Roy Disney Resigns and calls For Eisner's Resignation [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

RoutemanDan

11-30-2003, 05:01 PM

Roy Disney Resigns Post;
Calls on Eisner to Quit

By BRUCE ORWALL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Walt Disney Co. Vice Chairman Roy E. Disney submitted his resignation from the company board on Sunday and called for Disney Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Eisner to step down from his own positions.

Mr. Disney, nephew to the late Walt Disney, sent Mr. Eisner a tough three-page letter severely criticizing his leadership during the past seven years. "It is my sincere belief that it is you who should be leaving and not me," Mr. Disney wrote. "Accordingly, I once again call for your resignation or retirement."

In his letter, Mr. Disney said that Mr. Eisner deserved credit for a successful first decade after taking the helm at Disney in 1984. But he then detailed seven areas in which he said Mr. Eisner has failed the company in the past seven years. The list of complaints included everything from the performance of the struggling ABC broadcast networks and Disney theme parks to Mr. Eisner's reputation for "micro-management of everyone around you."

The resignation comes in advance of a Disney board meeting this week. Mr. Disney's letter seems to indicate that the Disney board's nominating committee had decided to leave his name off the slate of directors to be elected for the coming year. Mr. Disney also indicated that he would also resign from his position as chairman of Disney feature animation.

A Disney spokeswoman initially declined to comment.

Bob O

11-30-2003, 05:09 PM

Its sad to see Roy Disney resign, but lets hope this is the beginning of the end of the eisner regime which should have ended several years ago!!!!!!!!

Peter Pirate

11-30-2003, 05:17 PM

Don't look for any bright side in this.

IMO, this means Roy is fed up with Eisner and the direction of the Disney Co. and can't take it anymore. It also indicates that, other than writing a letter and resigning on the eve of the Board Meeting that he really has very little to fight Eisner with.

A letter from an aging resigned director will not signal the end to Michael Eisner. Perhaps Roy shouldn't have been so asleep at the wheel while he and the other directors allowed Eisner to hijack the company.

The best case scenerio for all of us around here is the simple retirement of Michael Eisner.
pirate:

Tekneek

11-30-2003, 06:01 PM

Yeah. Eisner and his cronies run the Disney company like a regular old corporation, funneling the money right up to the top. I can't see them walking away, or cutting themselves off, just because of Roy doing this. Speculation says Roy was being pushed into lesser roles anyway, so rather than letting them have the power and do it in a memo, he is going out with a bang. Sadly, I think it will have little effect.

The personal problem I have is how this should affect me and the money I spend on Disney merchandise, vacations, etc. If I continue to conduct my Disney-related business as usual, is that not a reinforcement that Eisner and friends are right, and that Roy did it for nothing? I don't know what the right answer is, but I am tired of once good/great companies being ran into the ground by these kinds of executives.

J. Thornhill

11-30-2003, 06:13 PM

FYI. NYT Report

November 30, 2003
Roy Disney Resigns and Urges C.E.O. Eisner to Follow Suit
By CARLA BARANAUCKAS

The vice chairman of the Walt Disney Company, Roy E. Disney, resigned from the board of directors today, citing his "serious differences of opinion'' with the chairman, Michael D. Eisner, "about the direction and style of management in the company.''

Mr. Disney, the nephew of Walt Disney, also called for Mr. Eisner's resignation. In addition, Mr. Disney stepped down from his position as chairman of the feature animation division.

The resignation lays bare a sharp conflict in an entertainment and media company that has called its theme parks "the happiest place on earth.''

"You well know that you and I have had serious differences of opinion about the direction and style of management in the company in recent years,'' Mr. Disney wrote to Mr. Eisner. "For whatever reason, you have driven a wedge between me and those I work with even to the extent of requiring some of my associates to report my conversations and activities to you. I find this intolerable.''

Mr. Disney noted that the nominating committee had excluded him from the slate up for election to the board of the publicly held company, "effectively muzzling my voice on the board.''

Just last year in a boardroom power play, Mr. Eisner prevailed over his chief critic and fellow board member, Stanley P. Gold, investment adviser to the family of Roy E. Disney, Walt Disney's nephew.

After that episode, the board was reconfigured, in a move that was said to reduce the influence of Mr. Eisner's critics.

Mr. Disney acknowledged that he fell into the category of critic.

"Michael, I believe your conduct has resulted from my clear and unambiguous statements to you and the board of directors that after 19 years at the helm you are no longer the best person to run the Walt Disney Company,'' Mr. Disney wrote, adding that in the last 10 years the company "has lost its focus, its creative energy, and its heritage.''

The Disney company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares closed at $23.09 on Friday.

4407mark

11-30-2003, 06:55 PM

ARRRRGGHHHHHHHHH! C'mon Mr. Ei$ner - it's time to step down!Let Roy stay on so that someone with a level head on his shoulders can prevail....
Personally, I hate to see Roy leave as I see him as the last link to the Disney Family. I think it's a sign of Roy's growing frustration with the company and what's going on there...I say it's time for Ei$ner to leave and Roy to stay!!!!

Steamboat Girlie

11-30-2003, 06:55 PM

I just walkied in to the t.v. room and saw some news about Roy Disney. I thought he died or something. Then I rushed in here to check the boards. You guys never let me down!

ohanafamily

11-30-2003, 07:30 PM

All I can say is OMG!!!!!

:bounce:

JDH

11-30-2003, 07:38 PM

He is still after all a shareholder even retaining the voting rights and profits from the shares he recently sold. His shares will take a hit along with everyone else's.

He also doesn't seem like the type of person to go out this way.

This sounds like a family feud with someone willing to have Armeggedon occur in order to get even with their brother or sister.

This sounds like what I'd like to say to IBM after I win the lottery.

It should be interesting to see how this unfolds. BTW I think Ei$ner should go too.

hopemax

11-30-2003, 07:42 PM

The Wall Street Journal has posted Roy's letter.

November 30, 2003

Mr. Michael D. Eisner, Chairman
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521

Dear Michael,

It is with deep sadness and regret that I send you this letter of resignation from the Walt Disney Company, both as Chairman of the Feature Animation Division and as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors.

You well know that you and I have had serious differences of opinion about the direction and style of management in the company in recent years. For whatever reason, you have driven a wedge between me and those I work with even to the extent of requiring some of my associates to report my conversations and activities to you. I find this intolerable.

Finally, you discussed with the Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors its decision to leave my name off the slate of directors to be elected in the coming year, effectively muzzling my voice on the Board – much as you did with Andrea Van de Kamp last year.

Michael, I believe your conduct has resulted from my clear and unambiguous statements to you and the Board of Directors that after 19 years at the helm you are no longer the best person to run the Walt Disney Company. You had a very successful first 10-plus years at the company in partnership with Frank Wells, for which I salute you. But since Frank’s untimely death in 1994, the company has lost its focus, its creative energy, and its heritage.

As I have said, and as Stanley Gold has documented in letters to you and other members of the Board, this Company under your leadership has failed during the last seven years in many ways:

1. The failure to bring back ABC Prime Time from the ratings abyss it has been in for years and your inability to program successfully the ABC Family Channel. Both of these failures have had, and I believe will continue to have, significant adverse impact on shareholder value.

