The Athletic sells to the New York Times

Scott Cooper's Grand Slam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2008
4,266
New England
This piece on Ichiro stories is hilarious. From the opening:

Mike Sweeney, Royals first baseman: In 2000, I was part of the MLB All-Star team that went to Japan to play in the Goodwill Series against the Japanese all-stars. Ichiro didn’t play because he was preparing to sign with Seattle. Everyone knew about Ichiro. While we were in Japan, every time an American player got a base hit, you’d hear the term, “Nice batting,” in a Japanese accent over the speaker system. It would say on the jumbotron: “Nice batting.” I thought, “Wow, that’s a kind common gesture.” So in 2001, it’s the first few weeks of the season, and we’re playing against the Mariners. So, of course, he hits a line drive over the shortstop’s head for a single. With total respect, I didn’t know if he knew any English. So I looked over, and, in my imitation of what I heard in Japan, I said, “Ichiro, nice batting.” And he looks at me and goes, “Mike Sweeney, nice ass.”

Shawn Kelley, Mariners teammate: He’s hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

Bret Boone, Mariners teammate:Opening Day, 2001. I’m taking my position at second base, and there was a veteran umpire out there, a guy that’s been there forever. He comes up to me and goes, “Boonie, what’s up, how are you doing?” And he goes, “What the hell’s up with your right fielder?” I said, “What are you talking about?” He goes, “He runs by me and I say to him, ‘Hey, Ichiro, welcome to America.’” And Ichiro looks at him and says, “What’s happening, home slice,” and keeps running to his position.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
This piece on Ichiro stories is hilarious. From the opening:
This was my favorite story:

Strange-Gordon: He had just signed with the Marlins, and we hit every day. You know me: I’m just watching everything. I go, “Ichi, question. At the beginning of the second half last year, they told me they wanted me to walk more, so I started taking pitches, but I started to strike out.” He said, “No, no, no.” I said, “So how do I walk?” He said, “You rake first, then they’ll walk you.”
 

ColdSoxPack

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
2,356
Simi Valley, CA
Informative yet depressing article in The Athletic about TV blackouts in baseball. There are no good guys, just more ways for us to get screwed due to greedy owners:

https://theathletic.com/2788096/2021/08/31/streaming-the-future-whats-behind-mlbs-tv-blackout-and-direct-to-consumer-woes/

One of the commenters had this to say, and I second and third it:
One of the items that bothers me the most from the above article is that the middlemen trying to suck any last dollar out of this sport are more important to the owners than the fans or the product. The RSN subscriber fee from customers who don't watch baseball is more important than the fans who do want to watch it. They're fighting to take dollars from people who have no interest in their product and this system is so important to them they won't just let fans stream games.
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
Informative yet depressing article in The Athletic about TV blackouts in baseball. There are no good guys, just more ways for us to get screwed due to greedy owners:

https://theathletic.com/2788096/2021/08/31/streaming-the-future-whats-behind-mlbs-tv-blackout-and-direct-to-consumer-woes/

One of the commenters had this to say, and I second and third it:
One of the items that bothers me the most from the above article is that the middlemen trying to suck any last dollar out of this sport are more important to the owners than the fans or the product. The RSN subscriber fee from customers who don't watch baseball is more important than the fans who do want to watch it. They're fighting to take dollars from people who have no interest in their product and this system is so important to them they won't just let fans stream games.
Remember this article if anyone involved with MLB/RSNs/Cable decries pirating. The end of music pirating came about because tech companies dragged the record companies kicking and screaming to a model that was more appealing to than downloading music for free.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,863
Remember this article if anyone involved with MLB/RSNs/Cable decries pirating. The end of music pirating came about because tech companies dragged the record companies kicking and screaming to a model that was more appealing to than downloading music for free.
This is why I have zero issue pirating sports where they leave me no reasonable way of watching otherwise.

And I don't consider 'cable' reasonable in 2021.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
I read the entire NFL 100 series (ranking the top players in history) and found it really enjoyable. Having a bunch of different writers doing the write up was really good and led to a lot of variety in the entries. Some entries are oral histories, some are one-on-one features, some barely mention their playing career at all. They also didn't shy away from hard topics, and do go after the more unsavory details in some of the entries (how else could you include OJ on the list?) and overall it's very good.

