Finally! A word from Diane Disney!

[Luv2Roam]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040310/ts_latimes/disneydaughtersayseisnershouldleave

[lodgelady]

Thanks for the post. It is interesting to hear Diane's view on the situation. It is telling that even she thinks that Eisner will not step down willingly....

[Chuck S]

She didn't have a lot of kind words for Cousin Roy, though.

[dcentity2000]

Did Eisner & Roy both give her the old heave-ho, or is just that my imagination?

I know she doesn't like either of them that much...





Rich::

[dcentity2000]

"It's time to step down and let someone else come in for the future," Diane Disney Miller said in an interview. "New leadership is necessary. I think Michael Eisner did some great things for the company but there also are some not so great things.

...

During her interview with The Times, Miller, 70, distanced herself from what she called a "vicious and personal" campaign being led by her cousin, former board member Roy E. Disney, aimed at Eisner's immediate ouster.

...

She said the abrupt removal of Eisner could cause the stock price to plunge, making the Burbank-based entertainment conglomerate vulnerable to Comcast Corp.'s recent unsolicited $49-billion takeover bid."



I like this woman :) She's intelligent and dislikes both indiscriminatley :)





Rich::

[Chuck S]

I wonder what Roy would think if Cousin Diane or one of her kids were brought in by the board?

[raidermatt]

From a shareholder, or even fan point of view, this shouldn't be about anyone's personal conflicts. Either Roy vs. Mike, Roy vs. Diane, Eisner vs. the World, whatever. Yes, we know that probably plays into their decisions, but when we step back and look at things, none of it matters.

If Diane Disney wants to jump into the fray, and bring stronger management to Disney, great. Let's hear it.

But as much as Roy is panned for not doing enough over the last 10 years, she has done even less. I don't expect that to change now.

So we are back to Eisner not being the right guy, and only Roy doing anything at all of substance to change that.

[crusader]

Diane Disney speaks my language.

She's in support of independence and refused to support Roy on the vote issue because of the vulnerability to the company. Excellent move.

She sees him as strategically fueling the takeover which I agree absolutely on.

She is truly in favor of Disney the company with no personal vendetta. That's what we need here and I'm glad to hear her finally speak out.

I also agree that Eisner needs to plan an exit without an abrupt removal and the company is wise to allow for that. 2006 is enough time to groom a successor.

Once again the stronger genetics appear to prove out.

[GrimGhost]

She also said "... Roy loves the company as much as I do, and he wants to see it remain independent too. ...."

Atleast they agree on motive, but not strategy or 'tactics' as Roy put it.

[GrimGhost]

Crusader, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on your last point.

TWDC would not even BE, were it not for Roy's father Roy O..HE saw to it the money was there to realize WDW and saw the project through to completion-just prior to his own death.

[crusader]

GrimGhost -

You got me! It was a cheap shot and I will graciously retract it.

I wonder what the vote tally would have been if Diane's position hit the airwaves prior to the annual meeting.

[GrimGhost]

Crusader, I agree with you 100% on the other points.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
If Diane Disney wants to jump into the fray, and bring stronger management to Disney, great. Let's hear it.

But as much as Roy is panned for not doing enough over the last 10 years, she has done even less. I don't expect that to change now.
I don't think she wants to "jump into the fray." I think her maiden name is Disney and someone at a news agency asked her the question. It didn't appear as though she sought out an interview. I think she'd have been perfectly happy to have stayed off everyone's radar, but it was inevitable that she'd get asked.

:earsboy:

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by crusader
Diane Disney speaks my language.

She's in support of independence and refused to support Roy on the vote issue because of the vulnerability to the company. Excellent move.

She sees him as strategically fueling the takeover which I agree absolutely on.


I think she could not be more wrong when she suggests that the push to remove Eisner makes Disney more vulnerable. Comcast in it's initial bid and recent statements, said that current managegment cannot produce satisfactory results and used managements failings the last 10 years a primary reason for taking over the company. I think Eisner makes Disney a more inviting target because a takeover partner knows that 50% of stockholders already opose management.

[airlarry!]