2. Your consistent micro-management of everyone around you with the resulting loss of morale throughout this company.

3. The timidity of your investments in our theme park business. At Disney’s California Adventure, Paris, and now Hong Kong, you have tried to build parks on the cheap and they show it and the attendance figures reflect it.

4. The perception by our stakeholders –consumers, investors, employees, distributors and suppliers – that the Company is rapacious, soul-less, and always looking for the “quick buck” rather than long-term value which is leading to a loss of public trust.

5. The creative brain drain of the last several years, which is real and continuing, and damages our Company with the loss of every talented employee.

6. Your failure to establish and build constructive relationships with creative partners, especially Pixar, Miramax, and the cable companied distributing our products.

7. Your consistent refusal to establish a clear succession plan.

In conclusion, Michael, it is my sincere belief that it is you who should be leaving and not me. According ly, I once again call for your resignation or retirement. The Walt Disney Company deserves fresh, energetic leadership at this challenging time in its history just as it did in 1984 when I headed a restructuring which resulted in your recruitment to the Company.

I have and will always have an enormous allegiance and respect for this Company, founded by my uncle, Walt, and father, Roy, and to our faithful employees and loyal stockholders. I don’t know if you and other directors can comprehend how painful it is for me and the extended Disney family to arrive at this decision.

In accordance with Item 6 of Form 8-K and Item 7 of Schedule 14A, I request that you disclose this letter and that you file a copy of this letter as an exhibit to a Company Form 8-K.

With sincere regrets,
Roy E. Disney

Cc: Board of Directors

roymccoy

11-30-2003, 07:47 PM

Hey, didn't Roy just sell about half of his Disney stock a little while back? Is that transaction completed? If it is, one could make the argument that he sold his shares before this announcement to keep from losing money on the drop in Disney stock price that is probably going to come. (Investors won't like this, Roy Disney retiring and asking the CEO to step down because of mismanagement.)

Hmmm......

Roy

Bstanley

11-30-2003, 07:56 PM

Wow, it's Deja Vu all over again.

I wonder who Stanley Gold is lining up this time in the role of 'money man'?

It took what, a year?, until the Basses bought control of Disney after Roy resigned the last time. Of course Saul and the other 'greenmail' boys got in the way at first.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

But since Frank’s untimely death in 1994, the company has lost its focus, its creative energy, and its heritage.

Amen Brother! Preach it!

-bruce

hopemax

11-30-2003, 07:56 PM

He is still after all a shareholder even retaining the voting rights and profits from the shares he recently sold. His shares will take a hit along with everyone else's.

The question is, "Does Roy have more power as an employee of the Walt Disney Company, or as a substantial shareholder?"

I think that deal Roy made was to guarantee that his stocks don't take a hit. His price is locked in at $21.75, if the stock goes below that and he decides to sell at the end of the 5 years, Roy still gets the higher price.

Bstanley

11-30-2003, 08:01 PM

The question is, "Does Roy have more power as an employee of the Walt Disney Company, or as a substantial shareholder?"

As a note - as an officer of the company Roy is VERY limited in what he can say and do without exposing himself to legal actions from the SEC, the Shareholders and even the company.

Roy may have decided he needs to say and do things freely without those handcuffs - or he may have just decided it was time to go.

Crossing my fingers...

-bruce

SoonerKate

11-30-2003, 08:21 PM

The Washington Post is reporting that Roy Disney was not on the list of those recommended for another term on the board of directors because he's over the mandated retirement age of 72. Raymond Watson (76) and Thomas Murphy (77) also will not be nominated to serve new terms. (link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23445-2003Nov30.html))

Additionally, Reuters is reporting that the mandated retirement age is a threshold that has been waived in the past. (link (http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/newsarticle.asp?siteid=mktw&sid=1618&guid=%7B5EA681DC%2D7462%2D43D6%2DB813%2D68CCA5DC4A 8B%7D&symb=) to story at CBS Marketwatch)

wdwguide

11-30-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Bstanley

Roy may have decided he needs to say and do things freely without those handcuffs

That wouldn't be the first time... I just don't know if he'll be able to pull off anything like what he did back in the 80s again.

Micca

11-30-2003, 08:36 PM

:earseek: That letter is strong. What is going to happen?

nats

11-30-2003, 09:50 PM

Now that Roy is gone who will try to run the company the way Walt's direction took it. Even with Roy there the company has fallen to low depths and now if it is not careful it will sink all the way.
The parks are not as clean and maintained as they used to be. In my 2000 visit I found lots of lights off the buildings on Main St. USA and there were holes in the people mover seats. The Orlando Sentinel had a front page story with pictures showing the disrepair.
In the eighties Disney used to pride it self on the way they used to continually paint the parks and now it is rarely done.
The young people of today cannot remember the good old days but I can remember when you stood in a long line there were air conditioned pipes overhead blowing cool refreshing air on you. It was a welcome relief.
It is time for us all to wear black and go into mourning.

Figmentrocks

11-30-2003, 10:20 PM

Lots of great points. Just to throw in my few cents.. if they are worth any. :) The market is most likely going to look at this in a very negative light over the next day. Roy Disney's timing is rather, well, current with stories over the past few days. Disney admits to their poor maintenence on Thunder Mountain Railroad, and the letter & story is leaked after Disney has taken another property, The Haunted Mansion, and many will argue exploited to make another buck.

Purely my opinion, but I feel that Mr. Disney isn't going to let his family name go down, and things will be brewing over the next several months. In our house, we say that Disney has 'whor*d out' the brand and company, obvious Roy Disney has seen much of the same.

It looks like he's another person out there who isn't impressed with California Adventure. ;)

Planogirl

11-30-2003, 10:28 PM

I'm hoping that Roy has another reason for doing this which isn't apparent yet. I'm particularly impressed with his list of problems and I can't imagine him just simply walking away from his heritage. But this is worrisome. :(

TarraLee

11-30-2003, 10:54 PM

Anyone want to speculate as to what effect this will have on tomorrow's closing price? I'm guessing less than $20/share.

I wish Eisner would go, go go.... let him go to Universal and "help" them with their parks.... hehehe

Ironically, a Dr Suess quote is appropriate to Roy's letter: "unless someone like you care a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better-- its not." We can all hope that this big bang is what it takes to get the anti-Eisner coup started!

ohanafamily

11-30-2003, 11:11 PM

3. The timidity of your investments in our theme park business. At Disney’s California Adventure, Paris, and now Hong Kong, you have tried to build parks on the cheap and they show it and the attendance figures reflect it.

Let the Chior sing AMEN!!!

:bounce:

DisOrBust

11-30-2003, 11:17 PM

Is it just me or does the Roy Disney letter have a certain AV quality...:teeth:

Planogirl

11-30-2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by TarraLee
I wish Eisner would go, go go.... let him go to Universal and "help" them with their parks.... hehehe

No thanks! I don't think that they need Eisner type of "help". ;)

Is it just me or does the Roy Disney letter have a certain AV quality...
Hmmmmm.... :p

Bob O

11-30-2003, 11:52 PM

How can any one disagree with the points made in #3 and #4????????
Roy is a car #3 person!!!!

