ESPN Layoffs

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:56 pm

The Big Lead is keeping a tally of the people who announce they were laid off by ESPN today.

The big names I'm really going to miss are Jayson Stark and Ed Werder. I don't watch ESPN, but would click through to their articles when I saw them.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:00 pm

I'm shocked that they let Stark go.

While I don't celebrate anyone losing their jobs here, I can't say I'll miss the work of Danny Kannel or Trent Dilfer.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:02 pm

Yeah, Jayson Stark does good work.

Not a great sign for the long-term health of ESPN, right?

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:04 pm

The hockey group got decimated, Scott Burnside and Pierre LeBrun both out.

ESPN is like CNN and MTV. They forgot how to do the thing they are supposed to be the best at. MTV forgot about music videos, CNN forgot how to do news, and ESPN has forgotten how to cover sports. It's a shame that the people let go today seem to be actual reporters, and not the numerous entertainers who have made the network unwatchable.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:10 pm

msteelers wrote:ESPN is like CNN and MTV. They forgot how to do the thing they are supposed to be the best at. MTV forgot about music videos, CNN forgot how to do news, and ESPN has forgotten how to cover sports. It's a shame that the people let go today seem to be actual reporters, and not the numerous entertainers who have made the network unwatchable.

I don't know about that. I think it has more to do with the cord cutting reality. They can't keep charging $8+ for their channel and are now paying the price for building their business on that.

When I was in college in '95, we used to watch SportsCenter for hours to see how all of the different teams did the previous day. It was great when a new one came on at noon to get a new slate of perspectives.

Now people can watch sports in a lot of different way and get their highlights without watching SportsCenter. I thought I would really miss it when I cut the cord last year, but I don't miss it at all. I still check the scores on espn.com, but rarely read any of the articles.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:36 pm

stessier wrote:I don't know about that. I think it has more to do with the cord cutting reality. They can't keep charging $8+ for their channel and are now paying the price for building their business on that.

When I was in college in '95, we used to watch SportsCenter for hours to see how all of the different teams did the previous day. It was great when a new one came on at noon to get a new slate of perspectives.

Now people can watch sports in a lot of different way and get their highlights without watching SportsCenter. I thought I would really miss it when I cut the cord last year, but I don't miss it at all. I still check the scores on espn.com, but rarely read any of the articles.

Yeah, they can't keep paying top dollar for the talent when revenues are declining and that talent is drawing fewer eyeballs. However, I do think they missed the boat on creating a platform neutral (cordless) network. It's one of the most puzzling things out of DIS, that they doubled down on over-charging content delivery companies rather than just cutting them out completely.

msteelers wrote:
ESPN is like CNN and MTV. They forgot how to do the thing they are supposed to be the best at. MTV forgot about music videos, CNN forgot how to do news, and ESPN has forgotten how to cover sports. It's a shame that the people let go today seem to be actual reporters, and not the numerous entertainers who have made the network unwatchable.

I think ESPN is moving more towards live sports content and away from the commentary and looped highlight shows. It's actually the opposite of MTV or CNN. They're getting to the actual meat and potatoes rather than churning out more fluff.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:44 pm

stessier wrote:
msteelers wrote:ESPN is like CNN and MTV. They forgot how to do the thing they are supposed to be the best at. MTV forgot about music videos, CNN forgot how to do news, and ESPN has forgotten how to cover sports. It's a shame that the people let go today seem to be actual reporters, and not the numerous entertainers who have made the network unwatchable.
I don't know about that. I think it has more to do with the cord cutting reality. They can't keep charging $8+ for their channel and are now paying the price for building their business on that.

I wasn't commenting on why they were laying people off. I stated an opinion (ESPN sucks) followed by an observation (they are doubling down on the suck, based on who they fired).

I largely agree with your points on why the layoffs happened though.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:57 pm

I watched ESPN the other day during a weekday morning. It was terrible. It felt like I was watching The View.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:49 pm

If the Mets play on ESPN I skip the game. The announcers are beyond terrible. I'm of course also spoiled by one of the best booths in baseball.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:59 pm

I think the main Sunday night baseball booth with Shulman, Boone, and Mendoza is very good.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:16 pm

msteelers wrote:The hockey group got decimated, Scott Burnside and Pierre LeBrun both out.

