Getting worried about the future of WDW

[Lesley]

I know my analysis of the current WDW situation may not be up to par with some of the regulars on this board (and I admire you all and wish I had the kind of time to devote to this board to join in the discussions more often!) but I am beginning to feel quite worried about my beloved WDW. Was my trip in August of 2000 the last "real" WDW trip I will ever get? If things are so bad that these drastic measures are necessary just to keep the parks open at all, is WDW on the verge of collapse? Why are things being done that will most likely reduce revenues...cutting hours, dropping parades and shows, getting rid of resort guest perks, and closing resorts? I'd really love to believe these things are just temporary and that the actions will help WDW in the long run....but will they really? Or is the place just being set up for a fast run into the ground? Or a takeover (though I'm almost wondering if that would be an improvement)? Or as some have asserted...is the management of WDW just lining its own pockets at the expense of guests and cm's alike?

These thoughts actually have me very happy my trip is coming up in January.... even with the reductions and cut backs, at least there is still a WDW. And I'm both curious and fearful at what my May and following December trips could hold in store. But mostly I just want them to happen!

Anyone else afraid this may be the beginning of the end?

(Sorry to be so negative!)

[JeffJewell]

Anyone else afraid this may be the beginning of the end ...I think it's already about the middle or so of the end. Those really big fireworks could go off at any time, now.

Jeff

[Lesley]

Darn, Jeff...you just said what I really didn't even want to think...and what scares me the most is that I tend to agree with most of what you've written lately.

Of course, this would be how it goes since we just joined DVC a year ago and are making our first DVC trip in Jan. And I guess HH will get really hard to book if WDW goes under, eh?

[d-r]

Lesley....

I don't think that the concern is that walt disney world would "go under," I think the concern would be that the company would be taken over, and who those new owners would be. One might worry that any potential new owners would know even less about pixie dust than the current administration.

DR

[DVC-Landbaron]

Anyone else afraid this may be the beginning of the end?Welcome to my nightmare! I've been on about this for a couple years now. I guess, because of the recent bone cutting reductions, more people are realizing it. But many of us have seen the handwriting on the wall for some time now.

But take heart! The fat lady (or mouse) hasn't sung yet!! It all comes down to management philosophy and administrative abilities. Both of these concepts are non-existent at Disney at the present time. Ei$ner not only has no idea at all regarding the "Disney Philosophy" he is also very, very inept!! So, a change in administration is clearly called for. Now, that doesn't mean things will get better. Heck, they may even get worse (hard to imagine, isn't it?). But maybe. Just maybe. With a little bit of luck, we could get someone who not only "gets" the Disney philosophy, but also knows how to implement it!

Hey! At least it's something!! ;)

[hopemax]

I also think this is the middle of the end.

I believe that the economic boom of the late 90s gave people the freedom to not have to make hard choices on how to spend their money. If they wanted an SUV, a trip to Grandma's, a new computer, DVD player AND a trip to WDW (insert your own choices and number of choices), they could have it all. People developed a habit that vacation = WDW.

But then the bottom fell out of the tech stocks and the economy turned south and people started having to GASP! make a choice? They could either have a trip to WDW and nothing else or the trip to some other "perfectly nice but maybe not so nice as WDW, I don't know yet because I've never been there" destination and the computer and DVD player. That's when all the changes at WDW that were only minor annoyances started rearing their ugly heads and people started thinking that maybe WDW wasn't the best use of their money after all.

Then 9/11 happened and I think it just amplified the existing problems. People now have the opportunity to get out of the habit of vacation = WDW. And there is a very real possibility that they will find something else that is just as fun and fulfilling as a trip to WDW was (and cheaper!). And then what? Are people supposed to give that up just because WDW brought back their normal schedules?

The problem with "DIS people" is that WDW means so much that we can't imagine life without it. In that respect WDW is like the first boy/girl that broke your heart. You can't imagine finding someone as wonderful again, but life goes on and other wonderful people enter your life. Same with vacations, wonderful vacations are out there, as long as you are open to experiencing them.

[JeffJewell]

...that the "big fireworks" might turn out to be for the best, in the long run.

There are folks that fear some "corporate raider" swooping in and dismantling Disney's creativity while they cash in on the brand name, but I consider that a pretty accurate description of the job being done by the current pilot.