Another Voice

12-01-2003, 12:00 AM

Very quickly and much blunter than normal –

Roy took a walk before the Eisner threw him out the window. The age limit on the board is a fig leaf; it's been ignored for years for current board members and it's application here is a ploy. And Eisner was more than willing to quickly renegotiate his employment contract when he destroyed the company's profit; to claim "rules are rules" now is just another example of his maliciousness. And you haven't heard the last about these circumstances yet…

Eisner has believed for about five years now the only way to "maximize shareholder value" is to sell The Company. For about 18 months there were serious talks between him and Disney/Gold to separate the company: Roy to take "classic Disney" (animation, licensees and theme parks) and Eisner to take CapCities (ABC, cable, Touchstone & Miramax). The Roy and Diane Disney factions were never able to meet Eisner's increasing demands although the tried very hard.

Eisner was extremely disheartened by the lack of feeding frenzy surrounding the Vivendi/Universal sale. He had hoped that another round of media buying frenzy so that Disney could be sold without anyone looking too closely at the deal (as happened last time with AOL and TimeWarner, etc.)

Since a sale will have to be made on its merits, Eisner is killing off the "unprofitable" or "unfashionable" areas of the company: animation, retail, music, Broadway and others on the hit list. He's very interested in selling the hotels at WDW (and probably also the DVC) to an outside group as well. In a perfect world Eisner would like to either spin the parks off into a separate company (the core of the Roy/Diane plan) or sell them off piece by piece. Eisner needs the cash from the sale to pay down the debt and because the parks don't give the immediate returns that a movie or TV show does. Disney has become a wholesale operation – it takes product in one end of the warehouse and ships it out the other as quickly as possible. The ideas of "investment" and "creation" are curse words these days.

Eisner is terrified of a serious takeover attempt orchestrated by someone else for a simple reason: he wants the deal organized to make him obscenely rich. What happens to the company or to other stockholders is simple beneath his contempt.

It's rumored that Eisner loaded up the company with a couple billion in debt when they bought out the Bass Brothers. It was done to keep the Disneys or anyone else from collecting enough stock to challenge Eisner. Most of this debt was short term (Disney doesn't have the credit rating for much else these days). If nothing changes then serious payment issues will soon appear.

Roy Disney's stock deal was a fairly complicated and new type deal. As I understand it, he sold some of his shares, but it will not be effective until some date in the future. He receives the money now and if the stock price is higher when the shares are actually sold, he will get the additional money – if the stock goes down he doesn't loose a penny. He retains full voting rights to the stock. Roy knows a thing or two about making money.

If the European banks push things, Eisner will let Euro Disney default and close (again, get rid of the "unprofitable" operations). The company will not invest anymore money in the place, especially after the disastrous beyond description impact of Disney Studios Paris on EDL's balance sheet and operating profit. A rumor is that the last outside consultant's report on the solution to California Adventure was summed up in one word: bulldoze. And look for a "construction delay" in one of the hotels a Disneyland Hong Kong; early projections indicate there so little at the park it will not be successful (as has also been reported elsewhere, the current joke around WDI is that DLHK will be so small they might as well include a drive-through window).

Mr. Disney's letter is spot on. It is a summary of what everyone has known for years but too many people – through ignorance, sloth or greed of their own – chose to ignore.

P.S. The process of dismantling the company will probably pick-up speed now.

manning

12-01-2003, 12:05 AM

As a note - as an officer of the company Roy is VERY limited in what he can say and do without exposing himself to legal actions from the SEC, the Shareholders and even the company.

That was my thought too. Sometimes your more effective from the outside. He can now openly criticize ME if he chooses.

msdis

12-01-2003, 12:18 AM

I knew when Roy sold a pile of stock this summer and bought a creamation company Disney was in trouble.

WE were at Magic Kingdom after hearing word that ME would be there for the ceremony of Mickey's bday Nov. 18th and the unveiling of the 75 statues. We were very much unimpressed with his pr at this event. He was having pics taken w/Mickey and he paced around forever on his cell phone like he was too busy for this. The crowd was taking pics and waiting for him to pass thru. He signed a few autographs but it was obvious he reluctantly did so, and was very short and unfriendly with people. Who does he think pays his salary? He should have been flattered ANYONE would want his autograph. After Roy stepping down, I think he should go. It's long overdue. I think he should be cast with Disney's other villians. He didn't impress me a bit.

mickey1010

12-01-2003, 02:53 AM

I'm usually an optimist...so hopefully this is the first step towards improvement.

Believe it or not, I think I am more likely to purchase additional Disney stock now than I was yesterday. It now seems like a stronger mid-to-long term investment, granted there are numerous unknowns which makes it pretty risky. However, like I said earlier, I'm an optimist and definitely not an investment guru so that's just me thinking out loud! :)

Even though the board may be comprised of a number of Eisner mini-me's, a statement that strong by a guy with the last name of Disney will definitely cause all involved to ask some questions and look more closely at the current state of the company.

If anything, this will bring more life to this board which has been pretty quiet lately. There are too many of you with your own ideas on where Disney is headed to keep quiet on this one!! :crazy:

Mr D

12-01-2003, 06:11 AM

I think its time to go a'sailing!;)

Uncleromulus

12-01-2003, 06:23 AM

Pretty serious development, that's for sure.
I would imagine that this will--eventually--mean that Eisner will "go". But the bigger question is--WHO will take his place??
Rough sailing ahead--and lots of theories as to what to do to get the Company back on track.

ohanafamily

12-01-2003, 08:53 AM

I think he left out #8, Your policy shift from one of encouraging loyal patrons with one of romoving incentives to go to the parks, stores and other things, Examples include the Disney Club, The removal of other discount rates from the hotels (such as annual pass), merchandising TDS only to a small demographic and removing the adult products. This attitude that we are Disney come give us your money is not a very Disneylike idea.

Maybe Roy is still working on the deal to get the parks and let ME have the media; let him have ABC, Mirimax and the rest...Mr. Voice, could your vision come to fruition with this being the first step?

:bounce:

HB2K

12-01-2003, 09:36 AM

Here's a good question..

We've always pondered just how many of the "uninformed" out there who don't read these boards saw the problems we often bandy about here.

With this news splashed all over EVERY major news site on their front pages no less, combined with the other recent news (the admission of fault in Big Thunder, etc) how many eyes will be opened to the problems with the company?

How many people are going to read Roy basically spell out the fact that any new Domestic parks are being done on the cheap and are failures? How will this news affect the company, even in the short term?

PKS44

12-01-2003, 10:16 AM

Well- on the Today show the Wall Street Journal reporter basically made it seem like this was just an old man bitter over not getting to be on the Board anymore because he was too old...no credence or attention was given to the idea that ME has mistakenly run the company...the theme park problems were ascribed to post 9/11 doldrums and poor matt Lauer was not up to asking anything that would question this spin...so if this plays out this way---I would not count on this changing a thing.

