Started By
Message

re: The New York Times buying The Athletic for $550 million.

Posted on 1/6/22 at 11:24 am to
Posted by Civildawg
Member since May 2012
8596 posts
Posted on 1/6/22 at 11:24 am to
The athletic was bleeding bad. They were losing like 100 million a year. I don’t understand why NYT paid that price tag
Posted by TotesMcGotes
New York, New York
Member since Mar 2009
27882 posts
Posted on 1/6/22 at 11:29 am to
They didn’t lose $100 million per year. I think they lost $100 million over the course of 2-3 years.

I don’t think they were supposed to be profitable until somewhere down the line. Maybe they couldn’t bridge the gap and NYT figured they can. Come in at the tail end of their long road to profitability and then reap the rewards.
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79322 posts
Posted on 1/6/22 at 11:34 am to
quote:

The athletic was bleeding bad. They were losing like 100 million a year. I don’t understand why NYT paid that price tag



Same. I know it's less than the price tags I've seen in recent years, but still seems like a heavy overpay for a model that has already given up a lot of it's original selling points.
Posted by Thundercles
Mars
Member since Sep 2010
5101 posts
Posted on 1/6/22 at 12:02 pm to
I can't fathom how they were losing so much money over so much of a time frame. Were their payroll costs that insane?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram