I read them and still don't care. There are more articles out there that support my argument, just google Bill Simmons and they'll pop right up.
He's said plenty of other dipshit things and remained employed. Cowherd has said plenty of dipshit things and remained employed. If you think it's a coincidence that he was let go the year after he launched a highly unprofitable site, yet demanded a $2 mil raise, then we will have to agree to disagree.
How hard is this? Bill Simmons was largely responsible for some of ESPN's best content. Yeah, First Take is more profitable because most Americans are morons. Without Simmons appearance on the Patrick show (unapproved by ESPN) and his comments towards Goodell, Simmons is still at ESPN. Please, PLEASE, tell me why you can't wrap your head around this.
Bill Simmons is responsible for games being played? That's the only content at ESPN anyone actually gives a damn about. Even if you venture beyond that, he has nothing to do with 30 for 30 or Outside The Lines. His contributions are meaningless. He's about to learn the same lesson Keith Olberman did. He needs ESPN, but ESPN won't lose a single reader or viewer with his departure.
RHV: "I demand evidence." Oski: "Here's some." RHV: "I don't like that evidence. Thus, I'll ignore it. I will hear nothing bad said about the patron saint of my faux hipster douchebag brethren."
I don't agree with you, but even if his content was spectacular there isn't a single free newspaper anywhere that makes money. They are a public company answering to shareholders and if you did some research you'd find out that ESPN has been underperforming as a division the past 2 quarters and cutting people who lose you money is what underperforming divisions do. Surely him going off the wall with regularity doesn't make it an overly difficult decision. If you think they fire cowherd who makes them millions for simply saying goodell lacks balls than you are beyond help.
Will you at least acknowledge that there's more evidence on my side of the argument. I'd prefer not to link 15 articles because I thought we could solve all this with common sense, but apparently not. And give me a break with the faux hipster crap. I don't particularly like Simmons, I'm just making an easy argument.
Of course you are making an easy argument. One that required any thought or knowledge of how businesses actually operate would be a bridge too far for you. Simmons was done and soon. All his little plagiarism bit did was possibly get it announced before the NBA Playoffs were done. Public companies aren't like NPR where you can sit around spending other people's money on vanity pieces.
Yes, because I have no knowledge whatsoever of how businesses operate. I'm not going to pretend I know what you or Dros or any number of experienced people on this board know, but it's obnoxious how you constantly post as if you're the smartest and most knowledgeable person on the planet. Simmons and ESPN had a strained relationship, but that wasn't because his ability to generate revenue didn't justify his salary. If he hadn't been a thorn in their side, his contract would've been renewed, which shows that you and Droski's argument about this being a business decision is wrong.
If Simmons were a revenue positive factor in the ESPN equation, he could piss on Roger Goodell's head and nobody would say a word. I would love to see the shareholder meeting where execs are explaining renewing, with a raise, the contract of guy who adds nothing to the bottom line. That's incompetent and arguably illegal.
He was already making a ton, so the fact that they would renew his contract at all kind of makes that point null and void.
No, it doesn't. Do you understand the concept of renewing a contract? When you can shed yourself of a bad deal, that's what your fiduciary duty mandates you do. Simmons was a massive net negative for ESPN. Renewing that deal would have been malfeasance.
last year when they renewed his contract he hadn't launched an unprofitable website and then demanded a $2 mil raise. So no, not apples to apples.
Who's to say Simmons didn't know he was done and figured he'd get himself some pub and a ready made excuse on the way out?
We know grantland generates $1.7 mil annually in ad revenue (this isn't up for debate btw, web traffic numbers are public). Let's be VERY generous and say his podcasts and videos generate another $1 mil annually. So $2.7 mil in revenue. We know they have offices in LA live which is among the most expensive office space in la. So let's say with rent, computers, utilities, furniture etc this costs $1 mil a year (I bet the number is twice that). We know they have what 40 contributors, so maybe they aren't all full time, but surely they have secretaries, editors, copywriters etc. so let's say they have the equivalent of 50 full time employees. Let's say they are paying said employees cheaply for la. Say $50k a year. Add $30k for benefits, taxes, parking (not insignificant for la live) and that cost comes to $4 mil a year. So total cost conservatively is $5 mil a year. $2.7 mil - $5 mil = - $2.3 mil a year So you have an employee who launched a division that at best is going to lose $2.3 mil a year (God knows how much the startup costs were). Said employee comes and asks for a 40 percent raise. Yeah I'm sure him calling goodell out was the primary problem they had with Simmons.
Oh I'm sure. I bet his editors and key writers are making well into 6 figures. Also I didn't factor in Simmons own salary and given the fact that in those revenue numbers are his web views and podcasts that he was doing before grantland even existed, God knows how much additional revenue grantland produced sans Simmons. There is a reason why the only free online newspapers that have survived rely on their authors working for free (like salon).