Crusader, how does your points jive with Michael Ei$ner's intent to sell the company before Mr. Disney got involved?

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by mrtoadslastride
I think Eisner makes Disney a more inviting target because a takeover partner knows that 50% of stockholders already opose management.
Yes, but those stockholders oppose management because they want to "save Disney" -- which to pretty much every one of those 50% also means that Disney remains independent and doesn't end up being bought by anyone. Many, many people hold Disney stock because they have an emotional connection, not because they want to hit an earnings target. (Although that's nice too. :D ) A 50% vote against ME doesn't translate to Comcast having an easier time.

:earsboy:

[PKS44]

The day Eisner leaves this stock breaks $30 a share, easily...how does that make it more vulnerable to a takeover?

[crusader]

Crusader, how does your points jive with Michael Ei$ner's intent to sell the company before Mr. Disney got involved?

Where is that reported? The only "source" I've ever heard even mention it was AV.

PKS44 -

$30/share may only be a temporary spike, and would still fall below what Comcast is trading at. What if that sparks additional trading while the board shifts players more favorable to a big payoff?

The company quickly turns back in play if it can't expand holdings.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by PKS44
The day Eisner leaves this stock breaks $30 a share, easily...how does that make it more vulnerable to a takeover?
OK ... but what about the next day?

If Eisner leaves without a solid plan in place for replacing him (if Eisner were to do what Roy and Stanley want him to do and leave NOW), the stock may jump, but it's not going to stay up there for long. All Comcast will see is a company without a leader, and that translates to vulnerability. And the longer it takes to FIND a leader, the less likely the stock is to stay up. Plus, the person who steps into the spot after ME leaves will be expected to deliver change immediately. Mostly because the public and the press have been told so often that all it will take to turn Disney around is a change in leadership. If that new person cannot make a difference quickly -- the expectations, after all, are very high -- then the stock isn't going to stay at $30 a share. Disney stock, while not being through-the-roof these days, has if nothing else remained steady through all of this, allowing Disney to continue to hold off Comcast. If the switch between Eisner and non-Eisner is done simply for the sake of him being gone without the proper thought to what happens the day after, then the stock will fluctuate with each decision, and it will be closer to takeover time.

:earsboy:

[dcentity2000]

Seeing that 40% of shareholders oppose the CEO is one thing...

Seeing that the CEO is not strong enough to stand up to the dissidents is quite another and as Diane Disney pointed out could reflect weakness within the company and incur further incentive to hostile companies to takeover...

The management team should be seen to be strong more than it should be seen to be popular from a purely strategic point of view; of course both factors are very desireable



Rich::

[PKS44]

so I take it no one disputes that the day Eisner goes the stock goes up..that should tell you everything you need to know about whether he should go...the idea that it would only be temporary is based on what? as compared to the concession by all here that it is true..if you accept that it will go up if he leaves why do you think it will do that? What force driving it up will disappear a day after he leaves? ..there are a number of good candidates to step in and take over this company and keep it independent and strong...this Comcast bogeyman you all keep playing is just propaganda that is used to keep Eisner in place.. a lot of stupid dictators have used such a notion to justify their staying as the lesser of two evils...baloney--anyone care to make a friendly wager - over the strength and durability of the stock rally the day Eisner goes?

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by PKS44
so I take it no one disputes that the day Eisner goes the stock goes up..
No, that's not true. I never said it was a given, I simply said, "OK ... but what happens the next day?" I was taking your thoughts as an assumption that I had to base my argument on. I don't think it's a given.

:earsboy:

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
No, that's not true. I never said it was a given, I simply said, "OK ... but what happens the next day?" I was taking your thoughts as an assumption that I had to base my argument on. I don't think it's a given.

:earsboy:

Yeah.

I'd wager quite a bit that if the CEO of any company is booted out that the share price would fall quite distressingly.

A new CEO with a clear and well approved plan taking over without a fuss would have a positive effect.

High share price now is most likely down to Comcast's bid, the rejection of the bid, the rumour of a new, higher bid and healthy profits.



Rich::

http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpg
http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpg

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by PKS44
..there are a number of good candidates to step in and take over this company and keep it independent and strong...