Paul

caseymaureen

12-01-2003, 10:34 AM

As a former CM, I feel like Roy said all the things I wished I could have said to those at the top of the heap. Good for him for not going out quietly and for standing up for his uncle's and family's company. I hope his resignation and letter have a major effect on Eisner, his cronies, and the way the company has been handled.

PS- is anyone else wondering if Roy has been reading this board? I was surprised there was no mention of the missing chicken finger or the vaccum weepers!!! ;)

HB2K

12-01-2003, 11:27 AM

I don't know how many more times Disney is going to be able to get away with the "he's disgruntled" spin.

If a former maintenance employee speaks out about maintenance proceedures...he's disgruntled.

If a board member speaks out about Eisner, She's disgruntled.

If a family member (and board member) speaks ill of Eisner, he's disgruntled.

Anyone see the pattern?

4407mark

12-01-2003, 11:35 AM

Amen HB2K!!! And you know, I'm starting to get a little disgruntled myself. If this isn't a wake-up call to the board, then they're sleeping on the job and need to go - led by Ei$ner. It's time for TWDC to be run by people who care about the Disney name, the Disney quality, and the Disney Dream - not a bunch of corporate suits who don't give a damn about anything other than lining their own pockets at the expense of others.

Luv2Roam

12-01-2003, 12:32 PM

Not that I am up on all the in's and out's -- but I think this just gives a stronger hold for ME. To him, that's just one more critic out the door.
Right now the only thing I see that may change the board is the class action lawsuit brought about by the stockholders.

crusader

12-01-2003, 12:43 PM

Needless to say this is very disturbing.

As much as I'd like to believe this will open consumer eyes and ears it really won't.

Whatever is reported will be ignored, dismissed or quickly forgotton by most people for two reasons:

1. They've become conditioned and immune to hearing the discrediting talkingpoints through the media.

2. They really don't have any interest in the Disney Corporation.

AV -

I will remain optimistic that the firesale you are describing never comes to fruition.

HeatherPage

12-01-2003, 01:20 PM

Okay, it seems that ME can retire (IF he wanted to) but can he be voted out by the shareholders or Board of Directors?

HB2K

12-01-2003, 01:22 PM

Crusader-

While I would agree with you that some of the recent Disney news would miss the general populace due to their reported stature (unless you're looking for the story, you won't find it), this one is different.

ABCNEWS.COM, MSNBC.COM and FoxNEWS.com have all had this story on their front page, and in fox's case with a inflamitory headline normally reserved for the Enron's of the world.

Surely the placement of this report is going to generate casual Disney fans to read further...and once they do how many are going read a letter written by someone named DISNEY about the DISNEY company and write it off as the musings of a bitter old man?

This is going to put a bug in people's thoughts about Disney's products, especially the theme parks who earned a specific slam from Roy. While I don't think anyone will cancel their vacations, I do wonder how many people are going to look at the parks differently after reading Roy Disney's statement.

WEDWAY100

12-01-2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by crusader
Needless to say this is very disturbing.
AV -

I will remain optimistic that the firesale you are describing never comes to fruition.
It might not be such a bad thing if the entire Parks and Resorts division was sold off intact (like Universal to NBC/GE). If the buyer is a company that is more willing to wait for return on investment, the parks might be better off.

But if the WDW hotels and parks are sold off piecemeal, then that would be then end of a unified resort experience. Each purchasing company would be fighting with the other for our dollars. That sounds ugly.

Mickey76

12-01-2003, 01:33 PM

This whole debacle makes me wonder just where the company will be be 10 years from now. I hope things only get better.

::MickeyMo Mickey76::MickeyMo

Tekneek

12-01-2003, 01:39 PM

The spin on the radio here in Atlanta completely missed the point as well (at least the stations I heard it on). I think most news people don't get it, and it will blow over. You can't depend on the WSJ, or any business analyst, to tell the right story. They *love* the traditional corporate style and Eisner is one of their guys. They want those kinds of cretins in power at every corporation. Those are the kind of people that their boss is, so to go out and talk bad about that kind of leadership will hurt them in their current job. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, it's just fact. Nobody who is tied into a traditional corporate structure is going to come down on the "Disney" side of things, they're going to fall on the "Eisner" side of things. After all, it was the traditional corporate types who said a park like Disneyland would flop, right? They never understood what it was about and never will.

crusader

12-01-2003, 02:02 PM

HB2K -

Good point. This story is headlined by the adversaries and has a very strong message. No doubt most of the general population has been informed.

But unless Roy is embarking on a public campaign the staying power is limited. We may hear very little beyond this and his exit will fade quietly into the night.

It really won't have any more of an impact than Jack Welch's wife disclosing his financial arrangements with GE or Worldcom's demise or the Tyco $600 million officer loan embezzlement scheme.

People will only care if it is something they have a personal vested interest in. In Disney's case, those individuals happen to be here.

Wedway 100 -

I'm not convinced a dismantling is what we really want. Theme Parks has never been the predominant business of this company and I don't believe it should.

Planogirl

12-01-2003, 02:12 PM

It's surprising that Disney stock is so flat today. I expected some kind of reaction but it's just kind of sitting there.

I would be happy to see the classic parts of Disney spun off if someone who cares about the legacy would take over. I'm not so sure about the prospect of another huge company buying it though.

deb305

12-01-2003, 02:21 PM

Actually there is a bigger story not being covered with the Disney Board. A shareholder group has brought suit against the Disney Board members on the sweetheart deal give ME's buddy Orvitz (sp) when he was let go after less than 2 years. ME got them to give his buddy several hundred million dollar severance, against their own board rules. Disney has been challanging whether the suit has merit to be filed, and the Deleware (sp) court has finally said that the suit has merit and should go ahead. This has big ramification to not only the Disney Board members, but all companies incorporated there. Given that, there will be a lot of continued pressure to challange the case.
ME attempts at leveraging the Disney brand (ABC,Mirimax, etc) have diluted the Disney name. As ABC fails, and Mirimax continues to produce shock value gross movies, Mickey and pals will continue to be dragged in the mud.
I can't wait to see how the new Peter Pan movie fairs at the box office. Disney pulled out at literally one minute before midnight, with the movie due out in a few weeks. If the movie lives up to the trailer, poor Disney "Tink" will be left in the mud.

Don't get me wrong we love all things Disney, WDW annual pass holder, frequent visitor, big Disney Store consumers etc and almost every true Disney DVD. We want the company to suceed, just don't want it to become another Enron with the workers and consumers left holding the bag

Tekneek

12-01-2003, 02:47 PM

With Stanley Gold walking out today, and his VERY NICE (and scathing) letter that calls members of the BOD and Eisner out in direct ways, this looks like it is generating some significant noise. Maybe something good will happen after all.

DancingBear

12-01-2003, 05:12 PM

Unfortunately, it looks like the financial markets greeted this news with a big yawn. Stock up slightly (less than 1%) today.

manning

12-01-2003, 06:01 PM

It looks like Disney and Gold are taking the only option available to them.