I don't think WDW will go under. The murky question is whether or not WDW's next honcho views the parks as an ATM or a showplace. All we can do for now is hope.

Jeff

[Lesley]

Ah, no consolation here, eh? LOL...

Good points all....

Yes, Hope "there are other worlds than this one". Off to Japan....(well eventually)

And once again I agree, Jeff (and Landbaron too)....a very accurate description of what's happened already. Like I said...perhaps our best hope *is* a takeover....

[hopemax]

Off to Japan....(well eventually)

I'm lucky in that from where I live it costs the same and takes the same amount of travel time to go to Japan as it does to WDW. A few years ago I didn't know that! The thought of a trip to Tokyo was good for a good laugh, I couldn't afford it! Then I stopped, and really looked at what I was spending on WDW vs Tokyo and got an eyeful. :earseek: :earseek:

And therein lies the problem WDW is facing in addition to airline fears and cash flow problems. One that "waiting for recovery" will not solve.

[YoHo]

Previous to this week there had been a lot of discussion about upcoming anouncments regarding new rides and so forth.

whether these cost cutting measures are right or not, I suspect that Disney has no plans to cash it in any time soon.
Eisner gets one shot at this and he is on the bubble.

So I'm still waiting for that press conference in Dec. I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a few new capital expenditures.

At the same time, that last paragraph took every once of mental strength to write. Much as I think Disney will recover, there is nothing certain in these uncertain times.

[All Aboard]

Corporate Raiderism 101

The thought of a takeover is always very troublesome. Disney's market cap flirted with dipping below $30B after 9/11 (now it sits at about $39B). With earnings way down, that still computes to a P/E of darn near 100.

Does that translate to an undervalued company? Hard to say what others are thinking, but I seriously doubt that there are too many folks of means that think now is the time to become the next Saul Steinberg (and it would take more than his $300m to have an impact today.)

Is there much value in a break-down-sell-off scenario?

Instead, I think a takeover threat would be better positioned by a company that is willing to take Disney the distance. OK, maybe I'm floating around in a dream scenario, but to me it makes more sense.

[Planogirl]

No one is mentioning the war at all in this. Things are quiet on the homefront now but what if, God forbid, that changes? Even relatively minor events seem to rattle the cages of investors and consumers. Or if the war escalates to other nations? Will this affect WDW? Will if even matter at that point?

I prefer to stay as positive as possible and hope that no one else will be dragged into the conflict. But life is definitely uncertain nowadays to say the least.

[Captain Crook]

There is no company big enough or willing to face the regulatory scrutiny or crazy enough to buy Disney at this point in time. Disney IS too big & its value is too unspecific to make it lucrative. Even if it could be bought (which it can't) whomever buys it would have to have a magical disposition to keep any sembelence of the Disney we have known & I ask Disducks now famous question, who would that benevolent leader & raider be? Anyone?

No, Disney is safe, Eisner's job, neigh his Disney legacy is hinging on 'right now'. Yoho is right about the near future announcements, but more importantly Eisner must make the right decision as to the right time to start actively wooing guests back to WDW. They do not feel now is the time and this is a concern for us, but I'll repeat again, Disney does not want to be booming when or if the bioterrorism threat really comes to life, they are obviously more content to be tight & secure (as they are currently playing it). Am I the only one that thinks this? That Disney is scared & it has nothing to do with lost tourism? Oh well, I may stand alone, but at least I'm standing...No wait, I'm sitting...Never mind!
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[TXDeb]

Captain Crook -
Let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You believe Disney may be actively avoiding attracting more guests (whether directly or indirectly through their actions) to keep themselves shut down tighter and smaller in case bioterrorist threats become a bigger threat and depress travel even more? Disney would already be in cost saving mode, thus limiting further cut-backs and potential losses, in a worse case scenerio.

Do you believe that they are afraid of being a potential target and are trying to limit guests in order to limit their potential liability if something did happen? In other words, less guests and CMs means less people to seek damages against Disney if they did become a target?

Not sure what I think of these theories, yet, just trying to clarify what you are stating.

[Another Voice]

Comcast won’t have any trouble at all with the regulators...

