lame duck McLane continue to mismanage the club?
At least they'd still be in the NL Central.
-
If I were Alexander, I'd be trying to cut loose the Astros like the dead weight that they are. The Rockets have a market, the Astros and their Blutarsky ratings do not. Who on earth would pay Crane to carry the Astros?
I know that seems like common sense because of the Dwight hoopla and the Astros are epically terrible hoopla, but it does not make business sense. The Rockets have already stated that they will go with the Astros wherever they go. An NBA team is not enough of a product....they need they need the Astros more than the Astros need them.
-
At least they'd still be in the NL Central.
Do you really think Crane owning the team in the AL West is worse than McLane owning the team in the NL Central?
-
I know that seems like common sense because of the Dwight hoopla and the Astros are epically terrible hoopla, but it does not make business sense. The Rockets have already stated that they will go with the Astros wherever they go. An NBA team is not enough of a product....they need they need the Astros more than the Astros need them.
They could do what the Astros did, and talk to Fox. There's no law that says the Rockets need their own TV channel. They used to be carried on Ch. 51 forfuckssake.
-
Do you really think Crane owning the team in the AL West is worse than McLane owning the team in the NL Central?
Exponentially.
-
Do you really think Crane owning the team in the AL West is worse than McLane owning the team in the NL Central?
Of course.
The team will eventually - at some point - improve (see Rates, Pi). The only reason they are in the AL is because of the timing of the sale by McLane to Crane. If McLane didn't sell, they would likely still be one of the worst teams in MLB history, but at least they'd be doing it in the NL.
ETA: I have said many times that my boycott of the Astros is because of the move, not the results.
-
It was not "enough" of a discount because it did not come close to the loss of revenue that resulted from the move to the AL (coupled with Crane's talent-gutting plan that is somewhat derivative of the reduced revenue caused by the move). I am not claiming that anyone else could've negotiated a greater discount; I am asserting that Crane should've told Selig to stuff it unless the Astros stayed in the NL Central.
At least they'd still be in the NL Central.
How do you know McLane would not have agreed to the AL move? When did he ever turn down what Bud wanted?
-
It was not "enough" of a discount because it did not come close to the loss of revenue that resulted from the move to the AL
Was something released in court yesterday that shows a big hit in revenue due specifically to the move to the AL?
I think outside of the diehards (of which 95+% will still watch) most casual fans don't really care that much. Certainly not enough to make a significant dent in revenue. I would guess the current ratings, or lack thereof, have to do with, 99% the absolute shitshow of a product Crane put on the field and 1% the AL.
-
How do you know McLane would not have agreed to the AL move? When did he ever turn down what Bud wanted?
No one can know this. But moving the Astros was entirely opportunistic on the part of Selig. There was no impetus to move the Astros without the pending sale and, at the time, no looming deadline to even up the leagues.
What we do know is that McLane didn't agree to the move...Crane did.
-
Was something released in court yesterday that shows a big hit in revenue due specifically to the move to the AL?
I think outside of the diehards (of which 95+% will still watch) most casual fans don't really care that much. Certainly not enough to make a significant dent in revenue. I would guess the current ratings, or lack thereof, have to do with, 99% the absolute shitshow of a product Crane put on the field and 1% the AL.
If there wasn't going to be a loss of revenue due solely to the move, then why did MLB have to offer Crane a discount for accepting it?
-
If there wasn't going to be a loss of revenue due solely to the move, then why did MLB have to offer Crane a discount for accepting it?
Because they had to make someone move? Travel expenses? To help cover some of the initial backlash from fans?
I just don't believe, that in 3 years if this is a good baseball team, fighting for the playoffs, there is going to be significantly lower ratings & attendance than there would have been if the Astros were still in the NL
-
FWIW
2012 Average Attendance 19,848 (NL team)
2013 Average Attendance 20,393 (AL team)
-
Because they had to make someone move? Travel expenses? To help cover some of the initial backlash from fans?
Really? Travel expenses?
And isn't "backlash from the fans" something that's likely to manifest itself in lost revenue?
They did not have to make someone move at that instance. The league and the MLBPA had agreed that it was what they wanted to achieve at some point, the Astros sale gave Selig an opportunity and he pounced on it like J. Howard Marshall on Anna Nicole.
I just don't believe, that in 3 years if this is a good baseball team, fighting for the playoffs, there is going to be significantly lower ratings & attendance than there would have been if the Astros were still in the NL
Believe what you like. Doesn't change the fact that MLB agreed to cough up 70 meeelion of their hard-earned dollars to get Crane to agree to move the team.
-
FWIW
2012 Average Attendance 19,848 (NL team)
2013 Average Attendance 20,393 (AL team)
What was the average ticket price and concession revenue? Crane had to drop prices all over the stadium and allow people to bring in their own refreshments.
-
FWIW
2012 Average Attendance 19,848 (NL team)
2013 Average Attendance 20,393 (AL team)
All that proves is there are more Rangers fans than Cubs fans.
-
What was the average ticket price and concession revenue? Crane had to drop prices all over the stadium and allow people to bring in their own refreshments.
They were doing that last year too, granted they didn't have the Comcast give away nights.
When I went to look the stat up, I assumed the attendance was better in 12, but just not by much. I was surprised to see the 13 # was higher.
They also had dynamic pricing this year and were charging and arm and a leg for Rangers and Yankee tickets, and drew 30K a night for those games.
I don't know the specific reason MLB handed over 70 million bucks, maybe Crane is a smart business man and hoodwinked Selig. Maybe MLB has so much $ rolling in, that 70 million was chump change to them when they looked at the benefits of 2 evenly balanced leagues? Maybe enough of the owners were tired of the unbalanced leagues they felt it was worth paying off someone to move?
That doesn't change my mind, that if the Astros are winning, the difference attendance and TV ratings AL or NL will be minimal at worst.
-
That doesn't change my mind, that if the Astros are winning, the difference attendance and TV ratings AL or NL will be minimal at worst.
You don't see the chicken-and-egg issue here?
-
You don't see the chicken-and-egg issue here?
Your conjecture is the same as his. You just can't get past the AL move.
-
No one can know this. But moving the Astros was entirely opportunistic on the part of Selig. There was no impetus to move the Astros without the pending sale and, at the time, no looming deadline to even up the leagues.
What we do know is that McLane didn't agree to the move...Crane did.
McLane chipped in $35M, remember? It was $35M from MLB and $35M from McLane.
-
Because they had to make someone move? Travel expenses? To help cover some of the initial backlash from fans?
I just don't believe, that in 3 years if this is a good baseball team, fighting for the playoffs, there is going to be significantly lower ratings & attendance than there would have been if the Astros were still in the NL
This.
If a winner is playing baseball in Houston people will show up.
-
No one can know this. But moving the Astros was entirely opportunistic on the part of Selig. There was no impetus to move the Astros without the pending sale and, at the time, no looming deadline to even up the leagues.
What we do know is that McLane didn't agree to the move...Crane did.
Bullshit, they both agreed to it. Under your scenario, if McLane had really wanted the Astros to stay in the NL then he would have chosen not to sell the team at the time that he did regardless of how much money CraneCo was waving in his face. What really happened, though, was that McLane couldn't care less what happened to the Astros unless he got his money. He didn't care - let's not forget that the team's first-ever 100-loss season happened in McLane's last season - and he got his money.
Let's also protract your scenario out a few years beyond the time of the would-be Astros sale. The Dodgers would have sold in 2012, but MLB sure as hell wouldn't make them switch leagues. The Padres, possibly, but who knows. But if they know McLane wants to sell and think that's one of their better opportunities to force a league switch, then they'll simply bide their time and wait him out. Meanwhile you'd have McLane paying 4-5x more money for virtually the same number of losses, a perpetually rotting farm system, and a majority stake in a sports channel that would (apparently) be hemorrhaging money.
Your ire is misplaced. Be pissed at Selig and the other 29 owners for thinking this was a good idea. Be pissed at McLane for leaving the cupboard fairly empty and for bending over for Selig at every opportunity. Be pissed at Crane for all of his PR dick-stepping, the left field wall, the CSN stuff, whatever... but the league switch was going to happen one way or the other. You're right that it was opportunistic - a shitty team with a shittier farm system owned by a Selig lapdog was up for sale. What better opportunity is there? If Crane hadn't agreed to it, they would have waited for the next guy to sign on the dotted line.
-
Your conjecture is the same as his. You just can't get past the AL move.
It's no secret that I hate it enough to have boycotted MLB and, as a subset of that, the Astros, since the announcement was made. That doesn't mean that I am wrong in stating that the discount Crane received - specifically in order for him to accept the league switch - was all about an expectation in lost revenue.
-
McLane chipped in $35M, remember? It was $35M from MLB and $35M from McLane.
Doesn't matter where it came from. He got a $70mm discount specifically to agree to the league switch.
-
You don't see the chicken-and-egg issue here?
Not sure I follow. Is the chicken egg have to do with winning? Is it that much harder to win in the AL than it is the NL?
Maybe so, maybe Crane convinced Selig he could win in 3 years in the NL Central and 6 in the AL West and that is where the 70 million # came from. Either way, once they are winning being in the AL will have close to 0 effect on tickets or TV ratings.
-
It's no secret that I hate it enough to have boycotted MLB and, as a subset of that, the Astros, since the announcement was made. That doesn't mean that I am wrong in stating that the discount Crane received - specifically in order for him to accept the league switch - was all about an expectation in lost revenue.
What revenue streams do think will be drastically impacted from playing in the AL vs NL? Do you think less people are going to go to the games in the long run? The 15 extra late night starts on TV?
-
Bullshit, they both agreed to it. Under your scenario, if McLane had really wanted the Astros to stay in the NL then he would have chosen not to sell the team at the time that he did regardless of how much money CraneCo was waving in his face. What really happened, though, was that McLane couldn't care less what happened to the Astros unless he got his money. He didn't care - let's not forget that the team's first-ever 100-loss season happened in McLane's last season - and he got his money.
McLane wanted to sell the team. The only way MLB would approve the sale was if the team switched leagues. You are correct that he didn't care, but the switch doesn't happen without Crane continuing with his purchase with the switch stipulation in place.
Let's also protract your scenario out a few years beyond the time of the would-be Astros sale. The Dodgers would have sold in 2012, but MLB sure as hell wouldn't make them switch leagues. The Padres, possibly, but who knows. But if they know McLane wants to sell and think that's one of their better opportunities to force a league switch, then they'll simply bide their time and wait him out. Meanwhile you'd have McLane paying 4-5x more money for virtually the same number of losses, a perpetually rotting farm system, and a majority stake in a sports channel that would (apparently) be hemorrhaging money.
I never said it would be wine and roses if Crane didn't buy the team. I just said that the Astros would not have switched leagues without the sale going through. At some point, MLB and the union were going to have to make the change. If not for a convenient whipping boy showing up, the Diamondback or the Brewers were the obvious candidates.