DisneyKidds

12-01-2003, 06:47 PM

Nope..........due to my failure to watch any real news while on vacation I completely missed the developments of the last few days...........................and were right here at WDW! Looks like Viking, Larry and I (and whoever else shows up) will have a lot to talk about over MNF at the Poly tonight.

I'd like to think this is the start of some big shakeup and might lead to some kind of change (takeover, ouster od Eisner, whatever) thta might save the Disney we love. AV's sentiments do provide some cause for alarm. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

On a lighter note.......................while there is clearly a little less attention to minor detail (my DW notices EVERYTHING) and there seem to be fewer decorations than last year, the parks are clean and wonderful and the crowds aren't bad. I'll provide some more observations later on, but now it is off to the Cinderella dinner at the GF and then on to the Poly for MNF with the gang.

King Triton

12-01-2003, 07:21 PM

I support Roy Disney 100%.:bounce: Michael Eisner has lost the vision and creativity. Roy was right about Eisner being too cheap to make a fast buck and thus sacrificing the Disney magic. California Adventure is an example of if you build it cheap it will come back to haunt you. No way Walt would have approved of that park. Eisner also managed to destroy and ruin the once great park - Epcot. Roy understands the Disney magic and he needs to be heard. Disney needs new management - someone who has the creativity to bring back Walt's vision.

WE LOVE YOU ROY!! GET THE WORD OUT!!:jumping1:

wdtv

12-01-2003, 07:30 PM

"While Roy's complaints are, I'm sure, heartfelt and he's serious about it, he just doesn't carry as much weight as he used to in the company," said Harold Vogel of Vogel Capital Management in New York.
This is a quote from yet another article on Roy's comments. To me, it's a bunch of garbage and implies the sorry state of things today. While it may be true, what this quote implies is a total, complete and utter lack of respect for morals, principles and ideals within the company. Anybody over the age of 15 who hasn't been living in a cave knows that Disney has practically seperated itself from the ideals, morals and principles set forth by Walt Disney and proudly maintained until Frank Wells untimely death and Eisner's "complete" takeover in 1995.
I am "completely" fed up & beyond -- way beyond -- angry; and will continue to fight the good fight; and hope to God that Disney someday retains its dignity.
It is really sad. Why there are still fans who support Eisner is beyond me.
And the fact that under 300 people are in Preserve the Magic (a link to join is in my signature) is a sad testament as to how the company has "brainwashed" gulliblle people. People that maintain a "Disney can do no wrong" mindset. People who embraced DCA from day one. Pople who adore every single animated sequel and who buy every single DVD that Disney releases.
It pains me to no end. I grew up on Disney; I've read about Walt Disney & watched history television shows on him, Disneyland & WDW; and the state of the company today is just so sad to watch.

freediverdude

12-01-2003, 08:12 PM

I think maybe I've read on here somewhere that we're not supposed to organize a mass mailing on these boards, is that correct? If it is, does anyone know of a place where we could? I think this situation really calls for something like that, to let the Disney board know how so many people feel. Or should we all just bombard all the executive addresses we can find with letters LOL.

ZachnElli

12-01-2003, 09:53 PM

I usually just lurk. But I wanted share that I found an interesting discussion on cbs.marketwatch.com about all this. I didn't see too many Eisner fans among those who at the very least watch the stocks on that site. Just sharing.:D

LoriMistress

12-01-2003, 10:04 PM

I really hope that Eisner resigns...but he probably won't. He'll have to try to "prove him wrong."

phisigprincess

12-02-2003, 01:36 AM

Of COURSE the media is spinning this to look like Roy's just bitter. Who controls most of the media? Without getting into a political debate on the boards, everyone knows the media is generally liberal (with the exception of Fox news). It has been rumored that the very liberal Eisner will be funding Michael Moore's new documentary linking the Bush family to the Bin Ladens. Obviously, ME's position in political matters is very clear. Of course the liberal media would take ME's side in all of this!! Why make ME look bad? What upsets me the most is the fact that ME's abusing his power and promoting his political agenda. Sadly, the Disney name gets caught up in all of his opinions and takes away some of the magic. As my dad said "I love Disney because it lets me forget about the real world. I don't want Eisner to take that from me."

DancingBear

12-02-2003, 07:46 AM

Please, let's not turn everything into a liberal/conservative debate.

Galahad

12-02-2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by DancingBear
Please, let's not turn everything into a liberal/conservative debate.

Yes, let's not, please! Ther is plenty for Roy and Mr. Gold to be upset about without bringing the old left and right into it.

BTW, Eisner is one of the few prominent Hollywood types that gives money to both Dems and Republicans....including GWB..... so I doubt his politics has anything to do with any of this (even the media coverage).

raidermatt

12-02-2003, 03:36 PM

I don't pretend to know where this will all lead, but a part of me is glad SOMETHING is happening, while another part is apprehensive about how it might all turn out.

One thing I think we can say for sure is that we can put to rest the idea that the perception by some that Disney has let certain standards slip is not merely an internet feeding frenzy.

DVC-Landbaron

12-02-2003, 05:18 PM

One thing I think we can say for sure is that we can put to rest the idea that the perception by some that Disney has let certain standards slip is not merely an internet feeding frenzy.I'm sorry. As I was reading this I couldn't help thinking about the certain "element" that is sometimes used around here. Does this mean that Roy can be considered of 'the element' too?

I also could help thinking about my old friends DisDuck and the good Pirate. I wonder if Roy joining Car #3 (or maybe even #4!!) has any bearing on our past conversations! Or future ones!!!

Peter Pirate

12-02-2003, 05:35 PM

Well Baron, yes and no.

I'm firmly behind Roy & Stanley in this action and I hope that against all odds they are successful and SOON. But WDW is still a great place to spend my time, Pirates of The Caribbean was by far my favorite movie of the summer, Brother Bear made us cry more than Lion King and the Disney Channel still babysits the kids better than the competetion... and Eisner did have a lot to do with this. We've argued this ad nauseum and I don't want to do it anymore. My support of Eisner has never been more than support against the 'piling on' that always goes on around here, although you guys have never quite grasped this. I have thought it (Disney) would be a better place without him for at least a couple of years now and I am appalled at the picture Roy has painted of his heavy handed, dog eat dog tactics but this still doesn't color the enjoyment of WDW (and Disney products) that I've experienced throughout, and it many ways because, of his tenure. It does make me worry a lot more about the future, but honestly my kids are growing fast and the future of Disney is less important to me than a couple of years ago...
pirate:

raidermatt

12-02-2003, 05:38 PM

Does this mean that Roy can be considered of 'the element' too? Other than the statement in my avatar, I'm trying to avoid the use of the word "element" around here, but, yeah, the same thought crossed my mind.

I'm trying not to start another thread since that just makes things more confusing, so here's an interesting story from Jim Hill about what he believes is going on behind the scenes.

Impossible for us outsiders to verify any of this right now, but if there is any truth to it, it makes things even more interesting.

Jim Hill (http://jimhillmedia.com/legacy/index.htm?../articles/12012003.1.htm~contentFrame)

raidermatt

12-02-2003, 05:47 PM

...but honestly my kids are growing fast and the future of Disney is less important to me than a couple of years ago... Forgive me if I'm being too personal, but any chance at grandkids down the road? My kid is only 5, but I know I hope to be able to share the same things with my grandkids someday...

