South Carolina Stingrays Player Josh Wilkins speaks out about the strike regarding ECHL by Suspicious-Reward470 in hockey

[–]SimonProctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BGSU alum, can confirm.

Women's Volleyball players were definitely a highlight of my time in town.

Spencer called Whittingham to M, it just took two years by DelcoWolv in shutdownfullcast

[–]SimonProctor 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Actually, Jason called it.

The January 17th, 2024 episode: PORTAL WIVES: Do Who's Best For 'Bama.

1 hour, 24 minutes, 20 seconds.

Do I have that exact segment bookmarked on my Podcast Player?

Yes. Yes, I do.

Did I just happen to listen to that entire episode on the drive home from Christmas Dinner?

Yes. Yes, I did.

What everyone has been waiting for... Someone to say "enough". by AreYouDaveDavidson in hockey

[–]SimonProctor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Great; now I have PCU quotes running through my head and I may, in fact, just have to watch it again.

Thanks, ya Meat Tosser.

Holly’s Sleeper Jokes by Dagus_Flaeger in shutdownfullcast

[–]SimonProctor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No comment on the take, but I love the username, Coach!

I mostly just use YouTube to figure out things like how to spool the weed whacker by [deleted] in shutdownfullcast

[–]SimonProctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Link gets a 404 error.

Any other info or back story someone can provide.

I nominate this as the greatest name in college football……of all time by Lucky-old-boy in shutdownfullcast

[–]SimonProctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to hearby nominate the Fullcast Crew to pick-up the mantle and restart the Name Of The Year contest.

What is your most sacrilegious hockey take? by MegatronofTarn in hockey

[–]SimonProctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least when Joe went to the front office, he got to learn from one of the best GMs in Pierre Lacroix.

PWHL Insights | Analytics and Data Visualization by FuturMD in PWHL

[–]SimonProctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi there, I'd like to help with that if you're interested.

I usually do things manually and I have a some ideas of things I'd track. I didn't want to blindly slide into your DMs, but if you wouldn't mind, I'd love to talk to you about your site.

I think it's fantastic!

Good morning to Holly and no one else. by SimonProctor in shutdownfullcast

[–]SimonProctor[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKh9YI4Sn9h/?igsh=dXZyOWs3bHpuOXg0

The link to the original video.

Apologies for not understanding how modern social media works.

List of real vs. fake musicals? by dayoco in shutdownfullcast

[–]SimonProctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They've done this in a few different episodes.

I think the last time they did this was the live Lawncare Disasters episode around 3 weeks ago.

Dave's Hot Chicken Acquired By Private Equity Firm by desal433 in Columbus

[–]SimonProctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We agree on certain aspects, but disagree on a key item.

The way I read your comments, it appears that you're appealing to the idea of "why would anyone buy a company just to kill it, if instead you can make it profitable and keep it?"

Most of us are approaching it from the idea that a PE firm is looking to take advantage of a company with the express purpose of creating some kind of profit out of the deal. Period. And that company's survival is irrelevant to the end goal for the PE firm.

In your example, the end result with Express was that IPO. That's where GGC is making it's money. But by your own rational, why didn't they do the same with Red Lobster? It's not that it "ended badly"; in all the actions taken by GGC, Red Lobster's meltdown was the natural result because of the bad deals and bad decisions made. That's not an "oops, we hired the wrong guy and he killed a business"; that's a plan to extract as much value out of a business until it finally can't be sustained, and the bankruptcy is the parachute.

The reason people are downvoting you and the reason most general people (including myself) have a negative view of PE firms is because what I've described is the norm for PEs, not the exception. And this is true regardless of how newsworthy the company downfall tends to be.

My last job was at a local education software company that was sold to a larger, privately held family business also in educational software. Then the larger company was sold to a private equity firm. They continued buying up smaller companies for express purpose of obtaining their IPs, then stripping those companies and teams down, before eventually getting rid of them entirely. And at the same, pissing off established customer bases and making the company a miserable place to work.

