Great Huffington Post article on what Disney really needs in a new CEO

[DDLand]

I don't think most know of the conditions of some attractions.

Attendance has risen practically every year under both. I just read the earnings report about a week ago I remember reading about 80%.

HK is more comparable to Disneyland. But if you don't do anything to your major money makers which are your domestic parks then you will end up being in trouble. If you look the early 2000s up until about 2010 nothing was down and that showed one graph I posted represents that. Disney doesn't fully own any other parks besides the domestic ones and is only 51% owners of Paris. The rest are around 40% and in Tokyo's case they own none of it.

The DIS I have been a part of much longer and I find it more to be the Disney can do no wrong forum. While WDWmagic is more hard nosed and based things off facts thats where I got those graphs. Posters there range from strong insider sources, to CMs, to people with business experience using a lot of numbers. And being a new poster and so strongly informed on Disney things what took you so long to join the Dis.

See the old mantra is the consumer knows best. If the consumer is voting with their wallet and attendance Disney is on fire.

Indeed, naturally as new markets open up as potential pools of people in new countries. That's the type of excellent long term sustainable growth that's stable.

It's true that they could start being a problem sometime in the future, but as of right now no indicators are revealing even the slightest signs of trouble. You could argue that attendance would be skyrocketing with new products. The late 1990's would raise some flags though.

Yeah, but Disney is boosting share in Euro Disney to around 80% so it will operate effectivly as a fully owned subsidiary. Hong Kong and Shanghai even with partial shares have enormous potential profit oppurtunities and maximization. Right now Disney is over exposed to America in Park revenue. Disney is trying to lessen the share of revenue generated in America to ensure longtime sustainability.

Interesting... I'll keep that in mind.

I'll heed the call of Snow Strangely Spelled White and throw in the towel for the benefit of others. Nice talking to you rteetz!

 

[rteetz]

Indeed...low 80's is not gold a s doesn't represent park growth or strength.

I wonder why?

Hmmmm... Why would those fantastic rooms be empty?

Because they are too over priced. I myself have never stays deluxe because it's just too expensive. You can get the four seasons for about the same price as the GF.

 

[eXo]

I feel like I've just fallen through the rabbit hole and found myself in a backwards, upside down, merry un-birthday world.

Eisner very nearly killed Disney. Sure, he attempted to expand like crazy, and those ventures essentially flopped. Great job w/ Euro Disney there buddy. Meanwhile, he allowed the existing parks to stagnate.

Eisner is the one who fired Pixar and said they could do it cheaper in house. You can thank him for Home on the Range, Bolt, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and every other movie that murdered the Disney brand in the early to mid 2000's and allowed Dreamworks to go from derivative knock off crap like Shark Tale to a major competitor.

Katzenberg often gets credit for being involved in the golden Disney films of the 90s', however I have always failed to understand how he gets credit for movies that were well into production before he ever strolled in. He was known for editing the crap out of these movies. Anyone here care to recall how Robin Williams did the Genie's voice under the agreement that they would not advertise the movie using his name? Katzenberg and Eisner 100$ screwed Williams over on that deal.

The people who made the films you guys all loved HATED Katzenberg. And he was there 100% because of Eisner. Hell, even Eisner realized that Katzenberg was a problem.

Meanwhile, Eisner and Katzenberg are walking around with all this credit for recreating this Disney Golden Age when the concepts and production of several of these films all date back to Ron Miller's time. You know, the guy who funded Tim Burton's work giving us NMBC and everything that was released under Touchstone?

Roy Disney friggin QUIT THE COMPANY and started a SAVE DISNEY campaign. That is how bad Eisner was. How anyone who actually appreciates Disney and understands the history of the company can argue that Iger is worse than Eisner is absolutely beyond me. Iger single-handedly saved the movie division by rescuing the relationship with Pixar and acquiring them. Eisner had not only cut Pixar, but he had killed the traditional animation department. What was left?

