The Athletic cutting staff/salaries

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I think PSE was in more financial trouble than you'd think. At the very least in some panic when oil and gas prices cratered. Much of Terry's wealth is still tied to gas fields he owns.

The Bills alone make PSE (maybe not their other holdings) plenty profitable. If you lay people off to afford a couple of extra tanks on the yacht it will offend some. If you’re trying to keep the lights on people will be less offended. If The Athletic falls into the former, shame on them. If they fall into the latter I’m more willing to accept it. PSE falls into the former. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Kirby Jackson

[BarleyNY]

11 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

also true. But from what I’ve seen and heard, hasn’t the Athletic received an astronomical amount of VC funding, as well as a surge in subscribers over the past year or so? Seems like even with thin margins, they’d have a lot of runway to weather this without cutting 8% of EEs and slashing pay across the board.

I do not know if they have a lot of VC funding or not.  But I can tell you that if they do, then the VCs are probably driving the bus right now.  They seem to always have ways to protect their investments baked into their agreements directly or indirectly.  Cost cutting in a downturn is going to happen with VCs involved.  

[JoPoy88]

14 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I do not know if they have a lot of VC funding or not.  But I can tell you that if they do, then the VCs are probably driving the bus right now.  They seem to always have ways to protect their investments baked into their agreements directly or indirectly.  Cost cutting in a downturn is going to happen with VCs involved.  

found something related to this:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/the-athletic-fundraising-round-series-d-e7026194-ccc7-4ec2-8415-6b8902c9a11a.html

[Mr. WEO]

45 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I think PSE was in more financial trouble than you'd think. At the very least in some panic when oil and gas prices cratered. Much of Terry's wealth is still tied to gas fields he owns.

 

Why do you repeat this when you know it isn't true?  His shale holdings that he still owns he leases. His own production has dwindled to a boutique outfit with a couple dozen employees.

 

Forbes had his net worth climb from 4 billion to 5 billion over past 5 years Bloomberg has him at 5.9 billion this week).  He's one of the 400 richest humans in the world.  He is sitting on a personal fortune of billions.  Little of it is tied to the ebb and flow of oil and gas prices.

12 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

found something related to this:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/the-athletic-fundraising-round-series-d-e7026194-ccc7-4ec2-8415-6b8902c9a11a.html

 

 

I think if you are in VC and you decide to invest in the worst concept on the internet (exclusively paid subscription sports content),  you deserve to lose the money you carelessly put at risk.

[BarleyNY]

6 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

found something related to this:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/the-athletic-fundraising-round-series-d-e7026194-ccc7-4ec2-8415-6b8902c9a11a.html

I found this too.   Estimated value of $300M.  VCs probably have a pretty sizable share of the company.  There might be some cold blooded decisions made, but that might be necessary to save it.  As long as they don’t do things to hurt their long term success (like cutting talent they can’t get back or adequately replace) they should bounce back.  You never know with stuff like this.  It often depends who’s making the decisions and why.

[Malazan]

Their cuts actually seem to be pretty minimal and obviously tinged with sadness. A month of pay, health insurance, etc, etc. The Athletic seems to have made a hard decision and understood the effect it has on people. 

[Peter]

19 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s apples and oranges though. PSE is extremely profitable. The Athletic didn’t have the same finances to do that. 

 

Just how "profitable" have the Sabres been according to you?

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

Just how "profitable" have the Sabres been according to you?

I didn’t say the Sabres. I said PSE

[Beast]

19 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Seems like there's never enough Athletic supporters....

 

Ha!

 

I am now thinking about dropping my subscription because who in hell wants to be an Athletic supporter?

[Peter]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I didn’t say the Sabres. I said PSE

 

You did.  My question was about the Sabres.  As I recall, no one on the Bills side was fired. The persons who were fired worked for the Sabres.  Some people (including some at the Athletic) went nuts that the Sabres actually fired some employees as we are going through what seems like the apocalypse.  Very tough decisions were made.  Just like tough decisions were made at the Athletic.

 

So again, given that those who were fired were on the Sabres side, I presume that you are not suggesting that the Sabres are not allowed to make tough decisions - just like the Athletic did.  

 

 

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

You did.  My question was about the Sabres.  As I recall, no one on the Bills side was fired. The persons who were fired worked for the Sabres.  Some people (including some at the Athletic) went nuts that the Sabres actually fired some employees as we are going through what seems like the apocalypse.  Very tough decisions were made.  Just like tough decisions were made at the Athletic.

 

So again, given that those who were fired were on the Sabres side, I presume that you are not suggesting that the Sabres are not allowed to make tough decisions - just like the Athletic did.  

 

 

 

 

Feel free to quote where I said that and then we can discuss...

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Feel free to quote where I said that and then we can discuss...

I think he meant you did say PSE but he’s asking about the Sabres specifically.