Name 'em :p

this Comcast bogeyman you all keep playing is just propaganda that is used to keep Eisner in place..

I wish :(

A hostile bid is a hostile bid and although the results may not be as bad as some people fear, it still would leave Disney utterly, utterly different deep down :( Walt's company would have been bought up by a cable company :(



Rich::

http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpg
http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpg

[mitros]

Here's a thought: Dump Ei$ner and make Dianes son, Walter Elias Disney, {walt's namesake} CEO. :)

[BRERALEX]

day ei$ner leaves the day the stock shoots up.

If everyone on wall street from at least every report ive seen says 43% is unprecedented and he should step down then i dont see how him leaving doesnt shoot the stock straight up.

He'd make more leaving

[mitros]

And Mr. Jewell, as well as that "loud mouth element" is entitled to post his thoughts on these matters just like you and I. As that russian comedian used to say: "what a country"!

[Peter Pirate]

It is not a given that the stock will rise upon eisners departure. It is simply all in the circumstances. Should Mike have a heart attack and die, the stock falls. Should an abrupt firing without a replacement take place, the stock falls. Should Mike up and walk out, the stock falls. There needs to be an orderly transfer for wall st. to keep its cool.

mitros, whats up with the Disney name thing. Business accumen is not in the blood. None of the Disney kids have ever shown much more than trust fund kids passing interest in the company and the current generation is probably even less suited to understand where Walt came from. No offense but aside from the last name these folks have very little qualification...Even Roy knew that.
pirate:

[Goofyposter]

She didn't have a lot of kind words for Cousin Roy, though.

Chuck...I'm not sure you're familar with the dyamics within the family.

Diane has no interest in being involved in the company. That "side" of the family....if the annual meeting were held today would have in fact supported the Save Disney position of with holding their votes for Ei$ner.

Diane is a wonderful, kind gentle woman...raised in a much nice time. The fact that she said what she did....speaks volumes.

WD....


Disney stock, while not being through-the-roof these days, has if nothing else remained steady through all of this, allowing Disney to continue to hold off Comcast

....But IMHO "Ei$ner" is not the cause for that 'stability'....it's the owners...the shareholders believe in this company...and have no confidence in Ei$ner....in fact they/we Know that the company would be better off without Ei$ner...and I still believe that the day he leaves, the owners will add to their stake and raise the stock value to assure the failure of any hostile takeover.

Yes....you can certainly hold a different opinion than me....but it's the 'glass half full' vs 'glass half empty' arugement.

[dcentity2000]

Dump everyone and then get Diane to become CEO. You could tempt her with a new ride called "I don't like what Roy did" ;)



Rich::

http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpg
http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpg

[airlarry!]

Rich, actually the shareholders who voted were more like 55% not the 40% you quoted.

Crusader, even if you don't believe AV (and one would not if one wanted to blame Roy for Comcast's involvement rather than Ei$ner), surely you must have read the business articles that the board was immediately ready to respond to ComCast's bid even before the bid was announced.

How? How were they ready so quick?

Does the board have a canned response ready to go at a moment's notice to a complicated long-term decision like selling out a $61 billion company? Of course not. (And Ei$ner said as much in post-bid interviews). The board was briefed by Ei$ner, in advance, and considered their response and it wasn't a one minute decision.

In fact, I'll turn the question around.

Point me to anything that says Ei$ner and the board are not considering the ComCast deal. You won't find it because THEY ARE. They only turned it down cause it wasn't the right price. Does that sound like Roy is forcing ComCast in? Nope. Sounds like Disney is available to anyone that is the last bidder standing. Basically whoever can stuff the most amount of jack in Ei$ner's pocket wins.

Doesn't that scare the poop century hotel out of you?

[crusader]

Larry,

It really is no secret that Comcast has been planning to expand beyond distributorship for many years.

That said, I'm sure you'll agree it involved soliciting any and all potential candidates. This wasn't earth shattering news here in the Phila region. I will give AV credit for disclosing the Disney side, but every network and affiliated media outlet who deals with Comcast, has been communicating with them in some way along these lines.