[Captain Crook]

That is what I'm saying. Look at the types of things being done/considered. Closing of parades & Fantasmic (both congregate large groups). The consolodation of open hours into nice daytime hours - leads me to believe that this is better for security. Not actively pursuing large crowds - for sure easier for security.

I was told by two supervisory CM's in discussions last week that the FBI is maintaining a heavy presence at WDW and Disney security is at levels they've never seen before.

Further, IMO, our government is not being forthright with facts about things (here at home). We know from news reports that we don't have enough smallpox vacine to go around, but these things are really downplayed - I would guess Disney does have access to certain inside information, which would certainly make this otherwise seemingly bizarre business tact they've been taking make a litle more sense.

So, thats a theory...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Captain Crook]

AV, what would a Comcast possibly know about running theme parks, a televison network, movie divisions, etc. I couldn't see any hope for Disney normalcy in that scenerio, nor could I see why Comcast would realistically want to become a media/entertainment Company...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

“what would a Comcast possibly know about running theme parks… ?”

About as much as the former head of children’s programming for ABC & then number three guy at Paramount knew a while back.


“why Comcast would realistically want to become a media/entertainment Company…?”

It’s eat or be eaten. Comcast is the last big media player without an in house studio or a broadcast network. Think of all those channels it could fill up with programming of its own. And Disney right now is an awfull lot cheaper than anyone else.

[Captain Crook]

"It's eat or be eaten"...Hasn't that been Eisner's philosophy? In fact the closing of Fox Family proves it, right? Besides the big boys (anybody with enough money to buy Disney) wouldn't want to pay for all that Disney is (their content would still be at a premium, no?) for one demension of Disney that they really want. I'm sure other avenues would be of less financial risk without the broadbased trouble a Company with the breadth of Disney would cause.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[TXDeb]

Thanks for confirming that I did understand you correctly, Captain Crook. I appreciate it.

One thought about your theory that this is being done in part for safety - Why would WDW be hosting the Regis and Kelly events over the first week in December. It is being advertised, so therefore they are hoping to draw guests for it. That will put a lot of people in one spot at pre-announced times for the tapings of their morning show and Who Wants to be a Millionaire. That would seem to go against the idea that they are trying to hold crowds down and are cancelling events that keep people together in large groups.

[Captain Crook]

They have to put forth some sembelence of normalcy & TV would be a division I would think they would need to be profitable in these troubled times. Also, an event like this one time type event could be monitored & secured quite easily, don't you think?

But, I think if you look at the decisions en masse, it becomes clear that something's amiss. Not even the evil emperor Mike could suddenly become so non-sensical as to actually irritate guests to such a degree "just because". I would think that even the most feverent Eisner hater could see how out of character these actions are (closing vendors & shops - unheard of).
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Eeyore2U]

The Disney Corp is a huge enterprise. We seem to forget it's MANY pieces. My feeling is that in our short sightedness we miss the fact that Einer might sell off all of the peripheral division to keep Disney at it's core. Or at least /most sell and get out. I think at worst Diney will be movies/theme parks/resorts. Which is where they probably should be.

[Captain Crook]

I think at worst Disney will be movies/ theme parks/resorts.
Except for the fact that as a going concern in these core areas we would have to assume Disney would find great success, would we not? Which gets us back to the "eat or be eaten" premise. A huge down-sizing like this would make them (less broadbased &) a valuable commodity & not nearly as expensive to one of the giants looking to eat, as it were...So while I think a sell off of components would be possible, the purchase of Fox Family tells me its business as usual on the "eat or be eaten" front, and Eisner has an appetite (although I'm sure AV would say he needs to alter his diet quite radically).
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

No one considers Disney a 700-pound gorilla in the media industry any more. While Eisner has been eating for a while, most of his diet has been junk food like sports teams, magazines and Super-sized helpings of Internet companies. The only sizable meal Eisner took in was CapCities/ABC. That made Disney large for a while.

But all the other companies were busily merging as well. And these companies were feasting on raw protein – cable & satellite operations. Distribution is the key to this week’s “Media Strategy to Take Over The World”. AOLTimeWarner has massive cable systems, as does Viacom (and Blockbuster as well). NewsCorp has more satellites than NASA and Vivendi has the European Union to guarantee that only their cables reach across the continent.