Your ire is misplaced. Be pissed at Selig and the other 29 owners for thinking this was a good idea. Be pissed at McLane for leaving the cupboard fairly empty and for bending over for Selig at every opportunity. Be pissed at Crane for all of his PR dick-stepping, the left field wall, the CSN stuff, whatever... but the league switch was going to happen one way or the other. You're right that it was opportunistic - a shitty team with a shittier farm system owned by a Selig lapdog was up for sale. What better opportunity is there? If Crane hadn't agreed to it, they would have waited for the next guy to sign on the dotted line.
I AM pissed at Selig and the other owners. My boycott is of MLB; the Astros are just a part of that.
-
It's no secret that I hate it enough to have boycotted MLB and, as a subset of that, the Astros, since the announcement was made. That doesn't mean that I am wrong in stating that the discount Crane received - specifically in order for him to accept the league switch - was all about an expectation in lost revenue.
I think it was more about getting a deal done. McLane wanted out, MLB wanted the Astros to switch, and Crane knew they would pay a price for that. I don't see how there would be any significant revenue hit to the club due to the move.
-
What revenue streams do think will be drastically impacted from playing in the AL vs NL? Do you think less people are going to go to the games in the long run? The 15 extra late night starts on TV?
It's not my opinion that the revenue stream would be impacted by the switch. It was that of MLB, McLane and Crane, which is why they agreed a $70mm compensation package. You act like I made this up.
-
Not sure I follow. Is the chicken egg have to do with winning? Is it that much harder to win in the AL than it is the NL?
I thought the chicken and the egg thing was that they need TV money to ultimately have a winning team but can't get TV money because they don't have a winning team.
-
....MLB wanted the Astros to switch,
Not so sure about that one.
-
I thought the chicken and the egg thing was that they need TV money to ultimately have a winning team but can't get TV money because they don't have a winning team.
Bingo.
-
It's not my opinion that the revenue stream would be impacted by the switch. It was that of MLB, McLane and Crane, which is why they agreed a $70mm compensation package. You act like I made this up.
You don't know what that $70mm was for. Crane could have extorted it for all we know.
-
Not so sure about that one.
Is this a joke? It was loud and clear prior to the sale being approved.
-
I think it was more about getting a deal done. McLane wanted out, MLB wanted the Astros to switch, and Crane knew they would pay a price for that. I don't see how there would be any significant revenue hit to the club due to the move.
It's not about what you or I think. The $70mm discount was stated to be Crane's price to accept the league switch. It's not conjecture.
-
It's not about what you or I think. The $70mm discount was stated to be Crane's price to accept the league switch. It's not conjecture.
So he didn't want to switch to the AL. None of us did. How does that definitively state that the move to the AL would affect revenue?
-
You don't know what that $70mm was for. Crane could have extorted it for all we know.
I agree, however, his extortion came about because Selig supposedly made the sale "approval" by the other owners a done deal *IF* Crane agreed to move the team to the AL. Extortion was a play/counter-play in this sorid deal-making. Selig, other owners, McLane, and Crane all are sharing in the whole situation. What's done is done of course, but at the time, the new owner could have won some favor by most long-time fans of the team had he drawn a line in the sand. Of course, he feared what sort of dirty play the owners were going to come up with to deny the deal. I'm pretty sure McLane and Selig came up or agreed to the 70 million to protect the deal and buy off Crane. That Crane sold the team off to the AL for 30 pieces of gold is either because he did not care what the fans thought or he just wanted to own a team so badly, he'd agree to anything. No one knows for sure, might be a combination of all of those things.
"The hard part about playing chicken is knowing when to flinch." - Captain Bart Mancuso
-
So he didn't want to switch to the AL. None of us did. How does that definitively state that the move to the AL would affect revenue?
It's not just, like, my opinion, man. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-18/astros-headed-to-american-league-as-new-team-owner-approved.html)
Nolan Ryan, who played nine seasons with the Astros and is now the Rangers’ president, told the Houston Chronicle he’s happy to have Houston in the AL West because it may create an intrastate rivalry and adds a second club in the Central time zone and not on the West Coast such as Oakland, Los Angeles and Seattle.
“We’re at a disadvantage in our division that way because so many of our games start at 9 o’clock, and it hurts our TV ratings,” Ryan told the newspaper.
-
Is this a joke? It was loud and clear prior to the sale being approved.
The MLB did not want the Astros to move... they wanted a team to move (hence why the D'Backs originally agreed to do so and then felt the backlash from fans and then backed away). When the deal for the Astros was going down, the MLB then switched their attention to the Astros. The idea that the switch was in play during the negotiations between McLane and Crane (with the MLB lurking in the background) is not necessarily true. It was a perfect storm. Had the D'Backs accepted earlier, there would have been no move in play for the Astros.
-
It's not about what you or I think. The $70mm discount was stated to be Crane's price to accept the league switch. It's not conjecture.
What you think is the $70 million is undervaluing the impact of the AL switch. That's conjecture. No way to determine that.
It doesn't even have to be revenue related. It could be simply that Bud is asking Crane to do something he'd rather not do. Revenue may be equal, may be slightly better, may be worse. Its a risk he didn't anticipate when he entered the negotiations and he'd like to be compensated for it. Or he'd like to be compensated because Bud is robbing the Astros' history as an NL team (doesn't have to mean its going to be worse off in the long run).
We compensate people to change cities all the time. They may get paid more in their new city, but we give them a bonus because they are giving up a life they know for one they don't.
-
It's not just, like, my opinion, man. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-18/astros-headed-to-american-league-as-new-team-owner-approved.html)
It's still quite a stretch to take a quip from Nolan Ryan (who had no involvement in the sale negotiations, as far as you know) and say that the $70mm was to cover lost revenue from the AL move.
-
What you think is the $70 million is undervaluing the impact of the AL switch. That's conjecture. No way to determine that.
It doesn't even have to be revenue related. It could be simply that Bud is asking Crane to do something he'd rather not do. Revenue may be equal, may be slightly better, may be worse. Its a risk he didn't anticipate when he entered the negotiations and he'd like to be compensated for it. Or he'd like to be compensated because Bud is robbing the Astros' history as an NL team (doesn't have to mean its going to be worse off in the long run).
We compensate people to change cities all the time. They may get paid more in their new city, but we give them a bonus because they are giving up a life they know for one they don't.
My conjecture that the compensation for the league switch was not sufficient is born out of what we're seeing as a clusterfuck of a sports network airs its dirty undercrackers in a Houston courtroom. That the league switch would hurt them income-wise was not a mystery - see Ryan's quote posted above. he refers specifically to TV ratings, and if anyone would know that it would be the Rangers
I am not making leaps of faith here. The move would impact the Astros TV ratings, MLB/McLane compensated Crane for it, now they can't make TV deal work, which is killing a major source of revenue for the Astros. Ergo, the compensation wasn't enough.
-
It's still quite a stretch to take a quip from Nolan Ryan (who had no involvement in the sale negotiations, as far as you know) and say that the $70mm was to cover lost revenue from the AL move.
He mentioned TV ratings specifically. What's in the Thunderdome right now is the Astros new TV deal and the projected revenue therefrom. It's not a stretch at all.
-
The MLB did not want the Astros to move... they wanted a team to move (hence why the D'Backs originally agreed to do so and then felt the backlash from fans and then backed away). When the deal for the Astros was going down, the MLB then switched their attention to the Astros. The idea that the switch was in play during the negotiations between McLane and Crane (with the MLB lurking in the background) is not necessarily true. It was a perfect storm. Had the D'Backs accepted earlier, there would have been no move in play for the Astros.
Ok, they wanted a team to move and the team at the time happened to be the Astros. It doesn't matter, the MLB wanted it done and Crane knew that so he got them to pony up $35M. It's not like this was Crane's idea he created to get a discount.
-
Ok, they wanted a team to move and the team at the time happened to be the Astros. It doesn't matter, the MLB wanted it done and Crane knew that so he got them to pony up $35M. It's not like this was Crane's idea he created to get a discount.
Again, not so sure you're timeline is correct. Crane did not know about a league switch, all he knew was that getting approval was not going to be easy. Period.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2011/08/17/justice-jury-will-be-out-on-crane-even-after-astros-sale/
McLane was lobbying to get the approval and Crane was anxious to get it done as well. But the MLB was concerned about Crane (and of course concerned about having another Frank McCourt situation on their hands). When and where the league switch came into play is any one's guess at this point. For all we know, McLane selling Selig on Crane was the turning point... so all they needed now was a reason to rubberstamp this deal in the other owner's minds. That the D'Backs informed Selig that they were out in terms of a league switch provided a reason to sell this new ownership approval to the other owners in mind of Selig. Who, when, and why 70 million was approved is anyone's guess. It may have been McLane's idea for all that matters. Who knows.
-
He mentioned TV ratings specifically. What's in the Thunderdome right now is the Astros new TV deal and the projected revenue therefrom. It's not a stretch at all.
But they suck balls. That has the most, if not all to do with ratings.
-
But they suck balls. That has the most, if not all to do with ratings.
Agreed. But the Rangers haven't (of late). In 2011, when Ryan made the quote about the west coast games hurting their TV ratings, the Rangers had just repeated as AL Champs.
-
But they suck balls. That has the most, if not all to do with ratings.
I agree, but I would watch them if I could (ball sucking notwithstanding)... but I can't. I'm just a minor blip in the whole radar, but there is that whole fiasco of CSN being inaccessible to viewers who may otherwise watch because we're fans, not because we're bandwaggoning a winning team. Also, the move to the AL took away from longstanding fans the flavor of the traditions we were all used to. So the combo pack of "new rivalries and traditions" (the Rangers? Really?) and no CSN made for a terrible revenue year for the Astros in terms of getting this whole AL experience off the ground. Chicken and egg. I could not tell you right now who plays for the Mariners (our REAL rival if you read the Game Zone) and what young players to follow on others teams in the AL West because for the next few years my team is going to battle them. TV exposure plays as much into that experience as anything else, including going to the ball park.
-
Agreed. But the Rangers haven't (of late). In 2011, when Ryan made the quote about the west coast games hurting their TV ratings, the Rangers had just repeated as AL Champs.
But they're the Rangers. Nobody likes them.
-
But they're the Rangers. Nobody likes them.
Not even their mothers.
-
Quote from: Bench on Today at 01:55:25 PM
I thought the chicken and the egg thing was that they need TV money to ultimately have a winning team but can't get TV money because they don't have a winning team.
Bingo.
But that presumes that the Astros would NOT be sucking if they were still in the NL, which is 100% false.
So you think if the Astros were in the NL, the Comcast thing would have just sailed through? No way.
-
But that presumes that the Astros would NOT be sucking if they were still in the NL, which is 100% false.
So you think if the Astros were in the NL, the Comcast thing would have just sailed through? No way.
I never claimed the Astros wouldn't have sucked in the NL. Where we started here was my claim that the discount for the move to the AL wasn't enough to compensate for the lost revenue that would result from that move.
-
I never claimed the Astros wouldn't have sucked in the NL. Where we started here was my claim that the discount for the move to the AL wasn't enough to compensate for the lost revenue that would result from that move.
But the only lost revenue anyone can come up with is the handful of late west coast games that get lower ratings then games in EST or CST.
-
But the only lost revenue anyone can come up with is the handful of late west coast games that get lower ratings then games in EST or CST.
