On Nov 11, 6:17 pm, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It's news, as it strikes me as counter to the prevailing narrative. Most > statements SCG has made about following Letterman to 11:35 range from mild to > annoyed disinterest.
I doubt he had any options to respond otherwise. It might have come off as campaigning for the job. > > There's also been no other reporting that I can find of Ferguson officially > signing a new deal. I've seen reference to a two-year extension (which would > seem awfully short to have a succession clause for 11:35), and discussions in > late 2009 and early 2010 that the parties were close to signing. > > Does "sudden need" mean anything special? > > David > > ________________________________ > From: donz5 <do...@aol.com> > To: TVorNotTV <tvornottv@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Thu, November 11, 2010 5:09:21 PM > Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: The War For Late Night: Chapter 1 > > This, I think, is news. re Scottish Conan Guy, page 137: > > "Attention and better ratings followed, and then came a deal from CBS > -- one no other late-night host, first at NBC and now at CBS, had ever > had. Ferguson won a guarantee that he would be the successor to David > Letterman, should there ever -- heaven forbid -- be a sudden need for > a new host of Late Show. It wasn't anything like a five-year ticket to > the big chair, but it was the CBS version of the Prince of Wales > clause. Or in this case maybe, the Prince of Scots." -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
