87a21ab7   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.letterman   
   From: janeanddano@yahoo.com   
      
   garyd wrote:   
   > On May 15, 3:35 pm, "Dano"  wrote:   
   >> Barry Margolin wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>> "Dano"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> Twibil wrote:   
   >>>>> On May 13, 1:16 pm, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>> However, the list of people getting $30+million severance pay and   
   >>>>>> still 'slamming' their former employer is quite short.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Um, so is the list of people who've ever had $30+million severance   
   >>>>> packages; not to mention that the list of people who've been   
   >>>>> throughly screwed over before being given those $30+million   
   >>>>> packages is even shorter yet.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Do you suppose there could be a connection there?   
   >>   
   >>>> I don't know. It's just really hard for me to consider getting over   
   >>>> 30 million bucks is somehow (ANYHOW) "getting screwed". If anyone   
   >>>> on the planet can be considered overpaid, it's this guy.   
   >>   
   >>> Everything's relative. If you were expecting to make something like   
   >>> $50 million over the next 5 or 10 years, along with having one of   
   >>> the most prestigious jobs in TV, $30 million and a job on a cable   
   >>> network is a huge step down. Regardless of what you think of the   
   >>> guy, he got screwed out of tens of millions of dollars that he was   
   >>> promised.   
   >>   
   >> He got everything he was contractually entitled to. There ARE no   
   >> guarantees in this life. Was this a major disappointment for him?   
   >> Sure. He's still a young man. If he is as talented as you and he   
   >> think he is...he'll still make his millions. If his popularity   
   >> supports that of course. That certainly remains to be seen. NBC F'ed   
   >> up by giving out that contract in the first place.   
   >   
   > Actually NBC broke his contract which is what triggered the $30   
   > million penalty pay out. The bottom line is that NBC didn't give Conan   
   > the chance that they gave Leno.   
   >   
   > NBC F'ed up initially by giving Leno the Tonight Show over Dave. NBC   
   > F'ed up by allowing Leno to push Carson. The initial Conan deal in   
   > 2004 was a smart move because Leno's ratings were sliding at the time   
   > and is audience was aging and Conan represented the future. Believe   
   > me, they didn't make that decision without a lot market research. So   
   > now their stuck with an aging Leno and his aging audience who's   
   > ratings are declining at the same rate Conan's did with no one on the   
   > horizon to replace him except for Jimmy Fallon or Carson Daly.   
      
   I agree with you that NBC f'ed up.  But they had little choice in how to go   
   about "fixing" the mistake.  I think even Conan is fully aware of that.   
   From what I understand about Leno's contract it would have cost them around   
   a 100 million more to dump Leno.   
      
   Back when they made the promise to give Conan the prized 11:30 slot, I   
   suspect NBC's financials were a hell of a lot healthier.  Time   
   changes...everything.   
      
   One other thing...I keep hearing about how Leno was given much more time   
   than Conan to gain his audience.  THAT too was quite a different scenario if   
   you think about it.  They didn't have a another star with his own devoted   
   following to switch back to.  Johnny Carson was not walking through that   
   door.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)