How far each has moved in an attempt to achieve Comcast's goals is what I believe you're speaking of with respect to Disney.

The fact that Eisner (or whomever AV is listening to) may have commented that a deal was on the table is meaningless unless we're going to get into how many discussions took place with the board and how many other prospects were also strongly being considered to move Disney into the realm of the future of broadcasting.

I blame Roy for putting the company in play with Comcast's hostile bid. His actions brought that on no matter what you may or may not believe. Timing is everything.

I can tell you that right now, Disney is not considering the Comcast bid. Roberts is downplaying it to his subordinates with phrases like "even if we do not succeed with Disney" (which is music to my ears) but nobody believes he's thrown in the towel. He's just being very careful not to let any dogs out. You cannot trust anything this man says.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by mitros
Here's a thought: Dump Ei$ner and make Dianes son, Walter Elias Disney, {walt's namesake} CEO. :)
And his qualifications would be .... ?

Unfortunately, simply having the name doesn't make you qualified or able to run a multi-media entertainment conglomerate. He produced and helped write a wonderful documentary about his grandfather, but that hardly means he can run the company.

And let's not forget that his full name is Walter Elias Disney MILLER. The Miller name hasn't exactly been a home run for the company ....

:earsboy:

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by airlarry!
Rich, actually the shareholders who voted were more like 55%
...
Point me to anything that says Ei$ner and the board are not considering the ComCast deal. You won't find it because THEY ARE. They only turned it down cause it wasn't the right price. Does that sound like Roy is forcing ComCast in? Nope. Sounds like Disney is available to anyone that is the last bidder standing. Basically whoever can stuff the most amount of jack in Ei$ner's pocket wins.

Yeah, you're right about the 55%, I just read that on Yahoo!

If Comcast were to take Disney over, just how would Eisner and his board fare? Would they even have their jobs for long? Of course, they are obliged pretty much to consider any bid to the benefit of the shareholders :/

ps. How is this font? Does it look ok in MS IE?



Rich::

http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpg
http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpg

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
day ei$ner leaves the day the stock shoots up.

If everyone on wall street from at least every report ive seen says 43% is unprecedented and he should step down then i dont see how him leaving doesnt shoot the stock straight up.
As has been said, that could be quite true. But what happens the NEXT day, when Wall Street looks around and says, "oh ... wait ... who's the new CEO? No one yet? Oh ... this isn't good ..."

Poof ... stock fluctuates wildly.

There are all of these people out there who are faulting Eisner for only looking at the short term without considering long-term consequences and goals. Isn't that what you're doing here? Saying "get rid of him and the stock goes up" without considering the long-term effects of dumping a CEO with no succession plan in place?

:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by airlarry!
Point me to anything that says Ei$ner and the board are not considering the ComCast deal. You won't find it because THEY ARE. They only turned it down cause it wasn't the right price. Does that sound like Roy is forcing ComCast in? Nope. Sounds like Disney is available to anyone that is the last bidder standing. Basically whoever can stuff the most amount of jack in Ei$ner's pocket wins.

Doesn't that scare the poop century hotel out of you?
Yes, larry, the board has gone on record saying that they would "consider" any "fair bid." Which, as I recall, is what you and others have said in the past that any good board has to do. There's a whole thread here where people are yelling at Eisner for saying "No" to Comcast on the phone before even putting the offer to the board. That he is bound by the rules and etiquettes of business to receive the offer and pass it along to be considered. But how does the board saying that they'd consider a bid turn into them being "available to anyone that is the last bidder standing?" That's a heck of a leap. If they were that available and that vulnerable and that open to takeover, Comcast sure as heck wouldn't be the only one interested. Unless there's a lot of stuff happening on the QT, Comcast is not only the last bidder standing ... they're the ONLY bidder standing. Not an overwhelming case for Disney being out there begging to be sold so that Eisner can have more and more and more money.