Everyone has the right to decide if they care about the future of WDW and/or the Disney company. But if you don't really care, why are you here? I don't mean that in a confrontational way, and I certainly am not trying to get you to bail, but I really am curious.

If you're really not all that concerned with where Disney is 10 years from now, that would help me understand a lot of your positions.

Peter Pirate

12-02-2003, 06:08 PM

Wow Matt, you sure read a lot into that.

Disney has never been the most important thing, place or entertainment in my life...It would seem quite sad to me if it were. But what Walt gave us was so incredible and what was built on what Walt gave us, while not more incredible, was certainly so prolific, that I'm in awe of the humble 'beginnings to now' developments. WDW in particular has been the 'escape place' for our family in all different variations (from the wife & I, to three of us to all four and for me with each child individually). WDW afforded me a place that made magic with my family far beyond other venues.

I have always appreciated the quality the same as everyone and I am genuinely concerned about Disney's future...But it won't be the end all. If WDW should become less then it'll be time to explore more. One door closes another door opens. I will fit what I need into whatever niche I can use.

So I don't mean to imply that I don't care about Disney, but as my kids get older it is true I have other concerns and issues more important and pressing than Disney has been in our lives in the past. I will have Grandkids someday, I'm sure, and I hope this magic can be passed on at WDW but if not it will be passed on in another place or form...

Perhaps this clears my POV, perhaps I've made it worse...
pirate:

Another Voice

12-02-2003, 07:57 PM

Some people are fans of "Disney" because they are an audience. They look up at the stage and enjoy the show that parades before them. If the show stops or fails to amuse, the audience moves on to the next theater where a different group will present fresh diversions (all for a price of course).

Others are fans of "Disney" because they admire the craftsmanship used to create that show. They marvel out how people can take word and color and sound to create works that can instill wonder, joy, and hope into others. These fans are not looking just to escape from a mundane existence, their happiness come from the appreciation and the joy of creating.

When The Company is finally destroyed, a lot of the crowd will shuffle onto the next guy promising a momentary entertainment. There are plenty of people after a buck and plenty of people just marking away the hours of their life. But others, the ones that care about the power of story, that find happiness in imagination, and those that can still dream - they are the ones that will miss the end of Disney.

Peter Pirate

12-02-2003, 09:01 PM

Man, what a slap in the face.
pirate:

Planogirl

12-03-2003, 12:23 AM

I do admire the Disney creations. I am in awe of what has been done in the far off past and even the more recent past. I am not enamored with the current Disney to the degree I once was and I ride proudly in the rumble seat of Car No. 3.

However, I think that I almost agree with the Pirate in one way. (Hey, odds said that it had to happen. ;) ). Magic is not exclusive to Disney. There are still talented people out there with stars in their eyes and the memories of a child still in their heart (maudlin but true) that if pulled together in the right way can still create this type of magic. I fervently hope that Disney does so but if not someone else will, at least I like to hope so. I feel that Universal often flirts with this perhaps because so many imagineers have ended up working there. But if not Disney or Universal, someone will eventually step up.

lucky_bunni

12-03-2003, 12:44 AM

It's sad to think ME would now intend to do what he was originally brought into the company to prevent; The breaking up of the company. ME is a business man, however, not an artist or dreamer. He is only out to look for sure-fire methods of growth and money making. Perhaps the greatest loss of the Frank Wells accident was the balance he brought to the management partnership between ME and himself. When he died, the weight of creativity was lost.

Sammie

12-03-2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Man, what a slap in the face.
pirate:

I don't think so Peter. I think you are just misunderstood. I think Peter and many others appreciate Disney and all things Disney as much as anyone else that has gone to WDW and Disneyland many times over the years.

However I also think that Peter and myself included "do" realize that everything creative, fun, magical, wonderful, and joyful is not controlled by one company, Disney.

There is alot to see in this world from the man made wonders to the natural ones. It would be a very sad situation to think that only what Disney offers is truely imaginative.

I agree with Peter, I would miss Disney greatly but the world would go on. And I would find that creativity somewhere else.

Galahad

12-03-2003, 06:43 AM

But WDW is still a great place to spend my time, Pirates of The Caribbean was by far my favorite movie of the summer, Brother Bear made us cry more than Lion King and the Disney Channel still babysits the kids better than the competetion.

I agree.

and Eisner did have a lot to do with this

Good point. Probably Roy and Stanley did as well. If ME stays in place, it will be interesting to see the next "evolution".

crusader

12-03-2003, 08:17 AM

It's the audience that keeps the artist from becoming a gov't subsidy. Without our patronage the only money source left for all these "creators" are foundations; grants; bequests and donations. Good Luck clamoring for that pittance!

Artists seem to despise the constraints of having to work within the same financial arena everybody else does and what they fail to understand is that their output doesn't hold one ounce more in value or worth than any other contribution from a productive member of our society.

The trick has always been in appeal. You can create the most intricate, substantive meaningful work of art and spend your life's fortune doing so but unfortunately if you can't sell it to the public, you will starve.

That's because art is completely subjective. It's success lies within the eye of the beholder and even if the colleagues all "get it" and hail you with critical acclaim, the audience can easily walk away because it doesn't get them!

We can be labeled as beige all you want, but the bottom line is, we are consumers. We have the purchase power. We disdain arrogance and can easily withhold our money knowing full well it is our money you are after. When it comes to entertainment we are typically inclined to spend whatever we want purely for the "enjoyment factor". There are many corporate benefactors of this. There are many employed as a result.

Disney isn't going to lose its' audience because the company knows how to appeal to our love of entertainment. This year has been another great example of that.

Despite the wranglings within the executive cesspool, the product continues to demonstrate one thing: There is a tremendous amount of dedication within the soul of this company from every division. Creativity may be where it starts, but that's certainly not where it ends. Every single member of the operation is vital to it's success - including the finance department.

DancingBear

12-03-2003, 09:22 AM

Raidermatt, thanks for the Jim Hill link. Fun stuff there! I read the "Did Roy Jump the Gun?" article first, and my two thoughts were (1) as Hill acknowledged, if a deal was in place for ME to leave in 9/04, why didn't they let Roy and Stanley in on that deal, and (2) if the deal was in place, why was Roy being forced out.

But the second article suggests that the board DID become concerned that ME would back out of the 9/04 agreement, and so the Roy/Stanley campaign is part of a insider and outsider effort to put pressure on ME to resign. Very intriguing.

Hill also adds the possibility that both Pixar and the Henson families only want to do a deal with Disney if ME is out. Very interesting.

Peter Pirate

12-03-2003, 09:36 AM

Thanks Sammie & crusader for understanding. It seems some folks have a hard time believing people CAN understand and even agree to certain theories and yet still choose to live their life in an alternate manner. It doesn't necessarily make us less, ignorant or even willing to settle for less.