Disney is both without distribution and it does not have the means to acquire it. Both AT&T and Comcast have repeatedly offered themselves up to be purchased, but each time Michael pushed himself away from the table. Disney is seen as weak and indecisive – exactly like that particularly cute antelope they always show on those nature films right before close-up of the cheetah.

Other companies want to survive the media feeding frenzy. And remember that it doesn’t have to be a larger company that does the buying. A smaller company with cash (and Wall Street) can “merge” with a bigger, and the management of the larger company can be shown the exit (anyone know of a VP from the Compaq side of that deal?).

As for the “scare people away for their own good” – nope. Nothing like that is happening out here like that at Disneyland and that sure wasn’t the strategy during either the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles or during the first Gulf War (I was there for both). The cutbacks are nothing but good old fashioned short term “I got to make my numbers” panic.

[YoHo]

Another Voice, I've got a question for you, I come from the side of Cable Technology, I've worked with people in Comcast, AT&T Broadband and the like. Nothing high level for sure, but I've gotten a peak inside their corporate policies.I have nothing but contempt for the executives of these companies. I'm not impressed with their abilities to run the companies they currently run. Do you think that A Comcast would have the ability to run a Disney in a Reasonable way? I'm not so convinced Eisner is the man for the job anymore, but at the same time, Most of the companies that might be willing to be the suitors scare me as well.

I'm also wondering what Excite@home's death has done to the Cable industry as I believe AT&T Broadband picked up all their assets. I wonder if maybe they are no longer a reasonable pill to swallow.

And Of course, AOL Was able to get Time Warner Turner which was a bigger corp then Disney so nothing is impossible.

[DisDuck]

Ok.. I am back (been harder to get on at work lately). I have been following all the threads on cutbacks/cancellation/etc. and wondering what to say. On the surface it does seem that the 'nose is being cutoff to spite the face' but we are not the 'fly on the wall' to know all about the behind the scenes stuff.

Did Disney do a good PR job on this NO. They blew it big time. Companies have what are called 'disaster recovery plans' and I have been involved with testing these plans in the past. But none of them included the scenerio of Sep 11th and its aftermath. 'New water' is being treaded here and some are doing a good job at it and some are doing a bad job at it. Some companies (like the car manufacturers) are offering monetary incentives (but will they really draw back enough people for volume to make up the cuts); some are consolidating (like the airlines, dropping flights to reduce capacity & costs); and some are doing both (like WDW). Which is the right combination? Who knows, I certainly don't. Maybe even Eisner does not know. Why should he, the current scenerio is not taught in school or any management seminar that I have heard of.

I am willing to see what the results of these cutbacks are based on the Thanksgiving to Christmas Season and from the Easter to Labor Day Season (busy times). I know that is cutting Disney what seems like alot of slack.

If cutting costs versus prices fails then this will show in the attendance figures over the next 9 months. Eisner will have tried and failed and would probably be gone. If attendence picks up and the cash box starts to fill up then Eisner will look like a genius.

I, for one, am willing to give him one last shot at righting the 'ship' especially as I still don't see anyone on the horizon (certainly, in the short term & even maybe in the long term) to take over the helm. MY FAMOUS QUESTION: who?

I leave in a week for West Coast and will spend a day at DL and a day (or less) at DCA besides also SeaWorld, San Diego Zoo, etc. This will give me a first hand look as to how the West Coast has been impacted. Then I am making my almost yearly trip to WDW last week of June and will see how the East Coast has been impacted.

[Captain Crook]

To DisDuck, my fellow pragmaticist (made up word, I think). Sometimes when recalling old threads it becomes hard to remember who posted what first. You, Scoop & I seem be the longstanding torch bearers for "Believing". And it's really kind of odd because in reality we have absolutely no say so in what Disney does or doesn't do, whether Eisner is a genius or a bonehead is not affected by a single thing Captain Crook or DVC-Landbaron say, yet we take it so personally. I guess that fact is why I remain optimistic, for I see no use in crying over spilt milk and have no interest in talking about something that I have little hope for. Perhaps some of you screemin three-mees can tell us what keeps you interested?

I am happy to be able to brighten Landbaron's day with my positive tendencies, in fact his sometimes Eyorish posts do the same for me!;) ;) ;)

We are not the fly on the wall and while it appears Disney is gaffing (another made up word?) big time, only time will truly tell.