[Kirby Jackson]

13 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think he meant you did say PSE but he’s asking about the Sabres specifically.

Not the case look up a few posts. 
 

 

[Peter]

14 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Feel free to quote where I said that and then we can discuss...

 

Why did you say that PSE is profitable in a thread that was discussing the Athletic firings and the recent Sabres firings?

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

Why did you say that PSE is profitable in a thread that was discussing the Athletic firings and the recent Sabres firings?

Because my point was the parent organization was profitable. There is so much crossover. It was 104 PSE employees furloughed and 21 PSE employees fired. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/29036724/sabres-parent-company-announces-layoffs-furloughs-125-employees%3fplatform=amp The organization that I worked at is the same model (Saints and Pelicans) and they didn’t do that with anyone. 

 

In terms of profitability I didn’t want to go too far down the rabbit hole. Sports are different from other businesses. The value of the Sabres was up $25M last year. Obviously, this year is going to be different for everyone but the point remains. This wasn’t a necessity. This was an effort to save money because they WANTED to not because they NEEDED to. https://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-sabres/#68324f9464f3
 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Kirby Jackson

[Peter]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

Because my point was the parent organization was profitable. There is so much crossover. It was 104 PSE employees furloughed and 21 PSE employees fired. The organization that I worked at is the same model (Saints and Pelicans) and they didn’t do that with anyone. 

 

In terms of profitability I didn’t want to go too far down the rabbit hole. Sports are different from other businesses. The value of the Sabres was up $25M last year. Obviously, this year is going to be different for everyone but the point remains. This wasn’t a necessity. This was an effort to save money because they WANTED to not because they NEEDED to. https://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-sabres/#68324f9464f3
 

 

 

Are the Sabres allowed to make tough decisions like the Athletic?

 

Are the Sabres making money?

 

Were the Sabres making money before the pandemic?

 

Some people (certain fans and media) seem to castigate the Pegulas (I am not referring to you), but don't seem to understand just how much we owe them.  They made sure to overpay for the Bills to keep them in Buffalo and have been supporting the Sabres.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, Peter said:

 

Are the Sabres allowed to make tough decisions like the Athletic?

 

Are the Sabres making money?

 

Were the Sabres making money before the pandemic?

 

Some people (certain fans and media) seem to castigate the Pegulas (I am not referring to you), but don't seem to understand just how much we owe them.  They made sure to overpay for the Bills to keep them in Buffalo and have been supporting the Sabres.

1. Of course they can make whatever decision they want. They aren’t immune to criticism either. 
 

2. Define “making money.” A franchise value increase of $25M if certainly a good year. 
 

In terms of the Pegulas they have been a godsend to Buffalo for saving the teams. They aren’t good owners. Both of those things are true IMO. They were extremely fortunate to get Beane and McDermott. It took a few tries but they were able to get elite leadership. They still haven’t managed that with the Sabres. 

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

1. Of course they can make whatever decision they want. They aren’t immune to criticism either. 
 

2. Define “making money.” A franchise value increase of $25M if certainly a good year. 
 

In terms of the Pegulas they have been a godsend to Buffalo for saving the teams. They aren’t good owners. Both of those things are true IMO. They were extremely fortunate to get Beane and McDermott. It took a few tries but they were able to get elite leadership. They still haven’t managed that with the Sabres. 

Considering how big of a hockey town Buffalo is, it’s particularly egregious.

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Considering how big of a hockey town Buffalo is, it’s particularly egregious.

Couldn’t agree more here. You almost have to try to fail. Imagine if they were in South Florida doing this? 

[Peter]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

1. Of course they can make whatever decision they want. They aren’t immune to criticism either. 
 

2. Define “making money.” A franchise value increase of $25M if certainly a good year. 
 

In terms of the Pegulas they have been a godsend to Buffalo for saving the teams. They aren’t good owners. Both of those things are true IMO. They were extremely fortunate to get Beane and McDermott. It took a few tries but they were able to get elite leadership. They still haven’t managed that with the Sabres. 

 

1. I am glad we agree.

 

2. Unless one wants to sell the team, an increase in valuation is besides the point.  I hope they never sell given that I question just  who is out there who would be willing buy the Sabres for that amount - much less keep them in Buffalo given the finances.

 

I consider the Pegulas to be great owners.  First, they are committed to keeping both teams in Buffalo. Second, they have given both teams the resources that they need - not to mention much more than any prior owner.  Third, they hired people who were respected or had been successful. Some of those did not work out, but that is true for many teams.

 

I continue to give the Pegulas the benefit of the doubt and am grateful that they appeared out of freaking nowhere and bought the Sabres and Bills. Prior to their purchasing the Bills, I always had worried about the team moving elsewhere.  I no longer have to worry about that . . . unless their detractors who scream they should sell the teams have their way.