Iger knew that Disney was 100% based on characters, and guess what - they didn't have *any* new ones in the pipeline. Pixar saved Disney, like it or not. It gave Disney time to regroup and get back to developing new stories. And what did the go back and develop? Princess and the Frog, Tangled, and Frozen. One of which is one of the highest grossing movies ever.

How in the world can the article claim that Disney has lost being "Disney", when Iger has done the one thing that defines Disney more than any other CEO SINCE Disney? All he has done is BUILD their character base. The acquisition of LucasFilms was brilliant. Not only did it bring in a ton of very recognizable characters, it saved the franchise. Lucas was murdering Star Wars. There is absolutely no way the new movies can be worse than the prequels.

Acquiring Marvel was especially brilliant. Disney has a shortage of boys characters. The princesses are bank, but Cars and Planes can only take them so far. Super heroes on the other hand are the boy version of Princesses. Those characters allow them to cater equally to both boys and girls, while giving both of them the fantasies they want to have.

I don't know what those of you who so cleverly call the CEO "Ogre" think Disney means, but I'll tell you what Walt defined it as.

"I am interested in entertaining people, in bringing pleasure, particularly laughter, to others, rather than being concerned with 'expressing' myself with obscure creative impressions."
-Walt Disney

"We are not trying to entertain the critics. I'll take my chances with the public."
-Walt Disney

My kids LOVE the current Disney movies. They love dressing up as princesses and super heroes. They adore the Disney Jr. shows. My daughter, and so many others, have spent hours dreaming of being Queen Elsa.

You can debate graphs and financials all you want, but there are some indisputable facts here:
Disney is relevant to today's kids
Disney is banking at both the box office and the parks
Roy Disney, nor any other chairman, has ever quit the company to start an entire campaign to "save" the company from Iger.

Under Eisner, especially towards the end of his egomaniac run, Disney was *not* relevant to children (Bolt, Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Home on the Range, Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and I hate to say it, even Treasure Planet all flopped. The ONLY money making movies released during that time period were ALL Pixar). And let me remind you that even as Eisner was getting FORCEFULLY booted out of the company, he still caught wind of Iger trying to bring Pixar back and he went down and attempted to talk the board out of it.
Source: http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...cquisition-of-pixar.aspx#sthash.79h5rkf2.dpbs

Anyone who thinks Eisner was better for Disney than Iger has a little history to brush up on.

 

[rteetz]

You're talking about the bad Eisner years everyone can agree that from about 1999 till the end Eisner was a major problem. Prior to that he was a good CEO. Many successful movies were produced, peak expansions, and new parks built. Yes some of those were bad but would they be here today without Eisner. I also haven't said Iger has been bad because he has been good. What my argument is, is that he has not been the best CEO for WDW specifically. Globally he has been very good. Until recently the WDW parks have been fairly stagnant. Eisner brought Iger into the company COO role so you also have to thank Eisner for Iger. Eisner bought ABC one of Disney's biggest money makers. Now finally Iger is making changes to WDW but will it continue we will have to wait and see.

 

[DDLand]

I feel like I've just fallen through the rabbit hole and found myself in a backwards, upside down, merry un-birthday world.

Eisner very nearly killed Disney. Sure, he attempted to expand like crazy, and those ventures essentially flopped. Great job w/ Euro Disney there buddy. Meanwhile, he allowed the existing parks to stagnate.

Eisner is the one who fired Pixar and said they could do it cheaper in house. You can thank him for Home on the Range, Bolt, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and every other movie that murdered the Disney brand in the early to mid 2000's and allowed Dreamworks to go from derivative knock off crap like Shark Tale to a major competitor.

Katzenberg often gets credit for being involved in the golden Disney films of the 90s', however I have always failed to understand how he gets credit for movies that were well into production before he ever strolled in. He was known for editing the crap out of these movies. Anyone here care to recall how Robin Williams did the Genie's voice under the agreement that they would not advertise the movie using his name? Katzenberg and Eisner 100$ screwed Williams over on that deal.