It's like great French Cuisine. I understand that it is good. I understand the intracacies of the preperation, the time at culinary academys. I understand the mingling of fine ingediants and the importance of proper wine pairings...I don't generally like the food. My palette is not educated enough, my frame of mind wasn't formed in the manner necessary to appreciate this food, my taste buds are somewhat pedestrian and provincial. I know this about myself but it doesn't mean I can't understand and appreciate the artistic care and great ability needed in preparing fine French food.

I appreciate Disney for both what it has done, is doing and will do for me AND I appreciate Disney for the innovation, original business model and creativity they introduced to the world in their realm throughout their existence. These two things ARE NOT mutually exclusive.

It may be interesting to point out here that Walt was ridiculed and low browed through much of his early career because he was involved in animation. It didn't matter that he was taking animation to new levels of greatness, the fact of the day was that animation was not considered high art, if it was even considered art at all...
pirate:

GrimGhost

12-03-2003, 10:44 AM

lucky_bunni wrote:
It's sad to think ME would now intend to do what he was originally brought into the company to prevent; The breaking up of the company
I'm sorry, did I miss something. What in the light of recent events would indicate ME is planning on carving up Disney ??

Another Voice

12-03-2003, 12:08 PM

Okay - we're on to the next metaphor.

Do appreciate French food in general, or do you happen to find the work of one particular chef to be especially to your liking? Are you simply looking for the best plate of snails-in-butter that you can find, or do you seek out the best that is practical?

Do you settle for what you get?

I completely agree that Disney has no lock on quality or imagination. That's why I left the company - Disney wasn't interested in making quality "Disney" products anymore, but I knew there were others that were.

But I also realize how extremely difficult it is to make "the good stuff" on a consistent basis, especially given the ways of Hollywood and business. Disney is unique because they seemed to have found a knack to do what everyone else found was all but impossible. Disney as a group has been at it for 75 years while everyone else in town floundered.

The tragedy - and why this isn't simply a matter of packing up and moving to the next French restaurant down the road - is that Disney has chosen to stop. There are no outside pressures forcing it to quit, no sudden upheaval in the universe. The Company got lazy and gave up.

I like Disney, I want them to return to what they are capable of. The move on attitude of "my kids are getting older" and "I'll find another restaurant" is, to me anyway, just another example of the same laziness that has infected Disney for a decade.

What Roy Disney has done is an attempt to reverse that process and try to make the company good again. He's gone against the prevailing (and easy) attitude that "better the Devil you know". It's also a strike against the fear of the devil-you-don't.

For me, it's much better to try than to accept.

crusader

12-03-2003, 12:48 PM

AV -

Let's be honest. Would Roy be doing this if he hadn't learned he was slated to be passed over by the nominating committee?

I view this as a powerplay. I see it as serving two purposes - rallying shareholder support while publicly denouncing the CEO.

The problem with this humiliation tactic is that it fails to portray itself favorably on national television. When I saw the interview I thought how very sad it was that this is the level the company had reached within itself.

I also thought how sad it was that Roy and Stanley had to exercise such cautionary repository refrain when they were truly outraged. They didn't appear well. The transcript certainly reads much better than the visual displayed.

My impression was this: had I not been an informed spectator, I wouldn't have been able to decipher the importance and complexity of the issue. It was evident their message was not intended for the average viewer.

This reeks of a repeat perfomance on Roy's part and he has to know that this time he lacks the element of surprise. That will not be easy to overcome.

If it is true that Michael Eisner had been in negotiations for an early retirement, this latest round will not be considered in the best interest of the shareholders. I've said it before, he will want to exit on a much stronger foothold than the company has been demonstrating. This year was a great step in that direction.

There is a certain dignified approach which clearly wasn't elected here. I blame both parties for this. Without it, I don't see how an amicable arrangement will be achieved.

Another Voice

12-03-2003, 01:43 PM

My personal belief is that Michael Eisner out maneuvered Roy Disney. The events of the past few days were Roy's response to a trap and a demand to "shut up and die quickly". Yes, the entire affair is unseemly, but most of the fault needs to rest with Eisner's bullish and underhanded tactics. He is a man who has always bludgeoned people into silence rather achieve his goals through performance. Like many, he tends to mistake fear for respect and servitude for loyalty.

As for negotiations about his retirement, another fiction that some (people who should have known better) choose to belief. Eisner is a man who brags openly about lying and cheating in business deal. He is a man that justified his unprecedented compensation packages because it was tied to performance - and then scrapped the deal when his performance failed to match his greed. He is a man incapable of actually working with anyone inside or outside of the company - and has alienated The Company's key employees, business partners and customers. Eisner has never created, never produced, never directed anything on his own- his only claim to fame is the power that he wields over a business.

And he is to be trusted to graciously give up his throne?

There is a reason why most depots end up in the grave rather than exile. People whose only interest is power never go quietly. They will use any tactic, any means, any lie, any weapon to retain their status because that's all they have.

All Eisner has is his job; he has no intention, and never had any intention, of leaving.

raidermatt

12-03-2003, 01:55 PM

It takes two to play nice.

It sounds like Roy was faced with a choice. Either go quietly, or put up a fight. The time for quietly working from within was done, as he was being kicked out. In other words, a third option was removed by Eisner.

Going quietly may have seemed more "dignified" to some, but it would accomplish nothing. Perhaps whatever Roy has planned will not really accomplish anything either, but I can respect him making the effort a lot more than if he just quit.

crusader

12-03-2003, 02:09 PM

The business tactics and the aggregious comp. are of no surprise to any of us. The disdain for the family is a disgrace particularly toward the one individual who opened the door in the first place.

Sure - one could always argue that a certain Hilton heir has no business in the business and I've seen many other examples of nepotism gone bad.

But to get rid of Roy in this manner is so low it gives a corporate image not unlike the war of the roses.

SoonerKate

12-03-2003, 02:27 PM

Y'all might find the article "Are Roy and Stanley making a Rainbow Connection?" at Jim Hill Media (http://www.jimhillmedia.com) to be pretty interesting; I know I did. Here's an excerpt:

According to several well-placed sources that I spoke with at the Jim Henson Company yesterday, Disney and Gold have supposedly been meeting quietly with members of the Henson family for months now. It's even been suggested that Roy and Stanley may have played a part in the family's decision to suddenly buy back the Jim Henson Company this past May, rather than allow the Muppets to be sold off to Mickey.

"So what's the point of Walt's nephew and Stanley Gold inserting themselves into the Disney/Henson negotiations?" you ask. Patience, Grasshopper. All will be explained shortly.

Very, very interesting read...

raidermatt

12-03-2003, 03:18 PM

Yup, here's the link:Jim Hill (http://www.jimhillmedia.com/main/index.htm)

Wow. If this is true, I guess we can lay to rest any doubts there were about Mike's personality/style being a major issue during contract negotiations with potential partners.

I'm still no more than mildly optimistic about ultimate success, but if the plan does involve support from the previously Eisner-guided board, and the Pixar/Henson rumors are true, the chances are a lot greater.

WDSearcher

12-03-2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by raidermatt
It takes two to play nice.