ESPN is like CNN and MTV. They forgot how to do the thing they are supposed to be the best at. MTV forgot about music videos, CNN forgot how to do news, and ESPN has forgotten how to cover sports. It's a shame that the people let go today seem to be actual reporters, and not the numerous entertainers who have made the network unwatchable.

I would agree with that assessment. ESPN became more about "entertainment" than about sports, more about social and cultural change than about sports, more about relentlessly hyping news or events than about scores.

But I don't think this represents a change in that thinking, this is just Disney trimming the ESPN budget.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:18 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
stessier wrote:I don't know about that. I think it has more to do with the cord cutting reality. They can't keep charging $8+ for their channel and are now paying the price for building their business on that.

When I was in college in '95, we used to watch SportsCenter for hours to see how all of the different teams did the previous day. It was great when a new one came on at noon to get a new slate of perspectives.

Now people can watch sports in a lot of different way and get their highlights without watching SportsCenter. I thought I would really miss it when I cut the cord last year, but I don't miss it at all. I still check the scores on espn.com, but rarely read any of the articles.
Yeah, they can't keep paying top dollar for the talent when revenues are declining and that talent is drawing fewer eyeballs. However, I do think they missed the boat on creating a platform neutral (cordless) network. It's one of the most puzzling things out of DIS, that they doubled down on over-charging content delivery companies rather than just cutting them out completely.

msteelers wrote:
ESPN is like CNN and MTV. They forgot how to do the thing they are supposed to be the best at. MTV forgot about music videos, CNN forgot how to do news, and ESPN has forgotten how to cover sports. It's a shame that the people let go today seem to be actual reporters, and not the numerous entertainers who have made the network unwatchable.
I think ESPN is moving more towards live sports content and away from the commentary and looped highlight shows. It's actually the opposite of MTV or CNN. They're getting to the actual meat and potatoes rather than churning out more fluff.

I don't think this demonstrates any kind of return to the old way. It is merely cost cutting. Look at who they kept. And if you think they haven't done live content (I assume you mean sporting events) in the past then you watch less that I do.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:42 pm

Sad to hear that Ted Miller and Chantel Jennings (Pac12 reporters) both got the axe. I thought they were both really good.

Danny Kanell sounds pissed. Can't say I'll miss him much.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:43 pm

Skinypupy wrote:Sad to hear that Ted Miller and Chantel Jennings (Pac12 reporters) both got the axe. I thought they were both really good.

Danny Kanell sounds pissed. Can't say I'll miss him much.

Even though she's been doing Pac12 the last couple of years, I've followed Jennings on Twitter. She's also a Michigan alum, so she had some nice insights there.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:59 pm

So apparently conservatives believe these layoffs happened because these people were 'too liberal' and were laid off because of it. The ESPN ombudsman just emphatically tweeted that wasn't the case.

I can't stand Trent Dilfer, so happy to see him gone. He was the most boring SB winning QB ever. And got worse on screen.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:53 pm

Scuzz wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
stessier wrote:I don't know about that. I think it has more to do with the cord cutting reality. They can't keep charging $8+ for their channel and are now paying the price for building their business on that.

When I was in college in '95, we used to watch SportsCenter for hours to see how all of the different teams did the previous day. It was great when a new one came on at noon to get a new slate of perspectives.

Now people can watch sports in a lot of different way and get their highlights without watching SportsCenter. I thought I would really miss it when I cut the cord last year, but I don't miss it at all. I still check the scores on espn.com, but rarely read any of the articles.
Yeah, they can't keep paying top dollar for the talent when revenues are declining and that talent is drawing fewer eyeballs. However, I do think they missed the boat on creating a platform neutral (cordless) network. It's one of the most puzzling things out of DIS, that they doubled down on over-charging content delivery companies rather than just cutting them out completely.

msteelers wrote:
ESPN is like CNN and MTV. They forgot how to do the thing they are supposed to be the best at. MTV forgot about music videos, CNN forgot how to do news, and ESPN has forgotten how to cover sports. It's a shame that the people let go today seem to be actual reporters, and not the numerous entertainers who have made the network unwatchable.
I think ESPN is moving more towards live sports content and away from the commentary and looped highlight shows. It's actually the opposite of MTV or CNN. They're getting to the actual meat and potatoes rather than churning out more fluff.
I don't think this demonstrates any kind of return to the old way. It is merely cost cutting. Look at who they kept. And if you think they haven't done live content (I assume you mean sporting events) in the past then you watch less that I do.