Landbaron, your tale about my old age marriage and outlook was VERY funny. I now expect great things from you, satirically speaking!:D :D :D

DisDuck, please have a great & safe trip and when you get get back, if DCA really does suck that bad, please lie!:eek:
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

Gaffing is not a made up word, but I suspect Another Voice is more familiar with it then anyone else here. (sorry bad pun)

Just remember, Gaffer's tape is like Duct tape on Steroids. Plus it comes in colors. :)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Landbaron, your tale about my old age marriage and outlook was VERY funny. I now expect great things from you, satirically speaking!Ahhhh!!! I've already got five kids!!!! ENOUGH!!!

I leave in a week for West Coast and will spend a day at DL and a day (or less) at DCA besides also SeaWorld, San Diego Zoo, etc.Have a wonderful trip, my friend!!

And you do know, of course, we all expect a trip report, on this board, when you get back.

Have fun!!:bounce: :crazy: :crazy: :bounce:

[Distriv]

I've been reading many things on the boards lately and I'm getting jittery. My next trip to WDW is in the end of November and I'm afraid of what I will find. If what some people are saying is true, I fear the worst. My last trip was the summer of 2000 and WDW was looking great, could it be going downhill this fast? Do to what happened in September and the what is happening now, WDW has changed but not enough to send it under. Heck will freeze over before the mouse is exterminated.:mad:

[Another Voice]

Gaffer’s tape – another important reason why you only say good things about unions while you’re on a set.

The management of Comcast (or anyone other suitor) doesn’t need to know anything about running theme parks. All they have to do is hire someone who does. No one at AOL knew how to run a TV network or a movie studio, but that didn’t stop that merger from going forward.

The trap with mega corporations is that one person cannot run a twenty billion dollar corporation. The key to success is to have a top person with vision that is a supervisor to five people, each of whom is running a four billion dollar corporation. A single person that inserts himself into every decision about a script change, parade music selection, catalog photograph or TV show schedule will bring nothing but disaster.

Disney’s been out of the running for AT&T for a long time. Michael never got around to putting together a serious bid – he thought Fox Family was a better deal for the money.

As a former fly, I have a rather definite opinion about “whether Eisner is a genius or a bonehead”. I’ll just let people hang in suspense about which it is…

I get the sense that the mood out here in the west is much calmer than it is on the east coast. Perhaps the distance from the actual events is the reason. A lot of flags, but “normal” life seems to be going on. Disneyland’s attendance is right on projections for this time of year. The only place I’ve noticed something different is in Hollywood itself, but that’s strictly out of the town’s sickening sense of self-importance (how can the Republic’s morale survive if Shelly Long is hurt????).

Lastly, DisDuck – be sure to check out the ‘Nightmare Before Christmas’ overlay at Disneyland’s ‘Haunted Mansion’. There’s some pretty good work in there (and get your FastPass early).

[YoHo]

Another Voice, I wonder if maybe the managment style of a Walt Disney (as in Hands on) is wrong for the company Disney has become. I am not a master of Disney history, but I suspect that it was actually better for the film department that Disney spent much more time with the Theme parks instead of dividing his time. My favorite Film Meglomanic doesn't Personally involve himself in ever single game that LucasArts makes (Ironically since EP1 came out of gotten the distinct impression that LucasArts was pulling and Eisner ie the brand will sell a cheap game.)

Perhaps Disney Corp Doesn't need a figurehead anymore, but needs someone who understands how to let people do their jobs.

I may be wrong, But If I recall correctly, you in the past had attributed this skill to the Late Frank Wells.


My real concern in a take over would be the position of the Disney Family. I would suspect they would still be on the board of a new company At least I would hope so.

Roy E. May have many faults, but I can't imagine a Disney in Any form without him or one of the other relatives involved.

Speaking of him, Where has he been during all this? In hiding. Lurking in Dark corners with potential buyers?



(P.S. Some guys I work with insist that Disney is an evil company. That even Walt himself was a subversive Coke snorting gin drinking agent of evil. \ It boggles my mind how the internet doesn't so much give everyone access to the truth as it gives everyone access to what they want to believe.)

