The main point of Akira's article seems to be opining against the "conventional wisdom" of falling revenues:

As a result of my research into Gonzo’s collapse, I’ve discovered that animation studios do make quite a bit of revenue: Gonzo didn’t fail because its sales were severely hampered. As a matter of fact, Strike Witches sold quite well. It failed because of poor management and bad investment choices.

Akira also raises, somewhat tangentionally and perhaps accidentially, against the widely discussed post by a MAL user about studios becoming a hostage to a narrow demographic, by stating that DVD counting is not everything:

This may come as quite a shock to many fans and observers of the industry, but many people are not asking the right questions: often, people gauge a studio’s “success” by using DVD sales as a general benchmark, the assumption there being that DVD sales represent a major part of revenue.

Well, the MALer backed this assumption with pretty pie charts. The credibility of them may be a suspect, or may be not. Credibility of Akira is definitely in question after what appears to be a confusion of what is revenue and what is profit:

While some may doubt the impact of Sunrise’s contract-based system of employment, statistics show that it works: Sunrise’s total revenue over the past few years was greater than Toei Animation’s, who outpaced Sunrise two to one in terms of sales revenue, which is further evidence that sales is not the key determinant to financial success within the industry.

Obviously the contract-based or other system of employment cannot be shown to "work" based on "revenue", since employment is accounted as costs of doing business, not revenue. It's either a basic logic mistake or a confusion of profits and revenue. The latter seems more probable due to an attempt to differentiate "total revenue" and "sales revenue". Which would actually made a complete sense due to revenue from, say, interest on studio's cash reserves - but not in the context of the discussion of outsourcing!

Here's another funny quote, or actually two of them funny together:

Comparing employment figures across companies, Sunrise has one-tenth the number of regular employees of Kyoto Animation. One-tenth. Most work is outsourced to Koreans or freelance animators on a contract basis. Kyoto Animation, on the other hand, employs in-house animators for most of the work, significantly increasing costs.

... and ...

Finally, Sunrise has a unique advantage of Kyoto Animation. As an old, established studio, Sunrise has a number of in-house writers, who can churn out original anime series.

So... Having employees is an advantage (a unique one, too!), but not having employees... is also an advantage? What actually is going on here is a clumsy attempt to explain that keeping rights in house is important; the whole paragraph is dedicated to it. It's not about writers.

Still, it's a curious article, and it probably makes good points, although I am not sure, since the argument is rife with bizarre sentences. I disagree with the refusal to provide numbers as well. They would've made the work of writing much easier, and the excuse used to withhold them is plain ridiculous.

P.S. What is not addressed here is the split between the financial failure like GONZO's and the reduced profit margin as a conscious tradeoff against the product quality (I am definitely not knocking Sorakake here, and in fact I wrote that Haruhi's quality was uneven (in both animation and writing), but the quality is supposed to be KyotoAni's strength).