IMO, the actual rankings were pretty good. They did as good of a job as any other list trying to balance the list between offensive and defensive players, and comparing players from throughout history. It's an impossible task, but I didn't find myself disagreeing with any of the rankings for the most part. This is a far contrast to the NFL 100 the NFL Network did two years ago, which I thought had a lot of issues. The list had real balls too, they put JJ Watt and 35 and Aaron Donald at 24 (The NFL 100 list left them off completely). Ranking current players like that (Brady aside) that high will rankle some fans who don't have the necessary perspective to understand the dominance of players like that in today's game, but I respect the outlook.

My only real issue was the list was pretty sparse on WRs and Safeties. Only nine in total for both positions, which meant some real snubs from the list: Terrell Owens, Paul Krause, Emlen Tunnell, Steve Largent, Brian Dawkins, Ken Houston, Marvin Harrison.

Full list is here:

https://theathletic.com/tag/nfl-100/?redirected=1
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,063
Alamogordo
I knew people disliked Jack, but I didn't realize it was THAT bad. I like Brick a lot.

I probably need to start watching opponent broadcasts this year to see what I am missing.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,191
Loved Gaucher on the radio for the B's and it's no surprise he's killing it in Vegas. When it comes to Boston's rankings it's all Jack Edwards as Brick is good and well-liked. Even as a Bruins fan I can't stand Jack's over-the-top presentation, homerism, and soliloqies.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Is it bad? They were growing like crazy so I’d expect them to be going through cash. The bigger questions are whether they actually keep subscribers and how much these subscribers are actually paying.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,532
Is it bad? They were growing like crazy so I’d expect them to be going through cash. The bigger questions are whether they actually keep subscribers and how much these subscribers are actually paying.
I hope it's not as bad as it sounds, I've grown to rely on the Athletic more than any other source out there. Consistently great coverage of the teams I care about.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,620
Is it bad? They were growing like crazy so I’d expect them to be going through cash. The bigger questions are whether they actually keep subscribers and how much these subscribers are actually paying.
I think it’s bad. Lombardi mentioned a bunch of layoffs (probably not proper nomenclature, might be non-renewals) for writers
 

DrBlinky

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 18, 2002
825
Cranston, RI
They may have lost a number of subscribers as they've been constantly running $9.99 and $14.99 promos on Twitter to get former subscribers to jump back in.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
So for those who signed up for $1 a month last year... if you go to cancel it will give you an offer of another year at $21.59, so a massive discount still off the regular price it would renew at.
 

ArttyG12

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
100
So for those who signed up for $1 a month last year... if you go to cancel it will give you an offer of another year at $21.59, so a massive discount still off the regular price it would renew at.
My subscription doesn't expire until the end of the year but this still worked for me. Thanks.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
Looks like the Athletic and the NYT are talking about a sale again
https://puck.news/new-york-times-the-athletic-exclusive-sale-talks/
With less than a year’s worth of cash on hand, Mather and Hansmann have been looking for an exit, after missed consummations with The New York Times and Axios. This time around, they hired the Zelig-like mega-media-banker Aryeh Bourkoff‘s LionTree to help facilitate a sale that would value the company at around $750 million, which is a fair amount more than the $530 million valuation set by their last financing round. (I haven’t seen the deck but that would suggest an aggressive multiple on the known revenue, or more scintillating recent revenue numbers.) Earlier this week, Front Office Sports reported that deal talks had heated up again with the Times. Now I can report that both parties have entered exclusive deal negotiations. And while all the normal caveats that you normally read in the Journal still apply—yes, sure, this could all fall apart at any minute for a variety of reasons—this latest development is a serious step forward and suggests that most key items have been covered over. (Mather did not respond to my interview request. Eileen Murphy, a spokesperson for the Times, declined to comment.)
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
I don't see why the NYT should be paying anywhere near $750M if it's doing that badly.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
920
Boston
Cash burn is exactly what you'd expect for a growing business on a subscription basis - everything is getting/retaining customers.

If they have a year's cash on hand, theres no way they are taking a down round/pricing. There is plenty of time to raise more financing, especially if their customer base is growing at an acceptable subscription price (probably doesnt need to be full price, but $1 month wont cut it). I paid $35 for the year and got a $25 Amex statement credit back in October. Would happily renew in the $40-$50 a year range.
 

Bunt4aTriple

Member (member)
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,347
North Yarmouth, ME
Cash burn is exactly what you'd expect for a growing business on a subscription basis - everything is getting/retaining customers.