The people who made the films you guys all loved HATED Katzenberg. And he was there 100% because of Eisner. Hell, even Eisner realized that Katzenberg was a problem.

Meanwhile, Eisner and Katzenberg are walking around with all this credit for recreating this Disney Golden Age when the concepts and production of several of these films all date back to Ron Miller's time. You know, the guy who funded Tim Burton's work giving us NMBC and everything that was released under Touchstone?

Roy Disney friggin QUIT THE COMPANY and started a SAVE DISNEY campaign. That is how bad Eisner was. How anyone who actually appreciates Disney and understands the history of the company can argue that Iger is worse than Eisner is absolutely beyond me. Iger single-handedly saved the movie division by rescuing the relationship with Pixar and acquiring them. Eisner had not only cut Pixar, but he had killed the traditional animation department. What was left?

Iger knew that Disney was 100% based on characters, and guess what - they didn't have *any* new ones in the pipeline. Pixar saved Disney, like it or not. It gave Disney time to regroup and get back to developing new stories. And what did the go back and develop? Princess and the Frog, Tangled, and Frozen. One of which is one of the highest grossing movies ever.

How in the world can the article claim that Disney has lost being "Disney", when Iger has done the one thing that defines Disney more than any other CEO SINCE Disney? All he has done is BUILD their character base. The acquisition of LucasFilms was brilliant. Not only did it bring in a ton of very recognizable characters, it saved the franchise. Lucas was murdering Star Wars. There is absolutely no way the new movies can be worse than the prequels.

Acquiring Marvel was especially brilliant. Disney has a shortage of boys characters. The princesses are bank, but Cars and Planes can only take them so far. Super heroes on the other hand are the boy version of Princesses. Those characters allow them to cater equally to both boys and girls, while giving both of them the fantasies they want to have.

I don't know what those of you who so cleverly call the CEO "Ogre" think Disney means, but I'll tell you what Walt defined it as.

"I am interested in entertaining people, in bringing pleasure, particularly laughter, to others, rather than being concerned with 'expressing' myself with obscure creative impressions."
-Walt Disney

"We are not trying to entertain the critics. I'll take my chances with the public."
-Walt Disney

My kids LOVE the current Disney movies. They love dressing up as princesses and super heroes. They adore the Disney Jr. shows. My daughter, and so many others, have spent hours dreaming of being Queen Elsa.

You can debate graphs and financials all you want, but there are some indisputable facts here:
Disney is relevant to today's kids
Disney is banking at both the box office and the parks
Roy Disney, nor any other chairman, has ever quit the company to start an entire campaign to "save" the company from Iger.

Under Eisner, especially towards the end of his egomaniac run, Disney was *not* relevant to children (Bolt, Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Home on the Range, Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and I hate to say it, even Treasure Planet all flopped. The ONLY money making movies released during that time period were ALL Pixar). And let me remind you that even as Eisner was getting FORCEFULLY booted out of the company, he still caught wind of Iger trying to bring Pixar back and he went down and attempted to talk the board out of it.
Source: http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...cquisition-of-pixar.aspx#sthash.79h5rkf2.dpbs

Anyone who thinks Eisner was better for Disney than Iger has a little history to brush up on.

Yes! Reason.

Sorry I broke my of vow silence. Starting now I wont say anything else.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Because they are too over priced. I myself have never stays deluxe because it's just too expensive. You can get the four seasons for about the same price as the GF.

Indeed...
That was kinda rhetorical question, though... Wasnt it?

Keep at it, young man

 

[Reddog1134]

The acquisition of LucasFilms was brilliant.

Acquiring Marvel was especially brilliant.

No, these acquisitions weren't brilliant. They were no-brainers.

 

[rteetz]

Indeed...
That was kinda rhetorical question, though... Wasnt it?

Keep at it, young man

Rhetorical questions are kind of in my brain from school at the moment.

Plus Four Seasons was just named best in Orlando. GF was third.

 

[eXo]

No, these acquisitions weren't brilliant. They were no-brainers.

