DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Pilot Flying J Pulls ESPN Deal After Story On Browns' Culture

And if you were in Haslam's situation you would look even more petty and childish. This is a James Dolan type move (that is not a compliment).

I wouldnt even care. Not giving money to my detractors.

Who says it's true?

So, it's his right, but exercising his right makes him a dunce???? Why do you think espn is entitled to his money?

He's a dunce because he can't handle a little criticism in the media (and all the other stupid stuff he has done since he bought the team).

He's not dumb, he's smart.

ESPN got what they deserve, and they are still gonna have to kiss the Browns butt when Baker destroys this league.

Jimmy gets the last laugh.

See, I don't understand your thought process here. It's Pilots money. Why advertise/why spend money with someone or something that dumps on you? And their are questions about the 'truth' of the article. Regardless, 100% true? Even so, why spend your money with them?

Hey, when you're in the limelight everyone knows your business and everyone has an opinion. For every person that thinks he's a dunce there's someone saying "right on Jimmy". I doubt he cares about either. Hard enough to please everyone in your family, let alone the whole world.

I would have less respect for him if he put his tail between his legs and kept writing them checks, that's just me. As far as "can't handle criticism", dude has owned up to every shortcoming, every mistake, and never shifted the blame. A lot more than we can say about most of the hierarchy on this team.

This is a non story. Who cares? Put a good product on the football field. Don't let Baker get a big head, keep Hunt and OBJ in line, and try to avoid a circus during the season.

ESPN has a right to call a spade a spade, but Jimmy also has the right to pull back the funds. I'm sure someone at ESPN was behind the decision to air the risky piece and KNEW Jimmy might be pissed, they might have to explain that decision to their boss.

I think most already knew the Browns franchise isn't run as smooth as the Patriots, so they lost money telling a story everyone already knew.

I don't air my customers dirty laundry, it's common courtesy.

Wait ... what?

This too. If you are doing business with someone, it looks really bad to try to publically humiliate them.

The only dumb one here is ESPN.

This. OTOH, kudos to ESPN for taking the risk.

I'll never, ever get down on someone for dissing ESPN. I hate what they've become. I'm pissed that JH advertised with them in the first place. What was he supposed to do, laugh off the article and keep paying them?

j/c

Simply ridiculous to think a news organization should avoid or temper reporting simply because a sponsor advertised on its news outlet. Ridiculous. If someone is afraid of negative exposure, they should stay out of the limelight, or conduct themselves in a manner that is not newsworthy. Tempering stories because of advertising dollars is absurd. Sure, it may happen, but only when the value of integrity is nil.

I'm not surprised by the folks who are defending Haslam. Well...wait. Fate is the only who surprises me because he is a good dude.

I'm sure that ESPN gives a rat's ass about Haslam pulling his advertising dollars. In all the years I have been watching ESPN, I never once saw a Pilot commercial. Someone else will take his place.

I think the article was one of the best I have ever read. It was real journalism and not the BS tweet group that dominates this board. I also get that most of the people complaining about what ESPN did probably did not have the needed attention span to even read the entire article.

I actually credit ESPN in this particular case for not worrying about advertising dollars and putting out a real piece of journalism that is based on facts and not silly biased opinions. They have plenty of the latter, but that was a quality journalistic piece.

Yep. did ESPN say anything that wasnt the truth ?

I don't know for sure, king. But that article wasn't a typical ESPN talk show or SportsCenter piece. It was a legit article where the author spent a ton of time w/the Browns and got quotes and opinions for a multitude of people who work or worked for the Browns.

It was such a long article that I doubt many people read the entire thing, but man, it was filled w/a ton of information.

One of things I enjoyed was trying to put names to certain quotes. Berry here. Farmer there. Banner here. Sashi there. It was fascinating and again..........I thought it was quality journalism and we don't see much of that these days.

Btw............did you move yet?

1. No one said they should. However, they're a corporation that relies (almost exclusively) on advertising so they should weigh things and act accordingly. At the end of the day - they don't need Pilot and Pilot doesn't need them.
2. He's not afraid of negative exposure, he just let his wallet do the talking, much the same as many posters here when talking about particular products or organizations they don't care for.
3. It happens everyday, if a corp makes a decision based on sponsors I don't think it means they lack integrity. Maybe if they're trying to bury a story.