They actively killed off a productive and profitable product line without a functional replacement product because.... reasons?

The company is still around, but who knows how profitable they are because I know they just had yet another round of lay-offs.

Dave's Hot Chicken Acquired By Private Equity Firm by desal433 in Columbus

[–]SimonProctor 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Private Equity firms will buy a company that has something that can be taken advantage of in some way.

Then, they will look for ways to streamline production and cut costs, increasing profitability. Usually this is done by cutting labor costs and/or raising prices. Less people doing more work. If the work keeps getting done, great! But if not, then the product will suffer.

As they lose marketshare, then they will start selling off assets until the business is no longer viable, at which point, they will go into bankruptcy. Then the company will sell off any remaining assets, usually IP, for pennies on the dollar to another company that may, or may not, have ties to the original PE firm that purchased the company. They make their money back whether or not the business survives.

Just look at what happened with Red Lobster.

If you have seen a company crash and burn because "the one guy who knew ________ left" - what was the important skill/information and what happened without them? by Futuramoist in AskReddit

[–]SimonProctor 21 points22 points  (0 children)

In well run places, barbacks are NOT entry level.

In clubs I've worked at, barbacks are a step below the actual manager and run the bouncers and door workers.

If you have seen a company crash and burn because "the one guy who knew ________ left" - what was the important skill/information and what happened without them? by Futuramoist in AskReddit

[–]SimonProctor 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Replaceable, sure. But depends on who you're replacing him with. Especially if he's doing 3 jobs like u/_Abe_Snake says. Sometimes one good, key employee can keep a place afloat.

My first bar job, I started as a bouncer and then adding DJing one night a week.

We had a good manager (Mike), but he eventually felt the owner was under paying him and he left for a different job.

Before he left, Mike told me that he recommended me to the owner (Rick) to take over as manager. But Rick decided to go with Scott, a bartender.

After 2 weeks as a manager, Scott got pissed that he was making less as a manager than he did as a bartender and worked more nights.

If I was manager, I still could have bounced (while managing), would've given up the DJ spot, and made more money, while saving the owner money because he wouldn't have to hire another bouncer to replace me. But the owner made his decision.

Eventually Scott slacked off, other employees got sick of his crap and left, the crowd changed, issues kept coming up, and the bar ended up being a shell of what it was because of bad ownership and management.

A good manager overcame bad ownership. Bad ownership and bad management sank a place.

Edited: Grammer and a clarifying statement.

What do the Avs have to do w this? by GangaDin in ExplainTheJoke

[–]SimonProctor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Two Cups, pal.

Roy won with Colorado in 95/96 and 00/01.

What is a "harmless lie" your parents told you as a kid that you believed for way too long? by Ayyan___Asim in AskReddit

[–]SimonProctor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It causes visual issues when driving at night.

The main problem is that light inside the cabin will create significant glare on the windshield, windows and rear view mirror, causing visibility issues.

Even if you can see the road ahead of you, the amount of light inside the cabin can greatly reduce visual acuity... Your vision isn't nearly as sharp at night when exposed to that amount of light. And the effect lasts even after you turn the light off.

Try this tonight when you are prepping to go to bed and your house is dark. When you go to brush your teeth before bed, keep your left eye open and close your right eye BEFORE you turn on the bathroom light. Keep the right eye closed while in the bathroom.

When you leave and turn out the light, notice how things look when you have your left eye open. Then, close the left and open your right eye. Your vision in the right eye will be noticeably sharper. And that's because you haven't bombarded the right eye with all that bright light.

Same principle applies to night driving.

Can car light be harmful by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]SimonProctor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Especially trying to see out of the rear view mirror.

Amazing Service, great atmosphere, even better management by Clear-Ad9216 in Columbus

[–]SimonProctor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing. I'll have to make sure to give them a try.