And so we're back to your original post (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=116183.msg484682#msg484682), whereby you state what you think is the case, which disagrees with what has been pasted in here from places outside of your (and my) head.
-
The only non-opinion in the thread is A, Crane got 35 mil from MLB and 35 mil from Drayton, which in turm allowed him to buy the team if he moved to the AL and B, Nolan Ryan lamenting the obvious that the 9PM CST games get a lower rating then the 7PM CST games.
My only contention is I dont think the AL move significantly reduced the Astros future TV ratings or the # of fans they will draw. Those 2 things are functions of putting out a non-shitastic product, doesn't matter which league.
-
Hello Void.
-
Again, not so sure you're timeline is correct. Crane did not know about a league switch, all he knew was that getting approval was not going to be easy. Period.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2011/08/17/justice-jury-will-be-out-on-crane-even-after-astros-sale/
McLane was lobbying to get the approval and Crane was anxious to get it done as well. But the MLB was concerned about Crane (and of course concerned about having another Frank McCourt situation on their hands). When and where the league switch came into play is any one's guess at this point. For all we know, McLane selling Selig on Crane was the turning point... so all they needed now was a reason to rubberstamp this deal in the other owner's minds. That the D'Backs informed Selig that they were out in terms of a league switch provided a reason to sell this new ownership approval to the other owners in mind of Selig. Who, when, and why 70 million was approved is anyone's guess. It may have been McLane's idea for all that matters. Who knows.
I remember Buster tweeting about the league switch in June of 2011 (I was at a family reunion when I first heard the news). So Crane definitely knew when all that shit was going down.
And even then, I don't think you're getting my point. The MLB wanted it done. Crane was aware of it before the sale became final. I think Crane used that to his advantage. I seriously doubt the MLB said "oh and by the way we'll give you some money, too" and it would make no sense for Drayton to offer that up (he ended up paying half).
-
The only non-opinion in the thread is A, Crane got 35 mil from MLB and 35 mil from Drayton, which in turm allowed him to buy the team if he moved to the AL and B, Nolan Ryan lamenting the obvious that the 9PM CST games get a lower rating then the 7PM CST games.
My only contention is I dont think the AL move significantly reduced the Astros future TV ratings or the # of fans they will draw. Those 2 things are functions of putting out a non-shitastic product, doesn't matter which league.
Nolan Ryan believed that the west coast bias of the Rangers' division hurt them in the ratings...just after they'd won back-to-back AL pennants.
-
FWIW, I seem to recall hearing that a major reason for the Astros needing a $70mil AL discount was because of the increased payroll costs of having a DH (in other words the average DH, making I dunno, $8m/yr, is replacing what would otherwise be a bench guy making $1mil/yr). But really, why should we take any of those type of quotes at face value, including Nolan whining about TV ratings for 9pm games? It's all spin on a certain level.
And yes, Hello Goddam Void.
-
I remember Buster tweeting about the league switch in June of 2011 (I was at a family reunion when I first heard the news). So Crane definitely knew when all that shit was going down.
Not in terms of his deal with McLane. That's the point, it was never a deal for buying the team, it was a deal for getting approved by the MLB to buy the team. It was never part of the original deal and would have been moot had the D'Backs carried through with whatever deal they made originally. What Crane knew in terms of a move was well after McLane and Crane shook hands on the 680 million dollar deal.
And even then, I don't think you're getting my point. The MLB wanted it done. Crane was aware of it before the sale became final. I think Crane used that to his advantage. I seriously doubt the MLB said "oh and by the way we'll give you some money, too" and it would make no sense for Drayton to offer that up (he ended up paying half).
There again, the sale being approved is the point. Not the deal itself between McLane and Crane. So when Crane knew his deal was altered by the MLB, he went back to negotiation (because this was now a very different deal). The MLB did not target the Astros. Crane intended to buy an NL team from McLane (and did). McLane intended to sell an NL team (and did). In the very end, a new deal appeared and that was entirely because Selig wanted and needed something (anything) to sell Crane to the other owners. The other owners saw dollar signs with the newly formed leagues that would then allow for an extra playoff tier (the second wild card). You've been selling this deal as some sort of deal Crane, McLane, and MLB with the express purpose of moving the Astros. And then Crane was shrew enough to leverage money from this deal. That's not really how it went down. Who suggested the 70 million is unclear. What is clear is that Crane either got a discount from 680 to 610 million or he got a rebate. Either way, the real issue that ultimately led to Crane buying the Astros was 1) Crane was not sellable to the MLB owners (and McLane wanted it to happen badly enough to go to bat for Crane... even though he disliked him), and 2) Selig needed a team to replace the D'Backs. if it took waving 70 million in the face of Crane to sell out, then so be it.
Perfect storm.
-
The league change is the done-est deal of done deals.
Dead horse.
Fucking dead.
Or, as the Rose of Alabama put it, "Oh, he is dead. He surely is dead. Dead, alright."
-
Not in terms of his deal with McLane. That's the point, it was never a deal for buying the team, it was a deal for getting approved by the MLB to buy the team. It was never part of the original deal and would have been moot had the D'Backs carried through with whatever deal they made originally. What Crane knew in terms of a move was well after McLane and Crane shook hands on the 680 million dollar deal.
There again, the sale being approved is the point. Not the deal itself between McLane and Crane. So when Crane knew his deal was altered by the MLB, he went back to negotiation (because this was now a very different deal). The MLB did not target the Astros. Crane intended to buy an NL team from McLane (and did). McLane intended to sell an NL team (and did). In the very end, a new deal appeared and that was entirely because Selig wanted and needed something (anything) to sell Crane to the other owners. The other owners saw dollar signs with the newly formed leagues that would then allow for an extra playoff tier (the second wild card). You've been selling this deal as some sort of deal Crane, McLane, and MLB with the express purpose of moving the Astros. And then Crane was shrew enough to leverage money from this deal. That's not really how it went down. Who suggested the 70 million is unclear. What is clear is that Crane either got a discount from 680 to 610 million or he got a rebate. Either way, the real issue that ultimately led to Crane buying the Astros was 1) Crane was not sellable to the MLB owners (and McLane wanted it to happen badly enough to go to bat for Crane... even though he disliked him), and 2) Selig needed a team to replace the D'Backs. if it took waving 70 million in the face of Crane to sell out, then so be it.
Perfect storm.
I am not disagreeing with you on any of this. I'm not even sure what part of my point you are responding to.
The $70M was directly in relation to the move. All three parties had an interest in the transaction and I believe each negotiated their respective side. It happened as part of the approval process. Am I crazy? Edit: oh I guess you misinterpreted me saying "before the sale was final". By that I meant it was approved by the MLB owners. I'm not arguing your timeline.
Also, why do you say McLane doesn't like Crane? Has that been made public?
-
David Barron (@dfbarron)
10/29/13, 7:58 PM
Judge Isgur has entered an order in the CSN Houston bankruptcy case that allows the Astros to seek new options toward a new business plan.
David Barron (@dfbarron)
10/29/13, 7:58 PM
The order makes the Astros the lead negotiator for the Houston Regional Sports Network partnership that includes Rockets and Comcast.
David Barron (@dfbarron)
10/29/13, 8:00 PM
The Astros on behalf of HRSN are allowed to "investigate and negotiate the terms" of carriage, broadcast and management agreements ...
@dfbarron: Also of purchase and sale agreements, debt and equity investments and "other matters pertaining to the formulation of a business plan."
@dfbarron: The parties will hold weekly telephone conferences, A status conference before Judge Isgur has been set for Nov. 13.
@dfbarron: No third party that undertakes negotiations at the Astros' request (including DirecTV and Fox) "will have any liability to any persons" ...
@dfbarron: "For the good faith implementation of this order." Other actions, including Astros motion for dismissal and Comcast for trustee, are on hold
-
Doesn't matter where it came from. He got a $70mm discount specifically to agree to the league switch.
Nope. What Crane got was a $70M discount to purchase an AL team.
-
Also, why do you say McLane doesn't like Crane? Has that been made public?
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2011/08/17/justice-jury-will-be-out-on-crane-even-after-astros-sale/
Finally, there are Crane’s baseball dealings. After he backed out of a 2008 agreement to buy the Astros, he seemed unlikely ever to have the opportunity to own a major league team. McLane was furious with Crane and conveyed that fury to Selig. For a couple of years, any suggestion of Crane’s owning a major league team was treated dismissively by MLB officials.
But the marketplace can create strange partnerships. When Crane offered the second-highest amount ever paid for a major league team, McLane changed his mind. In the last few weeks, he has lobbied other owners to OK the deal, vowing Crane will be good for the Astros.
A cynic might make the case that McLane would push for the Boston Strangler if the price were right.
-
I don't think I ever would have imagined that Dick Justice might inspire me to listen to Let It Bleed.
I'm pretty on the fence about that record, to tell you the truth.
-
Do you really think Crane owning the team in the AL West is worse than McLane owning the team in the NL Central?
Yes. Without question.
-
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2011/08/17/justice-jury-will-be-out-on-crane-even-after-astros-sale/
Ah, right. Who knows where we'd be if they had made that original deal.
-
David Barron (@dfbarron)
10/29/13, 7:58 PM
Judge Isgur has entered an order in the CSN Houston bankruptcy case that allows the Astros to seek new options toward a new business plan.
David Barron (@dfbarron)
10/29/13, 7:58 PM
The order makes the Astros the lead negotiator for the Houston Regional Sports Network partnership that includes Rockets and Comcast.
David Barron (@dfbarron)
10/29/13, 8:00 PM
The Astros on behalf of HRSN are allowed to "investigate and negotiate the terms" of carriage, broadcast and management agreements ...
I'm confused, so were the Astros not negotiating or seeking a contract prior to this?
-
Sounds like I need to go down there and beat the shit out of all of them.
-
I bet the Astros end up back at Fox. Which would be fine by me since I can actually receive the network in Dallas area.
-
I wish the judge would order the Astros to negotiate the return of Jim DeShaies from the fucking Cubs. That would really make the TV situation better.
-
I'm confused, so were the Astros not negotiating or seeking a contract prior to this?
The way I read it is that the Astros get to do the negotiating, not NBC/Comcast. It also looks like the Astros have the power to take their network to other entities besides Comcast.
-
I wish the judge would order the Astros to negotiate the return of Jim DeShaies from the fucking Cubs. That would really make the TV situation better.
Absofuckinglutely. Does Cub Fan even realize what they got yet in Deshaies yet? Doubtful.
-
Sounds like I need to go down there and beat the shit out of all of them.
When is this not the case?
-
When is this not the case?
Exactly. If HH ran the place, then we'd have a far better world.
-
I'm confused, so were the Astros not negotiating or seeking a contract prior to this?
Comcast was in charge of negotiating the carriage rights. That is their business. The Astros and Rockets had to approve deals they brought forward and the Astros kept rejecting them because the deals wouldn't be profitable for the network. Comcast said they weren't going to get fees that would make the network profitable according to the business plan so the Astros said they needed to change the business plan. Comcast instead filed for bankruptcy trying to have some trustee to try and leverage more control for Comcast, but instead it blew up in their faces and the judge asked Crane if he thought he could reorganize the business and negotiate a deal that would make the network profitable. Crane said something along the lines of "I'm in the overnight business, I can reorganize and get a deal done in 30 days". So the judge said "prove it".
