And apparently 65% at Charlotte based ESPNU:
http://deadspin.com/source-espn-laying-off-hundreds-509043249
clt asks if stu Scott is included?
I guess the CEO needed a salary boost this year, so hey, let’s get rid of some staffers. :
Ain’t that how bidness works?
Ain’t that how bidness works?[/quote]
Sadly, yes.
Insight into the reasons behind the layoffs:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/espn-layoffs-sign-channels-worst-184154714.html
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
It’s also the real desire to keep a ceratain profit margin.
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
It’s also the real desire to keep a ceratain profit margin.[/quote]
I would think the desire to make money was assumed. Should they do it for free?
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
It’s also the real desire to keep a ceratain profit margin.[/quote]
I would think the desire to make money was assumed. Should they do it for free?[/quote]
Absolutely not. However, increased costs shrink the margin. What margin is acceptable? That is what is driving the layoffs. ESPN could absorb increased rights cost, lived with a lower margin, and kept those employees. They chose to try and keep a higher margin. Looks like this isn’t just an ESPN move as the parent company has asked for cuts across all lines of business.
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
The CEO makes $5 million per year. I don’t see any mention of them cutting his salary to help keep the profit margin the same. ???
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
The CEO makes $5 million per year. I don’t see any mention of them cutting his salary to help keep the profit margin the same. ???[/quote]
You had layoffs recently. Did you run into your boss’ office and offer to cut your salary to save those who were laid off?
It’s easy to be morally superior with someone else’s money.
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
The CEO makes $5 million per year. I don’t see any mention of them cutting his salary to help keep the profit margin the same. ???[/quote]
You had layoffs recently. Did you run into your boss’ office and offer to cut your salary to save those who were laid off?
It’s easy to be morally superior with someone else’s money.[/quote]
I wasn’t given the option to reduce my salary and keep my position. I would have gladly done it had it meant saving my position. Our CEO also wasn’t asked to reduce his salary to help save some jobs, either. The biggest difference is that our CEO makes about twice what most of management makes in the rest of the company. The ESPN CEO is making about 50x what most of the management makes at ESPN, which is ridiculous to begin with.
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
The CEO makes $5 million per year. I don’t see any mention of them cutting his salary to help keep the profit margin the same. ???[/quote]
You had layoffs recently. Did you run into your boss’ office and offer to cut your salary to save those who were laid off?
It’s easy to be morally superior with someone else’s money.[/quote]
I wasn’t given the option to reduce my salary and keep my position. I would have gladly done it had it meant saving my position. Our CEO also wasn’t asked to reduce his salary to help save some jobs, either. The biggest difference is that our CEO makes about twice what most of management makes in the rest of the company. The ESPN CEO is making about 50x what most of the management makes at ESPN, which is ridiculous to begin with.[/quote]
You were willing to take a pay cut to save your own job? You’re a saint.
My question was were you willing to take a pay cut to save someone else’s job? It is a simple yes or no question.
I am sure you wouldn’t hold someone to a different standard than yourself.
It beats the hell out of unemployment.
[quote=“Mullins Maniac, post:14, topic:27803”]My question was were you willing to take a pay cut to save someone else’s job? It is a simple yes or no question.
I am sure you wouldn’t hold someone to a different standard than yourself.[/quote]
It is not a simple yes or no question, and the standard is not the same because the ESPN CEO makes 50X my salary. I’m not making 50x what my subordinates are making, or even double what they’re making. So taking a pay cut of my salary of even 50% would not save their job. If the ESPN exec took a 20% pay cut, he could probably save 20-40 of the positions that are being cut. There’s a big difference in standard, because it’s apples and oranges when comparing the salaries.
It’s called the rising costs of live sports events. The only thing left that needs to be watched live. So you pay out of the nose for those events. Couple that with the rise of NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports busting their balls bidding on these live events and you have the perfect storm.[/quote]
The CEO makes $5 million per year. I don’t see any mention of them cutting his salary to help keep the profit margin the same. ???[/quote]
You had layoffs recently. Did you run into your boss’ office and offer to cut your salary to save those who were laid off?
It’s easy to be morally superior with someone else’s money.[/quote]
I wasn’t given the option to reduce my salary and keep my position. I would have gladly done it had it meant saving my position. Our CEO also wasn’t asked to reduce his salary to help save some jobs, either. The biggest difference is that our CEO makes about twice what most of management makes in the rest of the company. The ESPN CEO is making about 50x what most of the management makes at ESPN, which is ridiculous to begin with.[/quote]
You were willing to take a pay cut to save your own job? You’re a saint.
My question was were you willing to take a pay cut to save someone else’s job? It is a simple yes or no question.
I am sure you wouldn’t hold someone to a different standard than yourself.[/quote]
I know the question isn’t directed at me but yes. If I was in the position of these CEOs that are getting paid tens of millions of dollars every year, I would take a pay cut so that a few workers wouldn’t lose their jobs.
A good CEO would take care of his employees over his salary.
There was a study recently done about C-level pay compared to their respective employees and it was pretty interesting.
The ratio way before trickle down economics was around 20 to 1. Now it is in the 100s to 1.
Shocking I know.
I don’t understand how anyone can defend CEO actions in this day and age, unless you are a CEO or in line to be one. I love how people attacked the Hostess union as the cause of their bankrupcy and chose to ignore the CEO taking a huge bonus when the company was floundering.
It could’ve been cutting the fat. Not all layoffs are bad.