HOUSTON -- Enron Corp. says it's willing to consider a buyout to remove its name from the Astros' 2-year-old retractable roof stadium, but the team's owner says the former energy giant has it backward.

"There's really not anything to buy," Astros owner Drayton McLane said Wednesday. "They are actually the ones who owe us. They owe us for 27 years. It's kind of the other way around."

McLane says Enron paid for and benefitted from the recognition the company got from its name being prominently placed on Enron Field three years ago.

Enron's name also is branded on all exterior and interior signage and everything from game day staff members' uniforms to cups, napkins, plates and tickets, which go on sale for this year's games on Thursday.

Now the Astros want to move forward from Enron's downfall and the negative image associated with it. When the two parties signed the naming rights agreement in 1999, Enron was a Wall Street darling and quickly growing into one of the nation's largest corporations.

Dean Bonham, whose Denver-based Bonham Group negotiates such deals both for venues and sponsoring companies, said Enron must have appeared rock solid when it signed with the Astros.

But the company's stock price and credibility plummeted following the announcement of a Securities and Exchange investigation into Enron's accounting practices last year. Enron filed for bankruptcy in December.

"The Astros' business relationship with Enron leaves the Astros burdened with Enron's considerable baggage," attorneys for the team wrote in a motion filed with the New York court overseeing Enron's bankruptcy earlier this week.

The motion asks the court to force Enron to either accept or reject the 30-year, $100 million naming rights agreement. It requests a hearing later this month and that Enron's decision come no later than Aug. 30.

On Aug. 31, Enron is scheduled to make a $3.65 million payment to the team. So far, Enron has made three annual payments totaling $10.25 million, the Astros said.

The team says the company remains current on its payments, but "as a practical matter, Enron cannot sell the License Agreement because the License Agreement restricts severely the ability to change the name of the stadium from 'Enron Field' to a new name."

"It makes no economic sense for Enron to assume or continue to comply with its payment obligations under the License Agreement," the motion states.

Enron, however, says it makes perfect sense to continue paying on what the company perceives as an asset. Enron spent $108,000 on a suite and $90,000 for 2002 season box seats since filing for bankruptcy in order to live up to its contractual obligations with the Astros.

"Our responsibility is to get the maximum value for the asset for our creditors," Enron spokeswoman Karen Denne said. "One thing we could consider is the Astros buying us out of the contract."

Denne said the former energy giant's legal team is in the process of reviewing the contract.

"It would all be subject to negotiation," she said.

Dallas attorney Steven Camp, who specializes in naming rights agreements, says Enron might be in the driver's seat since the bankruptcy court is in its corner, not the Astros.

"Bankruptcy courts have tremendous powers," he said. "They could certainly sell (the naming rights agreement) without the Astros being involved.

"They may be able to sell it for more than they actually owe on it. If that's the case, it's an asset of the estate and the bankruptcy court is going to look at it as an asset."

Bonham doesn't think there's much of a chance that Enron will get more than it owes for the agreement if the company were to try and hawk it without the Astros approval.

"It is extremely unlikely that any major corporation is going to buy those naming rights from Enron as opposed to the Astros," he said. "Any major corporation, in my opinion, would be hard pressed to negotiate with Enron knowing that the Astros would prefer that they negotiate with them."

The situation has left the Astros in an unfortunate situation where the team might be displeased but must continue to live up to its contractual obligations until the bankruptcy court rules, Bonham said.

A ruling could take weeks, maybe months, he said.

"The fact of the matter is if this is not settled soon, the Astros are saddled with the name of a company that is becoming more and more vilified on a daily basis," Bonham said. "The best case scenario is that Enron and the Astros can come to some sort of agreement before August."

McLane says he's ready to talk, but Enron hasn't contacted him.

"We would love to settle it," he said.