At least that's how I understand all of this.
-
Crane said something along the lines of "I'm in the overnight business, I can reorganize and get a deal done in 30 days". So the judge said "prove it".
The overnight business has dick-all to do with negotiating TV rights, but let Crane enjoy his wordplay.
-
The overnight business has dick-all to do with negotiating TV rights, but let Crane enjoy his wordplay.
I don't know anything about negotiating TV rights or the shipping business, but at this point I feel like Crane and the Astros are more capable of putting together a deal that will be profitable for the network than Comcast is. Comcast seems completely lost.
-
There still seems to be something missing from this story, unless you believe it is obvious that Crane can negotiate carriage deals better than Comcast.
Barron mentioned the "most favored nation" clause applied to Comcast where, if another provider such as Direct TV was signed on at a lower subscriber cost than Comcast subscribers pay, the lower rate would then automatically also apply to Comcast. I couldn't determine if the implication was that the clause was an incentive for Comcast to accept lower fees from Direct TV in order lower the fees they paid, or just a disincentive to fight for higher fees. Of course, this line of thought brings up the question: Why would Comcast sacrifice the profitability of their Houston network just to reduce their subscriber fees?
If was further implied by Crane that Comcast didn't care about profitability, because being unprofitable would allow them to gobble up the Astros' equity in the network. The mechanics of this one still baffles me.
I assume that since the Judge is allowing Crane to negotiate the deals, then he must put some credence in these arguments, and feel that things will be solved by giving Crane the ability to negotiate. Either that, or the arguments will be shown as wanting, and allow deals to be signed at rates similar to ones previously negotiated by Comcast.
-
Exactly. If HH ran the place, then we'd have a far better world.
Well, we'd at least have the Astros on TV...which now that you mention it, certainly would make the world far better.
-
Well, we'd at least have the Astros on TV...which now that you mention it, certainly would make the world far better.
Agreed.
-
There still seems to be something missing from this story, unless you believe it is obvious that Crane can negotiate carriage deals better than Comcast.
Barron mentioned the "most favored nation" clause applied to Comcast where, if another provider such as Direct TV was signed on at a lower subscriber cost than Comcast subscribers pay, the lower rate would then automatically also apply to Comcast. I couldn't determine if the implication was that the clause was an incentive for Comcast to accept lower fees from Direct TV in order lower the fees they paid, or just a disincentive to fight for higher fees. Of course, this line of thought brings up the question: Why would Comcast sacrifice the profitability of their Houston network just to reduce their subscriber fees?
If was further implied by Crane that Comcast didn't care about profitability, because being unprofitable would allow them to gobble up the Astros' equity in the network. The mechanics of this one still baffles me.
I assume that since the Judge is allowing Crane to negotiate the deals, then he must put some credence in these arguments, and feel that things will be solved by giving Crane the ability to negotiate. Either that, or the arguments will be shown as wanting, and allow deals to be signed at rates similar to ones previously negotiated by Comcast.
The one thing that is obvious is that the deal McLane/Alexander/Comcast put together was not a good one.
-
Absofuckinglutely. Does Cub Fan even realize what they got yet in Deshaies yet? Doubtful.
That would require an I.Q. greater than their waist size.
-
whoa thats pretty high
-
Alexander is interested in buying out the network and Crane's listening.
The hearing lasted less than an hour, including Alexander’s statement to the court about his interest in buying the network and a statement by Crane’s attorney, Harry Perrin, that “some traction has been made” in Crane’s efforts to develop a new business plan.
The two owners conferred briefly outside the courtroom, and Crane said he hopes to hear from Alexander about his bid to buy the 68 percent of CSN Houston that Alexander does not own.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimaterockets/2013/11/leslie-alexander-interested-in-buying-all-of-houston-regional-sports-network/ (http://blog.chron.com/ultimaterockets/2013/11/leslie-alexander-interested-in-buying-all-of-houston-regional-sports-network/)
-
To someone who wants to see the Astros, what would Alexander buying out Crane's ownership in CSN actually mean? Would the broadcast rights for the Astros remain with CSN, and Alexander's CSN pay Crane the fees, or would this allow Crane to shop his rights around?
If the broadcast rights (and present price for those rights) remain with CSN, I guess it would give Crane a big cash infusion, but limit his potential future TV revenues and upside should the network take off.
-
To someone who wants to see the Astros, what would Alexander buying out Crane's ownership in CSN actually mean? Would the broadcast rights for the Astros remain with CSN, and Alexander's CSN pay Crane the fees, or would this allow Crane to shop his rights around?
If the broadcast rights (and present price for those rights) remain with CSN, I guess it would give Crane a big cash infusion, but limit his potential future TV revenues and upside should the network take off.
I assume it means the Astros could go to Fox Sports SW (or some other carrier).
-
that would amount to a yippe skippe happy days are here again around the world happy dance
-
Maybe this is related?
David Barron (@dfbarron)
11/21/13, 5:45 PM
The Astros have filed an unspecified document in state court and will hold a news conference tomorrow to discuss it.
-
I assume it means the Astros could go to Fox Sports SW (or some other carrier).
This is my hope. I just switched to U-Verse and I made sure they have FSSW.
-
I guess this is the document? (http://www.scribd.com/doc/186181350/Houston-Astros-Statement-Re-Lawsuit-Against-Drayton-McLane-and-Comcast)
-
Can an attorney translate? What does this mean?
-
Well, that's certainly a strongly worded letter.
-
Well, that's certainly a strongly worded letter.
"Fraud" and "conspiracy" will definitely get your attention.
-
I guess this is the document? (http://www.scribd.com/doc/186181350/Houston-Astros-Statement-Re-Lawsuit-Against-Drayton-McLane-and-Comcast)
Wow. Suing Drayton for fraud. This should be entertaining.
-
The statute of limitations for negligent misrepresentation is two years, which prompted the sudden filing.
-
Really, you can't expect anything but good to come of this.
-
Really, you can't expect anything but good to come of this.
Hey, Crane is represented by David Boies. At least the lawyering will be good.
-
McLane Champions, LLC? That's adorable.
-
McLane Champions, LLC? That's adorable.
"What have you done to be a champion today?"
"I defrauded some schlub."
-
McLane Champions, LLC? That's adorable.
Someone joked on twitter "how much do you want to bet that every one of Drayton's passwords is some variant of champions?"
-
Someone joked on twitter "how much do you want to bet that every one of Drayton's passwords is some variant of champions?"
That was me.
-
"What have you done to be a champion today?"
"I defrauded some schlub."
This made me laugh out loud.
So I'm now rooting for Alex Rodriguez and Jim Crane.
At this point I might as well go out and buy a Cowboys t-shirt and a Sooners visor.
-
I guess this is the document? (http://www.scribd.com/doc/186181350/Houston-Astros-Statement-Re-Lawsuit-Against-Drayton-McLane-and-Comcast)
I figured all along that somehow he was going to have to sue McLane.
-
So could the sell be voided and we end up with Drayton again?
-
So could the sell be voided and we end up with Drayton again?
That's a great question, and one for which I hope that the answer is no. Drayton McLane's last several years as owner were some of the worst.
-
So could the sell be voided and we end up with Drayton again?
Crane doesn't want to lose the team, he just wants to get some/most/all of his money back.
-
This made me laugh out loud.
So I'm now rooting for Alex Rodriguez and Jim Crane.
At this point I might as well go out and buy a Cowboys t-shirt and a Sooners visor.
I'll get you the t-shirt. Nice blue one with a big silver star.
-
I'll get you the t-shirt. Nice blue one with a big silver star.
On the back, have printed "Homo for Romo"
-
I figured all along that somehow he was going to have to sue McLane.
Anyone else betting that this comes down to it being roughly 50/50 non-disclosure/bollocksed-up due diligence?
-
So apparently the attorney Crane hired is kind of a big deal?
Im no Crane fan but I hope he takes that huckster to the cleaners.
-
So apparently the attorney Crane hired is kind of a big deal?
Im no Crane fan but I hope he takes that huckster to the cleaners.
Crane and McLane will duke it out over millions of dollars accumulated from the pockets of Astros fans, either directly, or by way of being engaged in the team so as to be sold to by its sponsors and advertisers. Those fans will be the only losers here.
The only winners, as usual, will be the lawyers.
-
That was me.
Good one!
-
So apparently the attorney Crane hired is kind of a big deal?
One of the best in the country. Should be fun.
-
Anyone else betting that this comes down to it being roughly 50/50 non-disclosure/bollocksed-up due diligence?
I'm sure there are thousands of disclaimers in the documents that Drayton will be relying upon.
-
Well, getting to see some fancy new york lawyer type squeeze blood out of Drayton, will at least provide a modicum of enjoyment for me.
-
Would someone like David Boies even take this case unless there is a very high probability that Crane is going to win?
-
Would someone like David Boies even take this case unless there is a very high probability that Crane is going to win?
He's probably getting paid by the hour.
-
I'm sure there are thousands of disclaimers in the documents that Drayton will be relying upon.
Two words: caveat emptor
In my layman's opinion, it's up to the buyer to seek out the truth of what they're buying. The seller can choose to answer or not answer any questions, but cannot lie. If the buyer doesn't ask the right questions, the seller has no duty to disclose.
Correct? I'm not aware of any legal standard minimum amount of information the seller is required to offer up.
-
Two words: caveat emptor
In my layman's opinion, it's up to the buyer to seek out the truth of what they're buying. The seller can choose to answer or not answer any questions, but cannot lie. If the buyer doesn't ask the right questions, the seller has no duty to disclose.
Correct? I'm not aware of any legal standard minimum amount of information the seller is required to offer up.
Fortunately the law imposes the obligation on a seller to not lie about or conceal known information that is material to a sale.
-
One of the best in the country. Should be fun.
I understand that he and Franci Crane were associates together at the same firm, or some such.
-
If you are buying a portion of a network worth nine figures and don't get a lot of advice from multiple people who know how to value those things and who can lay bare the assumptions underlying the valuation, it is all on you. Did Crane fail to enlist these people, or fail to properly evaluate their findings?
-
In my layman's opinion, it's up to the buyer to seek out the truth of what they're buying. The seller can choose to answer or not answer any questions, but cannot lie. If the buyer doesn't ask the right questions, the seller has no duty to disclose.
From David Barron's breakdown (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/11/astros-owner-sues-drayton-mclane-comcast-and-nbc-claiming-fraud/), sounds like that's why the head of the NBC Sports Group is included in the suit:
Crane’s suit alleges that McLane and Rockets owner Leslie Alexander demanded in 2010 that Comcast charge a base subscriber rate for CSN Houston in Zone 1 – the area around Houston where Astros and Rockets games can be seen — that Comcast said was too high. In fact, the suit said, the rate was so high that Comcast feared it could not convince other distributors to carry the network.
Comcast eventually agreed to the inflated base rate, the suit said, in return for a most favored nation clause, which insured Comcast it would always pay the lowest base rate of any distributor.