They're going to focus more on live sports. Not saying they don't have any. I'm saying they will have more (as a percentage of total airtime). And that's not the "old way." The old way was a lot of Sportscenter and a little bit of live events.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:36 am

McNutt wrote:I watched ESPN the other day during a weekday morning. It was terrible. It felt like I was watching The View.

This is true. ESPN is nigh unwatchable now. To many commercials, too much of the same story reiterated and argued about just for arguments sake and overproduced.

Rather than covering sports they've become a sports gossip station.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:23 am

I saw that Doug Glanville got the axe, too. With him and Stark gone, there's really no reason for me to ever visit ESPN.com's baseball page anymore.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:30 am

From Deadspin:

In the end, the real solution to ESPN’s problems will involve much more severe changes than were made today. Perhaps the network will work in closer partnership with leagues and even competitors; perhaps it will find a way to offload deals it can no longer afford; perhaps it will seek some way to simply outgrow its present structural issues, with aid and backing from Disney and even cable carriers who are quite aware of just how much their industry looks right now the way newspapering did 15 years ago. Whatever it is, it won’t have much to do with cuts that amount to rounding errors in the books.

But the part that really gets interesting is what the actual sports are going to do themselves. I think this is a shot across the bow of the NFL in particular, letting them know that their next contract with ESPN or really anyone isn't going to be what it was unless the networks can get a handle on this cord cutting craze. If they don't, there goes the big salaries and profits they are used to. Wonder how they will react??

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:45 am

The money hasn't stopped flowing to the leagues yet, even in the midst of this. The Big Ten just redid its contracts with Fox and ESPN and got ludicrous amounts of money (not that the athletes will see any of it

). I do think that it will change eventually, but right now the only real thing that ESPN (and its competitors) have is live sports. People who don't watch sports still end up paying for ESPN, Fox Sports, college conference networks, etc., because those who do watch are extremely vocal when they can't get their games live. There will be a tipping point, though, when the cord cutters will outweigh the vocal sports fans. Then it will be very interesting to see what happens to the leagues. I'm most interested in seeing what happens to college sports. The Big Ten added dead weight in Maryland and Rutgers just to get their TV markets. What happens when that no longer makes sense and the Big Ten is stuck with poorly attended out of region games that no longer generate revenue via TV contracts?

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:22 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:The money hasn't stopped flowing to the leagues yet, even in the midst of this. The Big Ten just redid its contracts with Fox and ESPN and got ludicrous amounts of money (not that the athletes will see any of it ). I do think that it will change eventually, but right now the only real thing that ESPN (and its competitors) have is live sports. People who don't watch sports still end up paying for ESPN, Fox Sports, college conference networks, etc., because those who do watch are extremely vocal when they can't get their games live. There will be a tipping point, though, when the cord cutters will outweigh the vocal sports fans. Then it will be very interesting to see what happens to the leagues. I'm most interested in seeing what happens to college sports. The Big Ten added dead weight in Maryland and Rutgers just to get their TV markets. What happens when that no longer makes sense and the Big Ten is stuck with poorly attended out of region games that no longer generate revenue via TV contracts?

Yup to all of this. It's going to flow downhill and the fallout is going to be painful.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:35 pm

At some point in time either the sports networks or the sports themselves (NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA etc) are going to wake up and find their world crashing down. With cable viewership going fees will drop. But somehow the leagues are still flush with cash. For all the talk about baseball dying the league is flush with cash and in the middle of a fiscal revival.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:19 pm

I found this interesting:

But as Ley is fond of saying: Other networks had viewers; ESPN had fans. If that goodwill and emotional capital goes away, does ESPN still have fans?...

...The ESPN layoffs remind me of the gutting of newspaper sports pages that has been going on in fits and starts for two decades. Talk to people who worked for newspapers in the ’90s and they’ll tell you they thought their paper was as “invincible” as the Worldwide Leader. After all, classified-ad dollars were going to keep rolling in like cable subscriber fees. Newspaper writers were going to do good work, make decent money, and cruise into retirement age.