If they have a year's cash on hand, theres no way they are taking a down round/pricing. There is plenty of time to raise more financing, especially if their customer base is growing at an acceptable subscription price (probably doesnt need to be full price, but $1 month wont cut it). I paid $35 for the year and got a $25 Amex statement credit back in October. Would happily renew in the $40-$50 a year range.
Obviously there might be promotions, but I got an email this week letting me know that my annual subscription is going to be renewed at $75 next month. I won’t be renewing.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
$72 for The Athletic is a no brainer. $6 a month. It's practically nothing given the value of the content they produce.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Cash burn is exactly what you'd expect for a growing business on a subscription basis - everything is getting/retaining customers.

If they have a year's cash on hand, theres no way they are taking a down round/pricing. There is plenty of time to raise more financing, especially if their customer base is growing at an acceptable subscription price (probably doesnt need to be full price, but $1 month wont cut it). I paid $35 for the year and got a $25 Amex statement credit back in October. Would happily renew in the $40-$50 a year range.
Guessing the average subscriber is paying closer to $1/month than $6 hence why they are bleeding so much cash.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
I'm a cheapskate. My instinct is to cancel The Athletic before they start charging me $6/month, and figure out a way to resubscribe under Mrs. Mugsy's name or some such to keep a cheap rate.

But I'm just such a fan of The Athletic, I can't deny they've earned my full-priced subscription. I want them to survive. So I'll pay up.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I’m going to reup too. It’s a good site, the Sox best writers are very good and the national news reporting is terrific too.

The only negative is Jim Bowden but you can ignore him.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
Does this mean that I now have an online subscription to the NYT?
Judging from their subscription model, you probably don’t even have a sub to The Athletic anymore.

Some people seem to be cheering this, but The Athletic is operating at a loss. NYT is probably going to chop a decent portion of writers and leave the big names to carry them. Not sure I see this as a “win” for anyone other than the early investors and the execs of The Athletic.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
Judging from their subscription model, you probably don’t even have a sub to The Athletic anymore.

Some people seem to be cheering this, but The Athletic is operating at a loss. NYT is probably going to chop a decent portion of writers and leave the big names to carry them. Not sure I see this as a “win” for anyone other than the early investors and the execs of The Athletic.
The second part is probably right and that sucks. They're going to strip it and make it efficient, which is too bad because there's a lot of talent there. The take away from the Internet is don't get too attached to something you enjoy because it's never going to last.
 
Just got this email:
Today marks an incredible milestone for The Athletic. We are thrilled to announce that we have entered into an agreement to be acquired by The New York Times Company, a transaction that is expected to close in the first quarter of 2022.

The New York Times Company has set the standard for excellence in journalism, and as we look towards the future, their support will enable us to continue producing the best sports coverage on earth for an even wider audience.

Nothing about your The Athletic subscription is changing at this time. We will continue to invest in our world-class newsroom and the local and national coverage you can’t get anywhere else.

We cannot mark this important moment without offering our profound gratitude to you, our subscribers. When we founded the company in 2016, we hoped to become the sports page for every city worldwide. Your readership and unwavering support have allowed us to hire the best people in the business who in turn create the best sports content in the world.

Here’s to the future of The Athletic with The New York Times Company behind us. Thank you for believing in the power of great sports journalism and for supporting us as we embark on this new chapter. Onward!

Adam & Alex
Co-Founders of The Athletic
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Judging from their subscription model, you probably don’t even have a sub to The Athletic anymore.

Some people seem to be cheering this, but The Athletic is operating at a loss. NYT is probably going to chop a decent portion of writers and leave the big names to carry them. Not sure I see this as a “win” for anyone other than the early investors and the execs of The Athletic.
This was always the end game. There was no long term outcome for The Athletic that didn’t involve a sale. There is no way to successfully maintain a content-driven journalistic enterprise without scale, and a sports-only entity was never going to achieve that. I’m thankful it’s the Times that bought them, and not some ghoulish hedge fund that owns local “newspapers” or something. At least with the Times there’s a chance it’ll still be worth subscribing to in a year.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
I had one of those $1 a month subs do the Athletic, that jumped up to $8 after a year. When I went to cancel, they immediately offered me a year for $20, which I jumped at, and probably would have paid far more than that. I get that they have to acquire subs and show growth but when you price yourselves that low, I think it’s really hard to convince people to ever pay much more than that.