...
He also accuses Jon Litner, group president of the NBC Sports Group, of making false and misleading claims that the CSN Houston business plan was achievable, even though they were based on what the company knew were inflated subscriber rates.
-
Fortunately the law imposes the obligation on a seller to not lie about or conceal known information that is material to a sale.
Ah, yes.
Then they get to have a lovely bun fight over what is considered "material".
-
From the lawsuit it states that Drayton knew the rates he was quoting were not accurate and Crane now has the documents to prove it.
So if Drayton stated that the network had deals lined up to sell it at X per subscription, when that was a lie and Drayton knew it was a lie, seems like that pretty much amounts to fraud.
-
Ah, yes.
Then they get to have a lovely bun fight over what is considered "material".
Kind of like how if some BMW dealer leased you a car, and knew at the time that the care would break down routinely but didn't bother to tell you, you might be a little upset.
-
Not everyone wants to make lemonade with lemons, sometimes they just want to get rid of the lemons.
-
Would someone like David Boies even take this case unless there is a very high probability that Crane is going to win?
I don't know the details but it doesn't seem like he won Bush v Gore to me.
-
From the lawsuit it states that Drayton knew the rates he was quoting were not accurate and Crane now has the documents to prove it.
So if Drayton stated that the network had deals lined up to sell it at X per subscription, when that was a lie and Drayton knew it was a lie, seems like that pretty much amounts to fraud.
Where do you see the language about deals that were lined up?
I have only read an article where Crane alleges that McLane and Alexander asked Comcast to charge rates that Comcast didn't think were fair and didn't think other carriers would accept. Sounds familiar. Isn't that the same rate Crane has been trying to get Direct TV and others to accept? After pleading for those rates for the last year or so (remember, "I'm just looking for a fair deal"), Crane just now realizes the market won't bear that price? So, not only didn't he realize before the purchase that the financials were suspect, but it took him two years of ownership to come to that conclusion?
-
So, not only didn't he realize before the purchase that the financials were suspect, but it took him two years of ownership to come to that conclusion?
Two years during which he made his element of the product unmarketable.
-
Would someone like David Boies even take this case unless there is a very high probability that Crane is going to win?
Name sounds familiar. Wasn't he involved in the "Hanging Chad" case, in terms of arguing it before the supreme court?
-
This made me laugh out loud.
So I'm now rooting for Alex Rodriguez and Jim Crane.
At this point I might as well go out and buy a Cowboys t-shirt and a Sooners visor.
Ack! I am rooting for Crane on this one, don't care about Alex, will never go over to the dark side and root for the Cowboys (too much Luv Ya Blue in me still) and the Sooners? Eh, who cares!
-
I don't know the details but it doesn't seem like he won Bush v Gore to me.
Or the defense of Andrew Fastow. You can't win 'em all! (But you can get paid for them all.)
In sports related cases, he's represented Steinbrenner against MLB, the NFL in their antitrust case, the Golden Gate Yacht Club in its America's Cup lawsuits, the NBA Players Association in the recent lock-out and Jamie McCourt in her divorce against Frank McCourt.
-
Or the defense of Andrew Fastow. You can't win 'em all! (But you can get paid for them all.)
Fastow got 6 years in a low security prison and is out of jail, not sure that was a loss.
Boies, according to lawyers I know is considered one of the best trial lawyers in the country.
-
Fraud is not only telling someone something that is not true, it is knowingly telling someone something that is not true. It is very difficult to prove.
In addition, in a sale and purchase agreement, the seller and the purchaser typically give representations and warranties to each other about themselves. For example, they will each represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to enter into the transaction, that the transaction will not conflict with any laws applicable to them or any other contracts to which they are parties, that there is no litigation that is reasonably likely to impede the transaction, etc.
The seller also gives representations and warranties about the company or assets being sold. McLane may have given Crane representations and warranties about the network, its business, financial condition, contracts, actual and threatened litigation and other matters. The seller may qualify the representations and warranties with disclosures. For instance, a seller may represent and warrant, "Except as disclosed in and qualified by Schedule 5, the company is not in material breach of any material contract to which the company is a party." A representation and warranty may also be qualified for knowledge. As an example, the seller may represent and warrant, "There is no litigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Seller, threatened against the company."
If there is a breach of representations and warranties, the breaching party will be liable to the other party for damages. There is usually a minimum of damages that must be reached before a claim can be made, plus a maximum, plus time limits.
The parties will commonly also have a disclaimer and waiver that states that other than the representations and warranties given in the agreement, there are no other representations or warranties applicable to the transaction. This includes any representations or warranties provided by law, except for those that cannot be disclaimed or waived. Neither party can disclaim or waive liability for fraud. There is also typically an exception for forward-looking statements, projections, etc. The seller does not want to be liable for these.
Under Texas and New York law, courts tend to interpret these provisions strictly as written. For example, even if the purchaser could have discovered something by due diligence or knew or should have known about an issue, if the seller gave a representation and warranty that turns out not to be true and correct, the seller may be liable for breach. The parties sometimes deal with this by having the purchaser represent and warrant that the purchaser has no knowledge of any facts or circumstances that would cause the representations and warranties of the seller to be untrue or incorrect, but purchasers are generally unwilling to give such a representation and warranty for obvious reasons.
So due diligence and caveat emptor are not the end of the analysis. If McLane gave representations and warranties that are proved to have been untrue or incorrect at the time of signing the agreement or closing the transaction, then he may be liable to Crane for damages, even if Crane could have looked harder or figured something out himself.
-
On the back, have printed "Homo for Romo"
A bit redundant what with the visor I would think.
-
Where do you see the language about deals that were lined up?
I have only read an article where Crane alleges that McLane and Alexander asked Comcast to charge rates that Comcast didn't think were fair and didn't think other carriers would accept. Sounds familiar. Isn't that the same rate Crane has been trying to get Direct TV and others to accept? After pleading for those rates for the last year or so (remember, "I'm just looking for a fair deal"), Crane just now realizes the market won't bear that price? So, not only didn't he realize before the purchase that the financials were suspect, but it took him two years of ownership to come to that conclusion?
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/wp-content/blogs.dir/1916/files/2013/11/58392438.pdf
See #23 on page 9.
-
If McLane gave representations and warranties that are proved to have been untrue or incorrect at the time of signing the agreement or closing the transaction, then he may be liable to Crane for damages, even if Crane could have looked harder or figured something out himself.
That is exactly what Crane is claiming/suing for. See the pdf file above.
-
That is exactly what Crane is claiming/suing for. See the pdf file above.
The PDF states that Crane is suing for breach of contract in addition to negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy, but because this is only a notice to the bankruptcy court about the lawsuit rather than the complaint itself, we can only speculate on whether the breach of contract relates to a specific representation and warranty. It could be that the alleged negligent representation is itself a breach of contract even if no specific representation and warranty was breached. That being said, it would be difficult to imagine a scenario where a seller committed negligent misrepresentation without breaching a specific representation and warranty.
Bench can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that negligent misrepresentation is a reckless disregard for the facts, as opposed to outright fraud, which is knowingly lying. I am no litigator, so I am not sure.
Edited: Sorry, Navin, I thought you meant the PDF way up there, not the most recent one with the complaint. Interesting.
-
Edited: Sorry, Navin, I thought you meant the PDF way up there, not the most recent one with the complaint. Interesting.
When you have a chance to take a look at it, I'd love to hear your opinion.
This thing is fascinating to me.
-
Argument seems pretty weak to me.
-
Boies, according to lawyers I know is considered one of the best trial lawyers in the country.
He absolutely is.
-
I note that rescission of the sale was not in the prayer.
-
I note that rescission of the sale was not in the prayer.
Right. Just benefit of the bargain and reliance damages.
-
Right. Just benefit of the bargain and reliance damages.
This means what in laymans (Navin) terms?
-
This means what in laymans (Navin) terms?
Benefit of the bargain = the amount of money that would put him in the position that he would have been if the lies had been true. (Here, what the value of the interest he was sold in CSN would have been if it had succeeded)
Reliance = out of pocket money that he paid because he was induced by the misrepresentations. (The amount of money he paid for his interest in CSN)
-
This means what in laymans (Navin) terms?
Cashie money.
-
Fraud is not only telling someone something that is not true, it is knowingly telling someone something that is not true. It is very difficult to prove.
In addition, in a sale and purchase agreement, the seller and the purchaser typically give representations and warranties to each other about themselves. For example, they will each represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to enter into the transaction, that the transaction will not conflict with any laws applicable to them or any other contracts to which they are parties, that there is no litigation that is reasonably likely to impede the transaction, etc.
The seller also gives representations and warranties about the company or assets being sold. McLane may have given Crane representations and warranties about the network, its business, financial condition, contracts, actual and threatened litigation and other matters. The seller may qualify the representations and warranties with disclosures. For instance, a seller may represent and warrant, "Except as disclosed in and qualified by Schedule 5, the company is not in material breach of any material contract to which the company is a party." A representation and warranty may also be qualified for knowledge. As an example, the seller may represent and warrant, "There is no litigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Seller, threatened against the company."
If there is a breach of representations and warranties, the breaching party will be liable to the other party for damages. There is usually a minimum of damages that must be reached before a claim can be made, plus a maximum, plus time limits.
The parties will commonly also have a disclaimer and waiver that states that other than the representations and warranties given in the agreement, there are no other representations or warranties applicable to the transaction. This includes any representations or warranties provided by law, except for those that cannot be disclaimed or waived. Neither party can disclaim or waive liability for fraud. There is also typically an exception for forward-looking statements, projections, etc. The seller does not want to be liable for these.
Under Texas and New York law, courts tend to interpret these provisions strictly as written. For example, even if the purchaser could have discovered something by due diligence or knew or should have known about an issue, if the seller gave a representation and warranty that turns out not to be true and correct, the seller may be liable for breach. The parties sometimes deal with this by having the purchaser represent and warrant that the purchaser has no knowledge of any facts or circumstances that would cause the representations and warranties of the seller to be untrue or incorrect, but purchasers are generally unwilling to give such a representation and warranty for obvious reasons.
So due diligence and caveat emptor are not the end of the analysis. If McLane gave representations and warranties that are proved to have been untrue or incorrect at the time of signing the agreement or closing the transaction, then he may be liable to Crane for damages, even if Crane could have looked harder or figured something out himself.
Am I the only one worriedly checking their message box for a bill?
-
Some notes from the press conference from
http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2013/11/22/5134330/astros-crane-lawsuit-notes-from-fridays-press-conference
*Crane said this has been gestating for a long time. "We had a meeting in December 2012 in New York with all three parties to discuss the deal. One of Comcast's representatives turned to Leslie (Alexander) and said, 'I told you those numbers wouldn't work.'"
*Crane's main complaint is that Comcast, McLane and Alexander entered into an agreement that artificially inflated the price of the network by setting rights fees into the business model that were unsustainable. That's the basis for the fraud, as the three agreed to those numbers based on Comcast getting a share of the network for himself.
*MLB is in the loop here and was supportive of his decision to bring the lawsuit against Drayton.
-
Am I the only one worriedly checking their message box for a bill?