When the first layoffs came, they didn’t take out the loudmouth columnist, just as ESPN didn’t take out Stephen A. Smith. No, the first layoffs surgically removed the organs of the paper — that feature writer graying at the temples; the horseracing writer; the sports TV columnist.

I am one of those who was a "fan" of ESPN in the 80's & 90's, and I still like a few shows like PTI and Around the Horn, but I used to be a regular watcher of NFL Primetime, Baseball Tonight, etc.

IMHO, what they've truly lost is a connection with the games they cover - they are too much gossip oriented and hyping what's next to even bother telling the story of what happened in the games. They put together a few star-oriented highlights and then move on to what's next, rather than going into depth on what happened.

Don't just give me a highlight reel, tell the story of the game(s) - from both teams' perspective, not just the winners. Give us more shows like the old Monday Night matchup, and go into that depth on the highlight packages. From a UCLA perspective lately, give me more Lonzo Ball and less LaVar Ball. I could care less what some idiot who's not even playing said, show me the plays, and the flow of the games.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Scuzz wrote:At some point in time either the sports networks or the sports themselves (NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA etc) are going to wake up and find their world crashing down. With cable viewership going fees will drop. But somehow the leagues are still flush with cash. For all the talk about baseball dying the league is flush with cash and in the middle of a fiscal revival.

This is because ESPN et al are still obligated to pay the contracts they've signed. Things will get real interesting when those contracts come up for renewal.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:26 pm

Pyperkub wrote:I found this interesting:

But as Ley is fond of saying: Other networks had viewers; ESPN had fans. If that goodwill and emotional capital goes away, does ESPN still have fans?...

...The ESPN layoffs remind me of the gutting of newspaper sports pages that has been going on in fits and starts for two decades. Talk to people who worked for newspapers in the ’90s and they’ll tell you they thought their paper was as “invincible” as the Worldwide Leader. After all, classified-ad dollars were going to keep rolling in like cable subscriber fees. Newspaper writers were going to do good work, make decent money, and cruise into retirement age.

When the first layoffs came, they didn’t take out the loudmouth columnist, just as ESPN didn’t take out Stephen A. Smith. No, the first layoffs surgically removed the organs of the paper — that feature writer graying at the temples; the horseracing writer; the sports TV columnist.
I am one of those who was a "fan" of ESPN in the 80's & 90's, and I still like a few shows like PTI and Around the Horn, but I used to be a regular watcher of NFL Primetime, Baseball Tonight, etc.

IMHO, what they've truly lost is a connection with the games they cover - they are too much gossip oriented and hyping what's next to even bother telling the story of what happened in the games. They put together a few star-oriented highlights and then move on to what's next, rather than going into depth on what happened.

Don't just give me a highlight reel, tell the story of the game(s) - from both teams' perspective, not just the winners. Give us more shows like the old Monday Night matchup, and go into that depth on the highlight packages. From a UCLA perspective lately, give me more Lonzo Ball and less LaVar Ball. I could care less what some idiot who's not even playing said, show me the plays, and the flow of the games.

Yes they are way closer to the National Enquirer than I'm comfortable with.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:24 pm

Lorini wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:I found this interesting:

But as Ley is fond of saying: Other networks had viewers; ESPN had fans. If that goodwill and emotional capital goes away, does ESPN still have fans?...

...The ESPN layoffs remind me of the gutting of newspaper sports pages that has been going on in fits and starts for two decades. Talk to people who worked for newspapers in the ’90s and they’ll tell you they thought their paper was as “invincible” as the Worldwide Leader. After all, classified-ad dollars were going to keep rolling in like cable subscriber fees. Newspaper writers were going to do good work, make decent money, and cruise into retirement age.

When the first layoffs came, they didn’t take out the loudmouth columnist, just as ESPN didn’t take out Stephen A. Smith. No, the first layoffs surgically removed the organs of the paper — that feature writer graying at the temples; the horseracing writer; the sports TV columnist.
I am one of those who was a "fan" of ESPN in the 80's & 90's, and I still like a few shows like PTI and Around the Horn, but I used to be a regular watcher of NFL Primetime, Baseball Tonight, etc.