And, frankly, how do you know what they consider to be "the right price?" Remember that Pixar would have struck a deal with Disney if Disney had agreed to no profits, a 10-12% distribution fee, and loss of rights of all past films and characters. So, it can be said that Pixar would make a deal with Disney "at the right price." Yet, that price obviously wasn't right for Disney, and Pixar got what it wanted. Freedom to start building their own empire.

It's conceivable that the board has a "right price" in mind that is far too high for any possible merger company to pay, thereby keeping Disney the independent company they have said they believe it should stay.

:earsboy:

[dcentity2000]

::MickeyMo "Well hi there everybody!"

You know what?

At the end of the day, all that will come of this is a 'did' versus 'didn't' argument as both sides clash with only circumstantial evidence. It could go on forever - after all, is LandBaron likely to abandon his firmly held views? Or crusader? Or myself?

As students, office workers or investment bankers we can only ever speculate upon the state of play within a company far beyond our realms of control; in the end, only a certain few with ties to the company will ever know the truth as we so often wish to.

I think that although it is all very well to post opinions it is just a tad confrontational to ardently fight all those who disagree with you. Accept that others will think differently and accept that they have a right to.

I guess that it's all just part of the human process, the desire to make your point of view the dominant one. I have displayed it and probably shall in future posts; we can't really help it.

We can help, however, by stopping arguments when they reach a certain stage of ferocity. Let's show some decorum in our posts :)

Happy surfing from Simba Cub :)



Rich::

http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpg
http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpg

[WDSearcher]

That's all fine and good, Rich, but these are valid discussions and, while filled with disagreement, only very rarely result in name-calling or insults. So to preach the gospel of "agree to disagree" is basically suggesting that none of us discuss or politick or try to pursuade or defend. And why should we do that? For most of us here, this is a diversion -- like joining a debate club. No more than that.

I appreciate the thought of "let's all get along," but I also maintain that we do all get along. We just don't happen to all agree. Trust me ... when a subject has been exhausted, it will either come to a halt of its own accord, or a board moderator will lock it.

:earsboy:

[dcentity2000]

::MickeyMo "Well hi there everybody!"

Sorry...

It was probably the cheese. See, after a cheese sandwhich I usually go all cheesey myself and start to turn into an automated cheesey saying machine.

Did I mention the cheese?

Happy surfing from Simba Cub :)



Rich::

http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpg
http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpg

[airlarry!]

WD Searcher, I'm not and have never been in favor of The Walt Disney Company being bought out. I want them to remain independent.

Does the board have a legal obligation to consider the ComCast offer.

I have no idea. Don't really care, since I'm not on said board.

What I care about is what is best for the company. An independent company with strong leadership is what I vote for.

I am really not taking up for Roy here, although I know it sounds like it. I feel that it is Ei$ner's cronies who are putting out this whisper campaign that it is Roy's fault that ComCast is circling.

It all fits. Ei$ner wants to sell out to CC (hence the Philly Experiment). Roy doesn't. Roy gets out, starts hammering Ei$ner. CC figures they don't need Ei$ner anymore. There goes his General Electric-style perks.

Ei$ner is too greedy to let that happen. Start the whisper campaign that it is actually Roy's Boyz who are responsible for the CC sharks circling...and tell people that you need to keep Ei$ner's 'strong leadrship' to keep the stock price up and keep CC away.

And then when nobody's noticing...sell out to CC and float back down to earth in your golden parachute.

Got it?

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by airlarry! Got it?
I get it. I don't agree with it, and believe you are working on WAY to many "what ifs," but I get it. And if it all happens that way, I'll come back and let you say "I told you so."

:earsboy:

[manning]

What is not being said by all parties is just as and is often as important as to what is being said. Keep track of what is not being said.

[dcentity2000]

Methinks that Roy accelerated the Comcast bid, but I don't believe that he ever meant for it to happen nor saw it as a possible outcome.

I also highly doubt that Eisner has a network of secret agents who spread discontent in the Roy camp, although following what I read about his involvement with Alien Encounter, I could be open for persuasion upon this comment :)

Too cute... bleedin' adda!



Rich::

http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpg
http://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/pinksmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/yellowsmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/purplesmall.jpghttp://www.jgilbert.mistral.co.uk/greensmall.jpg