Forget the message box - check your bank account for the debit transaction.
-
*MLB is in the loop here and was supportive of his decision to bring the lawsuit against Drayton.
Glad all that gorvelling of Bud's schlong paid of for you, Draytie.
-
Glad all that gorvelling of Bud's schlong paid of for you, Draytie.
Selig should volunteer to testify just to fuck with A-Rod.
-
The Grocer spits back: (http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2013/11/22/drayton-mclane-responds-to-crane-lawsuit/)
I haven’t seen the lawsuit yet, but Jim Crane is highly experienced and has been in business over 30 years. He is surrounded by top tier accounts, attorneys, operators and marketers and he has participated in transactions even larger than this one. His experts meticulously examined the Houston Astros financial position. My team was absolutely transparent and produced thousands of pages of documents; we provide answers to explanations to all of their questions. Any suggestion otherwise is absolutely false. As an example, today, Jim Crane reportedly stated that he did not receive the business plan for CSN Houston prior to the purchase. That is not true.
This was one of the most complex and scrutinized transactions of my business career. Jim’s group had all the facts. In fact, he told the Chronicle this September that the regional sports network had ‘good long-term value.’ The Accusations that have been reported are hollow and appear to be an attempt to recreate the facts,. We will respond in a vigorous and persuasive manner to the lawsuit.
-
I feel like a kid on the last day of school.
-
I could have told Crane that the CSN business plan didn't make sense if he had asked me.
-
Fastow got 6 years in a low security prison and is out of jail, not sure that was a loss.
Boies, according to lawyers I know is considered one of the best trial lawyers in the country.
Didn't he also represent the government in the Microsoft anti-trust case?
-
So lawyers, when will this see trial and when can we expect a decision?
-
So lawyers, when will this see trial and when can we expect a decision?
(1) It won't. (2) Expect a settlement anytime in the next few years.
-
(1) It won't. (2) Expect a settlement anytime in the next few years.
I want entertainment. The product field is not providing enough
-
I want entertainment. The product field is not providing enough
There will be plenty of entertainment. There will be filings, press statements and hearings. But there most likely will never be a trial.
In the meantime, the lawsuit will probably be stayed by the bankruptcy proceeding and however that pans out will probably resolve the dispute between Crane and Drayton.
-
I note that rescission of the sale was not in the prayer.
Rescission would be highly unusual if for no other reason than unwinding a deal that was signed and closed so long ago would be a nightmare. I would be very surprised if the sale agreement did not specify that a claim under the indemnity provisions is the sole remedy available to the purchaser, although of course the negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims could be claimed outside of the confines of that provision.
-
Forget the message box - check your bank account for the debit transaction.
Sorry. I tend to be long-winded by nature. The choice of profession simply made matters worse.
-
And now the negotiations are in the Rockets' hands. (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2013/12/rockets_take_over_csn_houston.php) The Rockets take over as lead negotiator citing Crane's fraud suit as a potential conflict.
The Rockets have also made a formal bid to buy the network.
-
AC (http://www.astroscounty.com/ (http://www.astroscounty.com/)) posted a tweet by McTaggart where Crane states that MLB will help get the games available should the TV fiasco continue. AC speculates that might mean a temporary waiving of the blackout rules, or streaming. I hope it is the former, but either option is better than last year. Great news if accurate.
-
AC (http://www.astroscounty.com/ (http://www.astroscounty.com/)) posted a tweet by McTaggart where Crane states that MLB will help get the games available should the TV fiasco continue. AC speculates that might mean a temporary waiving of the blackout rules, or streaming. I hope it is the former, but either option is better than last year. Great news if accurate.
Just think of all the bitching we won't get to do.
-
AC speculates that might mean a temporary waiving of the blackout rules, or streaming.
Isn't that a giant "Fuck You!" to Crane?
-
Isn't that a giant "Fuck You!" to Crane?
It seems like it's aimed more at Comcast and AT&T.
-
I'm probably missing something but if U-verse doesn't carry CSN/Houston, how is waiving the blackout rules going to help me see the Astros?
-
I'm probably missing something but if U-verse doesn't carry CSN/Houston, how is waiving the blackout rules going to help me see the Astros?
You get it through MLB TV (or whatever it is called). You pay, but you have access.
-
It seems like it's aimed more at Comcast and AT&T.
Not sure about AT&T, but Crane doesn't seem keen on CSN Houston's continued existence, so screwing them over isn't likely a concern of his. However, it would seem like they would rightly protest and it might add another concurrent legal proceeding to the mix.
-
You get it through MLB TV (or whatever it is called). You pay, but you have access.
Or Extra Innings?
-
AC (http://www.astroscounty.com/ (http://www.astroscounty.com/)) posted a tweet by McTaggart where Crane states that MLB will help get the games available should the TV fiasco continue. AC speculates that might mean a temporary waiving of the blackout rules, or streaming. I hope it is the former, but either option is better than last year. Great news if accurate.
Yep, having dropped cable and going with a Roku, at least partly due to this tv fiasco, I would gladly welcome an alternative method to watch the club, for however long it lasts.
-
Yep, having dropped cable and going with a Roku, at least partly due to this tv fiasco, I would gladly welcome an alternative method to watch the club, for however long it lasts.
The alternative method I've been using to watch this team is "from behind my fingers".
-
The alternative method I've been using to watch this team is "from behind my fingers".
Nice.
-
More hearings today. Easiest way to follow along is simply to check out David Barron's Twitter Feed (https://twitter.com/dfbarron).
-
Crane promised that Astros games would be televised this season. He's getting a little short on time to
fulfill that promise isn't he?
-
Crane promised that Astros games would be televised this season. He's getting a little short on time to
fulfill that promise isn't he?
MLB Network?
-
MLB Network?
Two cans and a piece of string.
-
the cost of the string might make that prohibitive
-
MLB Network?
Perhaps...
David Barron @dfbarron
If Astros get media rights back, Jim Crane told @EvanDrellich last week he has spoken with @MLBNetwork on plan to show games.
David Barron @dfbarron
MLB will not comment, but a spokesman confirms @MLBNetwork can split signal along regional lines to allow more than one program at once.
David Barron @dfbarron
If you missed it previously, MLB is represented here by attorney in addition to Astros' counsel.
-
@dfbarron: Judge Isgur says he will order that CSN Houston enter into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
-
@dfbarron: Judge Isgur says he will order that CSN Houston enter into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
So, Barron says this is not what the Astros wanted. Does this decision significantly lower the odds of a TV deal, or make it more likely but at a price Crane will not like?
-
Not knowing a ton about it, a wild-assed guess would be that it preserves the status quo until the bankruptcy court sometime in the far-distant future decides what everybody's rights are.
-
No idea but from what I understand this means the Astros can't walk away yet with their media rights, which seems like a loss for the Astros.
-
No idea but from what I understand this means the Astros can't walk away yet with their media rights, which seems like a loss for the Astros.
That sounds like the plot to a bad rom-com (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033643/).
-
That sounds like the plot to a bad rom-com (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033643/).
What's the plot of a good rom-com? Other than Bull Durham of course.
-
What's the plot of a good rom-com? Other than Bull Durham of course.
A young Shakespeare, out of ideas and short of cash, meets his ideal woman and is inspired to write one of his most famous plays...
-
Light at the end of the tunnel?
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/07/rockets-astros-optimistic-they-are-close-to-deal-to-reorganize-troubled-tv-network/ (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/07/rockets-astros-optimistic-they-are-close-to-deal-to-reorganize-troubled-tv-network/)
-
Light at the end of the tunnel?
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/07/rockets-astros-optimistic-they-are-close-to-deal-to-reorganize-troubled-tv-network/ (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/07/rockets-astros-optimistic-they-are-close-to-deal-to-reorganize-troubled-tv-network/)
So if this goes through, the channel will be available on Direct TV and/or U-Verse, but not Comcast?
Frying pan...fire.
-
Per David Barron today:
...speculation increased today that AT&T is the most likely candidate to submit a bid for the bankrupt Astros-Rockets-Comcast television partnership. Bloomberg News reported that AT&T is considering a bid for the network...
AT&T does not operate a regional sports network but is in the process of acquiring DirecTV, which owns or operates RSNs in Seattle, Pittsburgh and Denver under the Root Sports banner. (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/08/report-att-to-make-bid-for-csn-houston/)
-
Ok by me.
-
so once again those of us with time warner are screwed
-
so once again those of us with time warner are screwed
Too early to tell I would think. But probably. I don't know why AT&T would want to "share" with their biggest competitor.
-
It's hard for me to imagine a deal being priced in a way that ATT wouldn't obtain carriage by all the major players.
-
It's hard for me to imagine a deal being priced in a way that ATT wouldn't obtain carriage by all the major players.
Does DirecTV offer its "Root" packages to its own customers on a premium package basis? It will be interesting to see if they change their tune regarding tiered sports packages when they have skin in the content game.
-
Probably the first time I've ever felt optimistic about the network. Astros and Rockets are also suing Comcast.
-
Does DirecTV offer its "Root" packages to its own customers on a premium package basis? It will be interesting to see if they change their tune regarding tiered sports packages when they have skin in the content game.
Good question. I used to have the sports package and since dropped it, so I don't know. But, if they carry Fox Sports SW on the non-sports package, I bet Roots Sports Houston would also be offered the same way. Most likely to all within the five state area, but within Houston for sure. I would think.
Two more months for final final resolution kind of sucks though.
-
My primary worry here is that if AT&T gets blocked from purchasing DirectTV, this all goes to hell, right?
-
My primary worry here is that if AT&T gets blocked from purchasing DirectTV, this all goes to hell, right?
Why?
-
Why?
The partnership between AT&T and DirectTV seems to be the core of this deal, so if their partnership at a higher level goes tits up, wouldn't it follow that the partnership to buy CSN-H would be affected?
-
The partnership between AT&T and DirectTV seems to be the core of this deal, so if their partnership at a higher level goes tits up, wouldn't it follow that the partnership to buy CSN-H would be affected?
I dunno. Seems to me that if the deal didn't go through AT&T would still compete with DTV and the other providers for customers and having a competitive advantage with programming should be important to them. They will get a significant amount of switchers with this sports package. I know folks are switching from DTV to get the Longhorn Network on another provider. But I may be way off-base.
-
Update via David Barron: Chron LINK (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/08/resolution-reached-in-csn-houston-dispute-as-reworked-networks-availability-to-expand-greatly/)
-
Update via David Barron: Chron LINK (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/08/resolution-reached-in-csn-houston-dispute-as-reworked-networks-availability-to-expand-greatly/)
The channel, now ROOT Sports Houston, could be available on DirecTV and U-Verse by October 5.
-
Our long regional nightmare is over?
-
The channel, now ROOT Sports Houston, could be available on DirecTV and U-Verse by October 5.
Just in time for the World Series!
-
Our long regional nightmare is over?
Unless you don't have U-Verse or DirecTV.
-
I thought they said Comcast subscribers would get games as well.
-
I thought they said Comcast subscribers would get games as well.
I think that's right.
-
I thought they said Comcast subscribers would get games as well.
What about the Time Warner folks in San Antonio and Austin?
