| re: Patinkin committing to 3 months might've helped, 3 weeks, not so much. |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 11:32 pm EDT 08/08/17 |
| In reply to: re: Patinkin committing to 3 months might've helped, 3 weeks, not so much. - Michael_Portantiere 11:06 pm EDT 08/08/17 |
|
Maybe the three Mandy weeks weren't about saving the ship outright, but just keeping it afloat long enough to get the real rescue plan in place? If they were looking at running at a loss plus no advance once Ingrid left, treading water to buy some time might have been what they needed. (Assuming they could have had a star lined up and announced before the end of August...if he couldn't go in immediately after Labor Day, the announcement could have turned the advance around and a few weeks potentially in the red might not be so worrisome.)
Oak's and Mandy's salaries together would probably have been less than Groban was getting. I don't have a sense of how much Ingrid could be getting, but in the end it probably at least would have held the weekly nut steady, maybe even lowered it. |
|
reply
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Patinkin committing to 3 months might've helped, 3 weeks, not so much. - Michael_Portantiere 11:06 pm EDT 08/08/17 |
| Next: |
re: Patinkin committing to 3 months might've helped, 3 weeks, not so much. - Michael_Portantiere 11:59 pm EDT 08/08/17 |
| Thread: |
|