See the thing is , if they tip toe around writing real journalistic pieces about anyone who spends money with them , they there journalism is going to suffer and nobody will read their stuff. Theres a fine balance there , so they lose Pilots advertising business, but in the long run they gain by being a good publicatin(if they are, I have no idea)

Haha. I'm still a good dude! Defending him? It's not like he's involved in a sex scandal lol. He has a right, like anyone else, to let his money do the talking when he sees something he doesn't like. I just think it's funny when people act like he's a loser, a bafoon, a child, petty, etc, etc, etc... when he reacts to something in the same way that many (if not most) people would.

Defending that has NOTHING to do with the article's content, it's accuracy, how well written it was or anything else. I thought it was a great article. I can't speak to it being 100% accurate because it was still, to a large extent, based on the word of a bunch of people that were fired from the organization. Few fired employees talk about their former employer like everything was "peaches and cream". That said, Wickersham did a tremendous job of tying together the timeline and giving an inside look behind the scenes of the "factory of sadness".

Haslam had spent the better part of five years under investigation by the FBI. When some reporter follows that with what seems like a pretty deep investigation concerning how badly he has failed as an owner, keeping his advertising dollars with the source that publishes that "expose" would seem a bit ludicrous to me.

I have zero issue with this.... though I fbut und the story interesting... why would I be surprised thwt pilot j pulls out from espn.... no issue at all with this...

I agree... I think in was an interesting article... I'm frsutrwted it comes out when We're getting good... but I thought it was well done and rally interesting.... with that said I have no issue with Jimmy pulling money from espn.... why should he stay with them after a critically article... i praise espn for the article but have no issue with Jimmy pulling his ads...

So it would be good with you if say, ABC, CBS and NBC didn't investigate and report the racial discrimination charges against GM because they spend millions in advertising on their networks? They should weigh the cost and act accordingly?

Fate, dude, come on.

Like I said, the entire notion is ridiculous.

No dude, that would not be alright on any level. That's why I said burying a story would be not be okay.

You said "Tempering stories because of advertising dollars is absurd. Sure, it may happen, but only when the value of integrity is nil."

I took "tempering" to mean the laissez-faire attitude by which they choose what to report, and to what extent. Regardless, my response reads as ridiculous and not the way I feel at all. I'm glad you called me out, because I never intended to imply sacrificing journalistic integrity was acceptable.

You're 100% correct.

I initially said avoid or temper, but I know you get my point. Have a good night, bro.

Same to you Dawg.

Just having some fun.

JC

If a dog keeps biting your hand when you try to feed it, guess what?

So u have your “own” church ... your not affiliated with any of the “major” religious organizations? ...

He has shareholders ... its not his money he’s spending ... u and many others think it comes out of his pocket .. ...

A responsible 50.1% shareholder would do the right thing for his shareholders not his ego ... this dude has the most fragile ego ever ... he has a controlling interest so he can do what he wants .. as usual its all about him and his ego as opposed to doing whats right for his shareholders ...

Dudes and egotistical, control freak bully ... he’s harsh and abrasive and not real well liked in the business community ..

I could care less .. espn sucks as much as the thief does ...

Carry on debating something most of u seem to have ZERO CLUE about ...

If he wasn’t the WORST OWNER in the history of sports maybe he wouldn’t have gotten the WELL EARNED bad press ...

What stock symbol does your company trade under ... ...

One last thing and then I’m out ...

This is a DROP IN THE BUCKET for both these corp’s .... neither of them will be affected one iota by this ...

It will have ZERO AFFECT on either of there bottom lines ...

As long as the thief leaves King John alone .. i could care less what else he does ...

LETS GOOOOOOOooooooooooooo ...

While I hated that article, if it turns out it was true, then it's right that Haslam kept changing things until he got to this point. I'd not be happy either.

But his childish rebuttal by pulling Ads,, I don't know, to me it's kind of a Trumpish move..

I get insulted by Liberals on here all the time. I'm not sending them any money.

j/c:

I don't know why, but while reading this thread, I keep thinking of that great race car driver who wore fancy cowboy hats and drove a car numbered 43. What was his name? Richard......??????

Simmons?

ZERO CLUE???

You're arguing about shareholders of a privately owned LLC. There are exactly three shareholders, it's not a publicly traded company. LMAO Not that any of the facts matter!

Now you're just being petty.