10-18-2007, 04:18 PM
Though former Monday Night Football analyst Joe Theismann opted for the high road in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel's repeated swipes at Theismann during a visit to the booth during this week's Giants-Falcons game, we've got a feeling that ESPN's decision to ban Kimmel from any future appearances on the show was made either at the request of Theismann, or in an effort to placate him.
We recently reported that Theismann's relationship with ESPN has ended, and ESPN spokesman Mac Nwulu told us that the two sides had reached a settlement.
Settlements of this nature typically include a term requiring the parties not to say anything bad about each other. It's called a "non-disparagement clause."
Moreover, deals like this usually apply not only to the employees and agents of the corporate party but also to all employees and agents of the corporate party's affiliated companies. In the case of ESPN, that includes Kimmel's employer, ABC.
And since Kimmel was ostensibly in the booth to promote his upcoming week of hosting Regis & Kelly Lee (or Whoever She Is) in New York and Kimmel's own show on Los Angeles, it could be argued that Kimmel's comments about Theismann can be imputed to ESPN/ABC.
Why else would ESPN be making such a big deal about this? Did they not expect Kimmel to be an irreverent smartass? Last year, he asked Theismann about the leg that was broken by Lawrence Taylor in a Monday night game in the 1980s.
Per Richard Sandomir of the New York Times, MNF producer Jay Rothman called Kimmel's comments "classless and disappointing. It was cheap. The more he went on, the worse he got."
Again, what did they expect from Kimmel?
Look, if ESPN doesn't like what Kimmel had to say, then ESPN has only itself to blame. And since ESPN typically isn't keen on admitting that it screwed up (as evidenced by the ongoing employment of Emmitt Smith), the fact that Bristol is making a big deal about this strongly suggests that the company wants to avoid an allegation that it has violated the terms of the settlement agreement with Theismann.
We recently reported that Theismann's relationship with ESPN has ended, and ESPN spokesman Mac Nwulu told us that the two sides had reached a settlement.
Settlements of this nature typically include a term requiring the parties not to say anything bad about each other. It's called a "non-disparagement clause."
Moreover, deals like this usually apply not only to the employees and agents of the corporate party but also to all employees and agents of the corporate party's affiliated companies. In the case of ESPN, that includes Kimmel's employer, ABC.
And since Kimmel was ostensibly in the booth to promote his upcoming week of hosting Regis & Kelly Lee (or Whoever She Is) in New York and Kimmel's own show on Los Angeles, it could be argued that Kimmel's comments about Theismann can be imputed to ESPN/ABC.
Why else would ESPN be making such a big deal about this? Did they not expect Kimmel to be an irreverent smartass? Last year, he asked Theismann about the leg that was broken by Lawrence Taylor in a Monday night game in the 1980s.
Per Richard Sandomir of the New York Times, MNF producer Jay Rothman called Kimmel's comments "classless and disappointing. It was cheap. The more he went on, the worse he got."
Again, what did they expect from Kimmel?
Look, if ESPN doesn't like what Kimmel had to say, then ESPN has only itself to blame. And since ESPN typically isn't keen on admitting that it screwed up (as evidenced by the ongoing employment of Emmitt Smith), the fact that Bristol is making a big deal about this strongly suggests that the company wants to avoid an allegation that it has violated the terms of the settlement agreement with Theismann.
![[Image: boston.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v314/FattyJ16/boston.jpg)