[Captain Crook]

As a former fly, I have a rather definite opinion about "whether Eisner is a genius or a bonehead." I'll just let people hang in suspenseabout which it is.
LOL, AV...Some suspense. :D :D :D If you side with the genius characterization, I can't wait to read the caveots! But I am seriously interested in the "former fly" comment...Seriously!

Clearly AV is right about anybody being able to own Disney. The problem is they would have to get somebody to run the "Disney Parts" in oder to keep the fanatics (us) happy - unfortunately, they would probably just get an anybody with an MBA from Harvard, and no offense, but I don't see a lot of imagineers from that group.

Yoho, I don't see the Disney family name as being any factor in a "new Disney" should what we currently have disappear. Roy is too old, Eisner was & is still his man and no one else in the family has been actively involved. Family business's sell out all the time and the family often becomes no more than a spokesman (for big bucks). I'd say the end of the Disney lineage is near.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

You never know, there are some younger Disneys out there. And I wouldn't be so convinced that Eisner is Roy's man. Roy after all was a particular fan of the Animation Department.

[Captain Crook]

Well, maybe I'm wrong, maybe AV will remember, but I thought just recently (within 2001) that Roy made some not too subtle comments directed to those who would oppose Eisner. I'll look to see if I can find the comments, does anyone else remember?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

From what I’ve learned and from talking to people that worked with Walt, his management style wasn’t “hands-on” in the modern sense of the word of making all the decisions. Walt was a pusher, someone who was highly critical and demanding of people around him. By all accounts he was a royal pain in the Afghanistan to work for. There are stories about animators who would have to show Walt their works. Their hands would tremble so much that they would drop the papers on the floor. If Walt didn’t like something, he’d let you know it. If he liked something, the best you could hope for was a curt “that’s not too bad – do you have anything new?”

And people LOVED working like that because Walt wasn’t telling them what to do or how to do it. The artists were allowed to create whatever they wanted and them run it past someone whom they all deeply respected and admired. Walt’s job was to push them to do better work, not to do the work for them. He set the standards and he set the goals – it was your job to meet them to his liking. But in the end the artist decided what the final product was going to be.

The current style is very different. It is entirely decision-based; the term I coined for it was “management by buffet”. The following is a true story: Does anyone remember the old paint job on the WDW busses, the basic white with this red/brown stripe down the side? Very plain appearance. One day Mike decided that the busses weren’t “branded” enough, that it was hard to tell that these were DISNEY busses. Mike wanted that changed. The order went out to paint up a dozen busses so that Mike could pick the new paint scheme. WDW designers went back to their desks and came up with about fifteen designs. A bunch of busses were selected and one bus was painted in each scheme (at a cost of $7,000 to $30,000 each). Mike returned to WDW and a “fashion show” was set up on the old airstrip just east of the Epcot monorail beam. There was a little reviewing stand with refreshments for everyone. After the dignitaries took their seats, the busses were driven past Mike one by one. None of the designs sparked his fancy, and the whole process was repeated two months later. That time around he selected a design and said, “go with that one”. And that’s how the Disney busses lost their stripes.

The problem with this approach is that the creator’s judgment is removed from the process. Walt’s approach was “do the best that you can for the reasons that you think are the best”. The current mindset is “show me stuff until I see something that I like”. Or in more personal terms, where do put more effort: one project that you really believe in, or a project that has a one in thirty chance of being selected by someone else?

Or perhaps one other way of looking - it’s the difference between “do better” and “I guess this will do”. That explains a lot these days, doesn’t it?

[Captain Crook]

Just to add to your post AV, what I always thought was the most important reason people LIKED working for Walt was that he WAS a true genius and that came shining through to these mostly young & ideological artists. While they did not necessarily like him (nor dislike him) and they were scared and intimidated, they were in awe of his ability, enthusiasm, dedication & imaginiation...In short his genius.

Thanks for the post AV.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Lesley]

Great post AV! I'm totally out of my league here....but it makes for fascinating reading.

Just a thought on the Disney family.....it seems entirely possible that there is no one in the Disney family with the kind of genius that Walt had. Perhaps what we need more than a relative of Walt's is a reincarnation of Walt (either literally or figuratively...depending on your outlook). But then again....who can say that Walt would even be able to run it all successfully in these times? He very obviously was a man who did make mistakes.

I think if I'm going to start hanging out on this board I need to do some research!