IMHO, what they've truly lost is a connection with the games they cover - they are too much gossip oriented and hyping what's next to even bother telling the story of what happened in the games. They put together a few star-oriented highlights and then move on to what's next, rather than going into depth on what happened.

Don't just give me a highlight reel, tell the story of the game(s) - from both teams' perspective, not just the winners. Give us more shows like the old Monday Night matchup, and go into that depth on the highlight packages. From a UCLA perspective lately, give me more Lonzo Ball and less LaVar Ball. I could care less what some idiot who's not even playing said, show me the plays, and the flow of the games.
Yes they are way closer to the National Enquirer than I'm comfortable with.

Gossip and opinion seem to be all the rage in today's media. It is difficult to find actual news.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue May 02, 2017 3:08 pm

From Sports Business Daily

ESPN agreed to pay out full contracts, which in some cases lasted more than five years. Several reporters offered to continue working through their contracts without incurring expenses, but they were told they couldn’t.

Talent that had contracts were told that they were still employees of ESPN on payroll, but they no longer worked for the company. Many have non-compete clauses in their deals, which means they can’t report their beats, even on social media, until their contracts end or they are released. In order to get around the non-compete clauses, they would have to report on entirely different beats than the ones they spent years developing at ESPN.

They also asked Ed Werder to work the draft and he declined - but is still being paid out the remainder of his contract. Very odd overall.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Tue May 02, 2017 3:11 pm

So their non compete says that they can't work in their respective sport for anyone while ESPN continues to pay them for up to five years? How does this benefit ESPN? And is a non compete valid if you've been laid off?

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Tue May 02, 2017 3:34 pm

What if your wife suddenly started writing articles about your old beat? I'm just sayin...

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue May 02, 2017 3:36 pm

McNutt wrote:So their non compete says that they can't work in their respective sport for anyone while ESPN continues to pay them for up to five years? How does this benefit ESPN? And is a non compete valid if you've been laid off?

It varies on the text of the contract and non-compete clause, but this is all well within possibility. They have an exclusive contract to provide services to ESPN for a fixed term, and ESPN is obligated to pay it as long as the employees comply with the contract. ESPN is hoping that these people will want to keep working (perhaps to keep their names in the public eye, which would be important in their world), so that they will break the contract and ESPN will no longer have to pay them.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue May 02, 2017 4:05 pm

McNutt wrote:And is a non compete valid if you've been laid off?

I had a doctor once who got laid off from the medical group he was part of. His non-compete stipulated he could not practice within a 25 mile radius, which pretty much meant he had to give up all of his patients (including me).

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue May 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Jeff V wrote:
McNutt wrote:And is a non compete valid if you've been laid off?
I had a doctor once who got laid off from the medical group he was part of. His non-compete stipulated he could not practice within a 25 mile radius, which pretty much meant he had to give up all of his patients (including me).

That kind of stuff is questionable. If he got laid off, but given a severance that he would have to repay if he broke the non-compete, that would seem legit. If he just got booted, the non-compete likely would not have held up. I got a friend's non-compete voided completely after he left a job of his own volition.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue May 02, 2017 4:20 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Jeff V wrote:
McNutt wrote:And is a non compete valid if you've been laid off?
I had a doctor once who got laid off from the medical group he was part of. His non-compete stipulated he could not practice within a 25 mile radius, which pretty much meant he had to give up all of his patients (including me).
That kind of stuff is questionable. If he got laid off, but given a severance that he would have to repay if he broke the non-compete, that would seem legit. If he just got booted, the non-compete likely would not have held up. I got a friend's non-compete voided completely after he left a job of his own volition.

The doctor seemed reluctant to test their resolve. A few years later I tried to locate him and had a hell of a time; how can a doctor of all people be so damned invisible on the internet? IIRC, when I finally found him, he hung his shingle out in Yorkville (a good 45 mile exile). I should look for him again since I'll be moving out that way soon.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue May 02, 2017 4:31 pm

That's the killer about non-competes. It's not whether they'd actually hold up in court - it's more about whether you want to incur the cost associated with challenging it. Generally speaking, courts disfavor non-compete clauses, but will permit them if they're reasonably restricted in scope, duration, and distance (at least, that was what they looked at nearly 20 years ago when I last researched them). My friend was lucky because I only charged him for dinner, and once his old employer saw that he had an attorney to challenge their ridiculous non-compete, they folded pretty quickly so they didn't have to pay their lawyer too much.