-
What about the Time Warner folks in San Antonio and Austin?
I think they said they had 78% of the cable coverage, so maybe they are in the 22%.
-
I think they said they had 78% of the cable coverage, so maybe they are in the 22%.
So the channel's new slogan is "78% of the time it works every time"?
-
I think they said they had 78% of the cable coverage, so maybe they are in the 22%.
Allegedly, Comcast had 40-something percent coverage, so I'd assume the 78% would include Comcast.
-
Allegedly, Comcast had 40-something percent coverage, so I'd assume the 78% would include Comcast.
Yes, Comcast+DirectTV+AT&T = 78%. I didn't see Time Warner's name so I assume they are in the no contract yet group.
-
So the channel's new slogan is "78% of the time it works every time"?
WRSH, the Sex Panther!
-
FYI, if you haven't been following Mr. Barron's reporting, the proposed deal with Direct TV/AT&T is coming to a head in the bankruptcy court. They are in day three and closing arguments of the Rockets/Astros and Comcast have been completed. At issue, as far as this non-attorney can tell, is the how much Comcast gets out of this deal, and that is a function of:
do you value the operation at the date bankruptcy was filed; or
do you value it as a new DTV/AT&T concern, and if so, what is that value.
Baron's twitter feed has been highly informative. He doesn't know if the judge will rule today, or in the near future.
-
Well, according to Barron, Judge Isgur ruled on this matter, and the ruling (paraphrasing Barron) is that Comcast is due jack shit from this deal. Barron views this as a victory for the Astros/Rockets and a major hurdle crossed to completion of the Direct TV/AT&T deal.
-
Well, according to Barron, Judge Isgur ruled on this matter, and the ruling (paraphrasing Barron) is that Comcast is due jack shit from this deal. Barron views this as a victory for the Astros/Rockets and a major hurdle to completion of the Direct TV/AT&T deal.
Okay, so the scariest environment imaginable. Thanks. That's all you gotta say, scariest environment imaginable.
-
Why is that?
-
Why is that?
Comcast get nothing which puts the TV deal in jeopardy which means that there's no CSN and still no broadcast...correct?
-
No, my summary might have been misleading. Carriage of the DTV/AT&T network (ROOT Houston or something similar) by Comcast is required. A given, based on my understanding. I assume a relic of the original deal. The "jack shit" in my summary is the money Comcast receives if the deal is approved. If the Judge ruled that Comcast was due to receive more out of the deal, the deal would have apparently fell through.
So, if the deal is finalized, carriage will include Comcast, Direct TV and AT&T. Suddenlink and DISH are not part of the initial carriage..
-
AT&T = UVerse, right? I can never keep these names straight.
-
Yes, I think UVerse is their cable branding.
-
Comcast get nothing which puts the TV deal in jeopardy which means that there's no CSN and still no broadcast...correct?
There is no CSN. Games will be broadcast by ROOT which will be owned by DTV and AT&T.
Basically it was a determination that the value of the company did not exceed the amount of Comcast's secured $100 million loan. If it did exceed, than that secured loan would be paid off before the other creditors. But since it doesn't they'll be treated as unsecured creditors or something like that.
-
Today is that last day of testimony in the bankruptcy reorganization hearing. "If Isgur, as expected, approves the plan, Root Sports Houston could be on the air Oct. 29, the first day a Rockets regular-season game will be available for local broadcast." (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/10/new-network-for-rockets-astros-awaits-judges-approval/)
-
Today is that last day of testimony in the bankruptcy reorganization hearing. "If Isgur, as expected, approves the plan, Root Sports Houston could be on the air Oct. 29, the first day a Rockets regular-season game will be available for local broadcast." (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/10/new-network-for-rockets-astros-awaits-judges-approval/)
So how does that square with:
"Presuming Isgur approves the plan, Comcast has said it will appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Isgur said earlier this month he would delay the effective takeover of the network by DirecTV and AT&T to provide Comcast time to appeal."
-
So how does that square with:
"Presuming Isgur approves the plan, Comcast has said it will appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Isgur said earlier this month he would delay the effective takeover of the network by DirecTV and AT&T to provide Comcast time to appeal."
No idea.
-
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/10/judge-approves-csn-houston-bankruptcy-plan-clears-way-for-new-network/ (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/10/judge-approves-csn-houston-bankruptcy-plan-clears-way-for-new-network/)
Good news for a lot more fans.
-
ROOT Sports is Hiring Marketing Director. Here's the link http://jobsatdirectv.com/houston/marketing/marketing-director-root-sports-(houston)-jobs
-
time warner sucks like a big dog
-
Comcast won't stand in the way of the RSN launch. (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/11/root-sports-houston-gets-clearance-to-launch/) No start date for RSN yet, but they're aiming for a Rockets game on the 14th.
-
Root Sports Southwest is live on Ch. 1758 on Uverse.
Woo!
-
Root Sports Southwest is live on Ch. 1758 on Uverse.
Woo!
674 on DirecTV and 639 on Xfinity.
The Time Warner customers remain, as ever, fucked.
-
674 on DirecTV and 639 on Xfinity.
The Time Warner customers remain, as ever, fucked.
I have no idea how Time Warner stays in business. Kind of like United Airlines.
-
I have no idea how Time Warner stays in business. Kind of like United Airlines.
Simple: Captive markets
-
Simple: Captive markets
99% of North America has the option of DirecTV.
-
99% of North America has the option of DirecTV.
A lot of apartment residents do not have the option of DirectTV. Not sure the precise magnitude of the customer base, but it is likely more than 1%.
-
A lot of apartment residents do not have the option of DirectTV. Not sure the precise magnitude of the customer base, but it is likely more than 1%.
Don't get literal on me.
-
I haven't been able to get it in my last two places - it's terrible. I have RCN now, which is like Time Warner's idiot little brother.
-
I haven't been able to get it in my last two places - it's terrible. I have RCN now, which is like Time Warner's idiot little brother.
Move out of that media backwater and get some real entertainment.
-
I haven't been able to get it in my last two places - it's terrible. I have RCN now, which is like Time Warner's idiot little brother.
People who bitch about Comcast, Time Warner etc. have clearly never experienced one of the cable resellers as a sole carrier. When I had Cox cable, I would not go a week without seriously thinking that it wasn't worth it and that I'd go back to rabbit ears.
-
99% of North America has the option of DirecTV.
Not everyone can, or wants to, put a dish on their roof. At my last place, it was not an option as I was not allowed to install anything on my balcony, which was moot as my balcony faced the wrong direction (due east).
-
Not everyone can, or wants to, put a dish on their roof. At my last place, it was not an option as I was not allowed to install anything on my balcony, which was moot as my balcony faced the wrong direction (due east).
We've been over this before. A landlord cannot prevent you from putting up a dish unless he can prove it's unsafe. Also, you don't have to put the dish on your roof, or otherwise attach it to your house.
-
We've been over this before. A landlord cannot prevent you from putting up a dish unless he can prove it's unsafe. Also, you don't have to put the dish on your roof, or otherwise attach it to your house.
But that only applies to areas where you have "exclusive use". They don't have to let you install it on an apartment building roof (but aren't supposed to stop you from having it on your balcony, although that's a fight I'm not really looking to have with this condo board). They also don't have to let you drill through the walls.
-
674 on DirecTV and 639 on Xfinity.
The Time Warner customers remain, as ever, fucked.
Yep. I'm just glad AT&T Uverse has the station in Austin. TWC has 4 months to figure this out or I'm gone. I wonder what will be shown along the I-35 corridor on RSSW during the Rockets games.
I called TWC today to ask about getting the station added, and they predictably had never heard of it before.
-
Yep. I'm just glad AT&T Uverse has the station in Austin. TWC has 4 months to figure this out or I'm gone. I wonder what will be shown along the I-35 corridor on RSSW during the Rockets games.
So, I figured I would learn for sure tonight, but is it a given that Rockets games won't be seen outside their area? I've always bought the league pass deal, but I was hoping to avoid that expense with the channel now available to me.
-
Speaking of, I couldn't help but notice that last night the Rockets shot 28% from the floor, 20% from 3-point range, and just over fifty percent of their free throws for a game total of 69 points.
AND THEY WON.
It is impossible for me to understand how anyone can watch the NBA or take it seriously as any sort of a real sport.
-
Playing a little defense helps.
Not sure why the NBA is any less watchable than other sports that aren't baseball or football.
-
I can think of only two other sports that aren't baseball or football. Soccer - an acquired taste, granted. And bass fishin'. And if you don't like bass fishin', why, YEW FEWL.
-
Weirdly, I have two direct tv dishes on my roof (technically one on my half and one on my neighbor's half) and don't have a direct tv subscription.
-
I can think of only two other sports that aren't baseball or football. Soccer - an acquired taste, granted. And bass fishin'. And if you don't like bass fishin', why, YEW FEWL.
I like bass fishing.
-
I used to tie pieces of bacon fat on string and catch crayfish. turned a bucket of em over in them ,, kinda ended that
-
So I come home, turn on the brand new Root Sports Network...just in time to see the Rockets getting their collective ass handed to them.
-
Speaking of, I couldn't help but notice that last night the Rockets shot 28% from the floor, 20% from 3-point range, and just over fifty percent of their free throws for a game total of 69 points.
AND THEY WON.
It is impossible for me to understand how anyone can watch the NBA or take it seriously as any sort of a real sport.
The good news is, going into the 4th tonight, they have a really good shot at breaking 70 points. The bad news is they're going to give up 120.
-
The good news is, going into the 4th tonight, they have a really good shot at breaking 70 points. The bad news is they're going to give up 120.
Monday Night Football is on now, you know. Maybe there aren't enough story lines for you, just a garden variety rapist.
-
Monday Night Football is on now, you know. Maybe there aren't enough story lines for you, just a garden variety rapist.
That's THERAPISTS, Mr. Connery.
-
Don't get the Rockets in Round Rock because the NBA doesn't want to share Austin with the Spurs. But, I will finally get the Astros back on TV since since the MLB says we are shared with the Rangers, but they are on FSSW. How many days until Pitchers & Catchers report? Ha!
-
They were on last night in Austin, but it was unwatchable.
-
They were on last night in Austin, but it was unwatchable.
Really? I was at my son's football banquet and there was poker on when I left. Do you have ATT? That's awesome if it was...but are you referring to the broadcast or play...or both?
-
I watched about a half dozen regular season games last year and couldn't get into it. It seemed like the ball was out of bounds 50% of the time. I can't remember if this was true 20 years ago when I used to watch every Rockets game, but I used to put up with it at least. If they keep winning I'll probably watch the playoffs, though.
-
Really? I was at my son's football banquet and there was poker on when I left. Do you have ATT? That's awesome if it was...but are you referring to the broadcast or play...or both?
Damnit, I think you solved a mystery for me. I have Direct TV and always buy the NBA league pass, but was waiting this year until the new channel started. In the meantime, I was getting league pass games, without the annoying scroll imploring me to purchase it. This seemed fishy, so I checked my Direct TV bill to see if they charged me without my consent, and saw nothing. Well, they must have.