It sounds like Roy was faced with a choice. Either go quietly, or put up a fight. The time for quietly working from within was done, as he was being kicked out.
But, and I may have missed a step here, didn't Roy help pass the change in the by-laws that mandated that no board member be over 72 years old? Even if he didn't support that bit of change, wouldn't he have known back when that passed that he wouldn't be re-nominated?

I get the whole thing about why he chose to resign instead of simply not being re-nominated, but I don't get why everyone keeps saying he was "kicked out." He was THERE when that by-law change mandating an age limit was passed.

:earsboy:

raidermatt

12-03-2003, 04:52 PM

I believe the age limit was passed under the guise of being part of the corporate governence reform. Opposing it would have been portrayed as being against the reform. Further, he wouldn't have been able to stop it, as I'm sure it had enough support elsewhere on the board. He would have just gotten caught up in a seemingly meaningless battle that was unwinnable. It would have hurt his credibility.

It has much more impact if he makes his stand when he is actually being "asked to leave" as opposed to when the rule was being discussed.

Further, its my understanding that the rule is not supposed to apply to the management of the company, of which Roy is technically a part.

Then again, its very possible that Roy knew the rule would eventually lead to Eisner trying to get him out. Since working to get Eisner out was going to require him to be off of the board, it helps his case if he can frame it as being kicked out instead of just leaving on his own. If we believe that possibility, Roy may have supported the rule in an effort to get kicked out.

EVEN Further, if we are to believe the scenario Jim Hill is putting forth, perhaps the board voted Disney out as part of a plan they are actually involved in, allowing Roy to portray himself as being kicked out.

That might be a reach, but at this point, who knows?

Another Voice

12-03-2003, 05:40 PM

"He was THERE when that by-law change mandating an age limit was passed."

The explanation, as I have heard it, goes like this.

The age limit has been there for a while, but it's never been enforced.

The age limit for the Board excludes those members who are officers of The Company. As Chairman of Feature Animation, Roy Disney is therefore exempt from the age limit provision.

Over the weekend Roy Disney learned that a committee of the Board of Directors, at the "urging" of Michael Eisner, had excluded Roy Disney from the list of nominees to be put before the stockholders for the next board election. They cited the rule as a justification, although the application of the rule is questionable. This was the same move that Eisner used last year to eliminate another outspoken board member; she was excluded from the next election and therefore removed from the Board.

The result is that Roy Disney felt he was being ousted from the board through political maneuvering (i.e. through Eisner's control over the nominating process of who gets to sit on the board) rather than as a rule of corporate governance (a rule about the age limits for board members).

To many people, it appears that the much-trumpeted "corporate governance reforms" are simply being used to further corrupt the board. This includes such things as awarding bonuses to Board members, granting stock and "consulting" contracts to George Micthell (the alleged "outside" leader of the reforms), prohibitions about communicating with shareholders (rather strange a Board member not allowed to talk with the people they are supposed to represent) and other tactics all aimed at rewarding friends of Eisner and killing off people who disagree with him.

It appears Roy and Stanley finally had enough.

Testtrack321

12-03-2003, 09:09 PM

AV- is there ANY hope that pre-Wells death Disney will return? Or will Esiner sell it off? Is there any chance? Any hope? :(

Mr D

12-04-2003, 04:00 AM

Its been proven that eventually regimes fall, some like Castro remain but eventually events take on a definate purpose of realigning. Saddam relied heavily on intimidation to keep himself in power, but eventually events required actions from another country (USA) to intervene and usurp this dictator.

Trying to topple from within has failed so an outside source or rather a group of nations banded together and invaded Iraq thus removing Saddam, is Michael Eisner in any way to be compared to Saddam you ask? not in any realist approach but in the effort of removing an entrenched leader it often curtails attacking swiftly and at the heart.

To remove ME would involve discrediting him in such a manner as revealing he is a pedophile, a drug user, or has violated SEC rules and the such, look at Martha Stewart.
Or look at Clinton, he was publicly disgraced because of his pandering sexcapades while in office. Ironically Bill Clinton and ME are very much in certain ways, has ME taken cash bribes for the latest drive-through Disney park in Honk Kong? Of course he has!

There are huge warehouses of plush in Orlando that recieve these items from China, they probably cost a whole penny to make but sell here in the US for thousands the times markup, why not? its all profit of course in deals with the Chinese government.

The Jim Henson tragedy is going to really bite him in the rear, I keep thinking about the snide backslap comment ME said about Hensen one day, its gonna come back from the grave ME you just can wait and see.

Mr D

12-04-2003, 04:04 AM

BTW for anybody who may be reading my way too infrequent and often scathing to the point blunt views,

Its my birthday today, and tomorrow its Walts! :earsboy:

caseymaureen

12-04-2003, 08:57 AM

Happy Birthday Mr.D!

ohanafamily

12-04-2003, 10:46 AM

Happy B-Day Mr. D.

raidermatt

12-04-2003, 03:19 PM

Kevin Yee's take on the current situation:

Kevin Yee's Column (http://www.miceage.com/kevinyee/ky120403a.htm)

eclipseSD

12-10-2003, 01:58 AM

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/031201/gorrell.gif

BRERALEX

12-10-2003, 08:11 AM

at 8 am that just made my day

erikthewise

12-10-2003, 12:34 PM

The Jim Hill (http://www.jimhillmedia.com/) site has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

I had the opportunity to meet Jim Hill last weekend at WDW and had a very brief discussion with him about these matters. No I don't have really juicy tidbits to share. Nor do I care to repeat even the few things Mr. Hill said to me; he can speak for himself perfectly well on his website. However....

I am convinced that Mr. Hill has the best interests of the Disney Corporation at heart, and that is why he is running his site.

He feels he has an inside source of information on the developing story of Roy E. Disney and Michael Eisner, and expects to be posting some very interesting articles on this in the near future. I believe him.

Even if you don't ordinarily visit his site, I strongly recommend you keep your eye on it over the next couple weeks. There are already several articles posted on this topic (go back to Dec 1 in the "Archives"); unless I miss my guess, there will be more, and better.

And if you like what you read, consider supporting his site. It appears to be a labor of love.

HB2K

12-10-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by erikthewise
The Jim Hill (http://www.jimhillmedia.com/) site has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

I had the opportunity to meet Jim Hill last weekend at WDW and had a very brief discussion with him about these matters. No I don't have really juicy tidbits to share. Nor do I care to repeat even the few things Mr. Hill said to me; he can speak for himself perfectly well on his website. However....

I am convinced that Mr. Hill has the best interests of the Disney Corporation at heart, and that is why he is running his site.

He feels he has an inside source of information on the developing story of Roy E. Disney and Michael Eisner, and expects to be posting some very interesting articles on this in the near future. I believe him.

Even if you don't ordinarily visit his site, I strongly recommend you keep your eye on it over the next couple weeks. There are already several articles posted on this topic (go back to Dec 1 in the "Archives"); unless I miss my guess, there will be more, and better.

And if you like what you read, consider supporting his site. It appears to be a labor of love.

Signed,

Michelle the Fab Dis Babe!

Joking.....

All joking aside I love Jim's site as well...just wish he wrote more...