(By way of background, my friend was a cameraman for a news station in Rockford, and he took a job as on-air talent for another station there. The non-compete was reasonable in terms of duration and distance, but not scope. It's silly to think that the former station would somehow be disadvantaged or lose viewers because a behind-the-scene guy took his talents on air for another station. We eventually agreed to sign something saying that my friend wouldn't divulge any of the sweet "trade secret" camera moves he learned at the old station to the new station. Basically, it was cover for the old station to tell employees that they were still enforcing their non-completes, and they signed something special in this case.)

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue May 02, 2017 5:04 pm

I had a banker leave Wells Fargo many years ago and he couldn't contact any ex-clients for 1-2 years, I forget exactly. As soon as he could, i switched to the bank he moved to.

You may ask why I did that? he did things for me, and understood my business better, than anyone had for years at Wells Fargo. And the people who replaced him there were absolutely clueless regarding how construction worked.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Tue May 02, 2017 11:54 pm

Non-compete's are void in California thankfully. All of that sounds crazy to me.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Wed May 03, 2017 4:02 pm

I think what happened to ESPN is the same thing that happened to local news. Here in the Los Angeles area we used to have very well known, and highly paid, local news anchors. And I think that made financial sense since those 'stars' brought in the audience. The audience was trapped, local news was the only game in town, but they could choose who to watch. A star anchor made sure they watched your channel.

Then local stations starting letting those anchors go, and not signing up new ones. It wasn't long before relative nobodies were anchoring local news. That's because with people getting their news from so many other sources at that point, it was irrelevant who was anchoring the news. All they needed was a competent, warm body. Why pay top dollar for someone who is not going to give you any larger an audience than the person who is willing to work cheap?

I think that's ESPN's reality. A lot of the layoffs are of people who are known, have some fans, but these are not people who are pulling in new audiences or readers, at least not enough to justify what they get paid. ESPN can stock those jobs with just about anyone and not see a difference. The people who were going to watch ESPN still will watch, those who weren't still won't.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed May 03, 2017 4:45 pm

The Fresno Bee, a McClatchy product, made local news today by laying people off. It is now printed 200 miles away (Sacramento) so the news and especially the sports is older than dirt by the time they throw it at your door.

It is no wonder newspapers are dying.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed May 03, 2017 4:51 pm

stessier wrote:I don't know about that. I think it has more to do with the cord cutting reality. They can't keep charging $8+ for their channel and are now paying the price for building their business on that.

Sports costs for cable is obscene and even worse for a station that doesn't do that much sports. I would love to see ESPN dismantled and have that reflect in my bill. The free ride they get is ridiculous.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/espn-now ... e-channel/

BTIG Research conducted a survey in which 56 percent of those asked if they’d dump ESPN to save $8 per month on their cable bill said they would.

ESPN are probably the biggest reason people are cutting the cord.

ImLawBoy wrote:T People who don't watch sports still end up paying for ESPN, Fox Sports, college conference networks, etc., because those who do watch are extremely vocal when they can't get their games live. There will be a tipping point, though, when the cord cutters will outweigh the vocal sports fans. Then it will be very interesting to see what happens to the leagues.

Cable is already too late. The tipping point happened, they just haven't embraced it. They've lost the next generation and what could possibly bring the next generation back when they have Netflix and Amazon and Hulu? Inertia is what keeps up old folks keeping cable but the next generation's mindset has changed. They saw the price of cable and said "for that price I'd rather have my phone that can do everything"

That's the killer about non-competes. It's not whether they'd actually hold up in court - it's more about whether you want to incur the cost associated with challenging it.

This but that's also what state labor departments are for.

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Wed May 03, 2017 4:57 pm

LordMortis wrote: Cable is already too late. The tipping point happened, they just haven't embraced it.

I don't know about embracing it but they can't possibly ignore it: Cord-cutting spikes fivefold in cable TV’s worst quarter ever

Pay-TV providers lost an estimated 762,000 pay-TV subscribers over the first three months of this year—five times more than they lost during the same period last year.