Moral of the story: if you have league pass, you can see the games both on the 700 channels and the 674 channel, and even though I would have eventually forked over the cash, it pisses me off that Direct TV charged me without my permission.
-
Don't get the Rockets in Round Rock because the NBA doesn't want to share Austin with the Spurs. But, I will finally get the Astros back on TV since since the MLB says we are shared with the Rangers, but they are on FSSW. How many days until Pitchers & Catchers report? Ha!
This is the hell of it for the Rockets (and the Spurs and Mavs). The network territories are more or less based on MLB broadcast territories, but NBA broadcast territories are different. Whereas both the Astros and Rangers get to broadcast in all of TX, LA and OK (at the same time), the same territory for the NBA is divided by the Rockets, Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Thunder and Pelicans, and they don't overlap. That leaves each of them with a pretty small area.
-
This is the hell of it for the Rockets (and the Spurs and Mavs). The network territories are more or less based on MLB broadcast territories, but NBA broadcast territories are different. Whereas both the Astros and Rangers get to broadcast in all of TX, LA and OK (at the same time), the same territory for the NBA is divided by the Rockets, Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Thunder and Pelicans, and they don't overlap. That leaves each of them with a pretty small area.
Pelicans? WTF?
-
I still hate time warner. and you should be able to choose your team
-
Pelicans? WTF?
Formerly the Hornets. At least they had the good sense to change their nickname to something that makes sense when they moved, unlike the Utah Jazz, who have had for a while now the most ridiculously unrelated nickname in all of sports.
-
...unlike the Utah Jazz, who have had for a while now the most ridiculously unrelated nickname in all of sports.
Lakers got 'em beat by several decades.
-
We've been over this before. A landlord cannot prevent you from putting up a dish unless he can prove it's unsafe. Also, you don't have to put the dish on your roof, or otherwise attach it to your house.
FWIW, it was a condo, not an apartment. And for a dish to face south, it would have to be extended away from the building - this being the thing I was not allowed to do.
-
FWIW, it was a condo, not an apartment. And for a dish to face south, it would have to be extended away from the building - this being the thing I was not allowed to do.
Sounds like poor planning on your part.
-
I can think of only two other sports that aren't baseball or football. Soccer - an acquired taste, granted. And bass fishin'. And if you don't like bass fishin', why, YEW FEWL.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a TV, and he'll watch other people fishing all day.
-
I watched about a half dozen regular season games last year and couldn't get into it. It seemed like the ball was out of bounds 50% of the time. I can't remember if this was true 20 years ago when I used to watch every Rockets game, but I used to put up with it at least. If they keep winning I'll probably watch the playoffs, though.
On average, the ball is in play for about 60 minutes of a 90-minute soccer match. Taking into account half-time and time added on for rolling around like a 3-year old injuries, let's say the game takes a nice round 2 hours to be completed (in reality, slightly less) - that means the ball is in play for 50% of the overall game time.
On average, the ball is in play for about 12 minutes of a 60-minute NFL game. Taking into account half-time, time outs and numerous other occasions when the clock is stopped, let's say the game takes a nice round 3 hours to play (in reality, usually quite a bit more) - that means the ball is in play for 6.67% of the overall game time.
I enjoy the NFL, but the reality is that, while soccer may be "boring" because there's not enough offense taking place when the ball is in play, at least it's in play. For 93.33% of an NFL game, you are watching beer / truck commercials or grown men having a secret strategy meeting from which you're excluded.
-
Sounds like poor planning on your part.
Never wanted a dish in the first place, so no it wasn't. However, other people in the same predicament don't have the choice either, which was the issue at hand.
-
On average, the ball is in play for about 60 minutes of a 90-minute soccer match. Taking into account half-time and time added on for rolling around like a 3-year old injuries, let's say the game takes a nice round 2 hours to be completed (in reality, slightly less) - that means the ball is in play for 50% of the overall game time.
And something that I can actually tell is important is going on for about 3 minutes of that 50%.
-
On average, the ball is in play for about 60 minutes of a 90-minute soccer match. Taking into account half-time and time added on for rolling around like a 3-year old injuries, let's say the game takes a nice round 2 hours to be completed (in reality, slightly less) - that means the ball is in play for 50% of the overall game time.
On average, the ball is in play for about 12 minutes of a 60-minute NFL game. Taking into account half-time, time outs and numerous other occasions when the clock is stopped, let's say the game takes a nice round 3 hours to play (in reality, usually quite a bit more) - that means the ball is in play for 6.67% of the overall game time.
I enjoy the NFL, but the reality is that, while soccer may be "boring" because there's not enough offense taking place when the ball is in play, at least it's in play. For 93.33% of an NFL game, you are watching beer / truck commercials or grown men having a secret strategy meeting from which you're excluded.
This is why golf, oddly enough, makes for great television. There's pretty much always something actually happening in play on your screen.
-
And something that I can actually tell is important is going on for about 3 minutes of that 50%.
There's more of a chance of something happening, because the ball is in play, than for the 93% of an NFL game, when it's whistled dead.
-
I enjoy the NFL, but the reality is that, while soccer may be "boring" because there's not enough offense taking place when the ball is in play, at least it's in play. For 93.33% of an NFL game, you are watching beer / truck commercials or grown men having a secret strategy meeting from which you're excluded.
Football is a very complicated, tactical game. In that regard, much of the between play downtime isn't a negative in my opinion, because it gives you time to think about/reflect on play calling, strategy, etc. In a sport that is just a bunch of sketchy looking dudes running back and forth for an hour and half not scoring, I guess that type of reflection is less necessary.
-
There's more of a chance of something happening, because the ball is in play, than for the 93% of an NFL game, when it's whistled dead.
I'm not blaming the game, only saying that I don't see the game very knowledgeably.
-
On average, the ball is in play for about 60 minutes of a 90-minute soccer match. Taking into account half-time and time added on for rolling around like a 3-year old injuries, let's say the game takes a nice round 2 hours to be completed (in reality, slightly less) - that means the ball is in play for 50% of the overall game time.
On average, the ball is in play for about 12 minutes of a 60-minute NFL game. Taking into account half-time, time outs and numerous other occasions when the clock is stopped, let's say the game takes a nice round 3 hours to play (in reality, usually quite a bit more) - that means the ball is in play for 6.67% of the overall game time.
I enjoy the NFL, but the reality is that, while soccer may be "boring" because there's not enough offense taking place when the ball is in play, at least it's in play. For 93.33% of an NFL game, you are watching beer / truck commercials or grown men having a secret strategy meeting from which you're excluded.
That's why you watch rugby.
-
On average, the ball is in play for about 60 minutes of a 90-minute soccer match. Taking into account half-time and time added on for rolling around like a 3-year old injuries, let's say the game takes a nice round 2 hours to be completed (in reality, slightly less) - that means the ball is in play for 50% of the overall game time.
On average, the ball is in play for about 12 minutes of a 60-minute NFL game. Taking into account half-time, time outs and numerous other occasions when the clock is stopped, let's say the game takes a nice round 3 hours to play (in reality, usually quite a bit more) - that means the ball is in play for 6.67% of the overall game time.
I enjoy the NFL, but the reality is that, while soccer may be "boring" because there's not enough offense taking place when the ball is in play, at least it's in play. For 93.33% of an NFL game, you are watching beer / truck commercials or grown men having a secret strategy meeting from which you're excluded.
At least in the NBA, the ball is in play 100% of the game clock. That's only 40% of the actual tip to buzzer time, but at least the clock doesn't run when the ball is dead. Plus,there's actually scoring even when the clock is *not* running.
-
Never wanted a dish in the first place...
I refuse to believe this. That's like someone saying they never wanted an iPhone.
-
I refuse to believe this. That's like someone saying they never wanted an iPhone.
I think that dishes on buildings are ugly (like bows on the heads of babies*). Also, I have still never been anywhere that is getting TV by satellite, that has not experienced a signal outage or serious degradation when it rains.
* Seriously. Mothers, you need to stop this.
-
At least in the NBA, the ball is in play 100% of the game clock. That's only 40% of the actual tip to buzzer time, but at least the clock doesn't run when the ball is dead. Plus,there's actually scoring even when the clock is *not* running.
]
Not when the player is tackled in bounds. Something Kubiak never grasped.
-
This is why golf, oddly enough, makes for great television. There's pretty much always something actually happening in play on your screen.
Golf is great for napping on Sunday afternoon.
-
]
Not when the player is tackled in bounds. Something Kubiak never grasped.
I don't get this.
-
I think that dishes on buildings are ugly (like bows on the heads of babies*). Also, I have still never been anywhere that is getting TV by satellite, that has not experienced a signal outage or serious degradation when it rains.
We need to drag you, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
-
I'm not blaming the game, only saying that I don't see the game very knowledgeably.
FYI, the USMNT takes on the Republic O'Ireland at soccer today. 1:45pm kick-off CST (on ESPN 2).
In other news, the England national team heads to Glasgow to take on Scotland Wannabe England for the first time in 15 years. I'm sure it will be a quiet and dignified affair. The kicking* starts at 2pm CST (on ESPN 3).
* The Guardian described Scotland's match this weekend vs. Ireland as being like a pub brawl into which someone threw a ball.
-
I don't get this.
The play clock continues to run after you are tackled in bounds.
-
In other news, the England national team heads to Glasgow to take on Scotland Wannabe England for the first time in 15 years.
How is it that these natural rivals aren't in the same division?
-
The play clock continues to run after you are tackled in bounds.
I know that. But what does it have to do with the NBA game clock?
-
We need to drag you, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
I want to go happily and silently into the 19th century - and be connected by fibre optic cable. That way they can broadcast full Blu-Ray quality, uncompressed 1080p content, and even 4k content once someone comes up with any.
-
I want to go happily and silently into the 19th century - and be connected by fibre optic cable. That way they can broadcast full Blu-Ray quality, uncompressed 1080p content, and even 4k content once someone comes up with any.
You have something specific in mind here?
-
You have something specific in mind here?
Nope.
-
I was on dish once
-
Ball-in-play percentage is the weakest of the "soccer is more interesting/exciting than football" arguments. Exciting action when the ball is in play is where football has the edge.
-
Exciting action when the ball is in play is where football has the edge.
Eleven and a half years of watching Texans football has completely disabused me of that notion.
-
Eleven and a half years of watching Texans football has completely disabused me of that notion.
And he's a Bucs fan so I have no idea what the fuck he thinks he's talking about.
-
And he's a Bucs fan so I have no idea what the fuck he thinks he's talking about.
Shitty soccer is that much less fun to watch.
-
And he's a Bucs fan so I have no idea what the fuck he thinks he's talking about.
The history of the universe can be divided into two major periods: the time before, and the time after the Tampa Bay Buccaneers won a Super Bowl. It's still relatively early in the after.
-
It's still relatively early in the after.
But oh, is this one getting loooonger.
-
Do we have any idea how RSN affects our ability to get MLB.tv, particularly as a non-cable subscriber?
-
Do we have any idea how RSN affects our ability to get MLB.tv, particularly as a non-cable subscriber?
FSN and CSN never affected your ability to get it, I wouldn't think RSN would either. Blackout rules still apply, but that's always been the case.