"No brainers" that Eisner would have passed up, given his track record. Eisner couldn't even see the value in Pixar, a company that was producing the only thing that was actually generating revenue for them at the time.

I have to laugh, considering Disney got hell for acquiring Star Wars and I had to put up with post after post of people whining about the mousification of Darth Vadar, when the reality is they just spent the past decade tearing Lucas apart for his "Birth of Anakin" movies. Meanwhile Disney's involvement with Marvel films has helped them turn around decades of piss poor movies.

You're talking about the bad Eisner years everyone can agree that from about 1999 till the end Eisner was a major problem. Prior to that he was a good CEO.

And as far as "bad Eisner years" versus "good Eisner years", the "good" years you are referring to is when you opened and lost major cash on Euro Disney. The good years is when movies were released that were in production before he even came on board, as story boarding and screenwriting had taken place under Ron Miller.

You either have to convince yourself that Eisner "changed" and somehow lost touch and "became bad" at hid job, or you have to accept that he was riding the developments of those who came before him during those "good" years, and the "bad years" were what happened when it was totally on him.

What my argument is, is that he has not been the best CEO for WDW specifically. Globally he has been very good.

Trying to say Iger is good for Disney but bad for WDW specifically is kind of mind boggling. That sort of attitude is so narrowly focused that it's like criticizing the president of the United States because he hasn't specifically done anything for the city you live in. You do realize, that like all organizations, Iger isn't solely responsible for the development at WDW? You do realize that they have VPs whose entire job is to develop the themeparks, right? It is Iger's job to push the entire company, and all of it's assets, in the proper direction. It is the job of those who run each division to do the same for their areas.

Thomas Staggs is the President of the theme parks division.
George Kalogridis is the President of Walt Disney Resort in particular.
Jim MacPhee is the Senior Vice President of Operations and Next Generation Experiences
Phil Holmes is the VP of Magic Kingdom (therefor the man directly in charge of that particular park).
Josh D'Amaro is the VP of Animal Kingdom
Samuel Lao is the VP of Epcot
Dan Cockerell is the VP of Hollywood Studios

THOSE are the folks you ought to be *****ing about if you have a problem with the current state of WDW. Blaming Iger for the state of WDW while praising his management of the rest of the company is ignoring the fact that the Disney Company is not run be a single man. Maybe that myth exists because Walt himself was so integral to all aspects of the business, but that is quite simply not how it works.

Eisner brought Iger into the company COO role so you also have to thank Eisner for Iger.

Yea, and then Eisner tried to torpedo him in front of the board. Iger had to do everything behind Eisner's back.

And if you are going to try and give Eisner credit for Iger, then you have to make Eisner down for bringing in Katzenberg, one of the most toxic people to have ever worked in the animation division. It's also worth mentioning that Eisner was sitting on the CEO AND president position at the time Iger was brought in He was locking down management positions and the board FORCED him to hire someone to that position. He didn't want to.

Ultimately I doubt there is any point in continuing discussions here as I am fairly confident that those who drink the Eisner kool-aid are beyond actual reason. As I stated in my last post, all I have to do is point out that the board imploded on itself and forcefully ran him out of the company. trying to give the man credit for his early years is dubious at best, but even if you can convince yourself that he somehow had anything to do with movies that were well into production by the time he came on board, it is still delusional to ignore the "bad years" and wish for some early version of a past CEO.

The day Iger is the victim of a Save Disney campaign from primary board members, let me know. Then we'll talk.

 

[rteetz]

Ok understandable. Iger does have the power to change or move those people in power at WDW. He and the board also approve expansion and sign the checks. So he does have a part in WDW being stagnant. I don't drink Eisner kool aid I've only really been around for the Iger years.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Rhetorical questions are kind of in my brain from school at the moment.

Plus Four Seasons was just named best in Orlando. GF was third.

No doubt...i have ZERO % doubt that the Seasons delivers a far better hotel experience than the "Grand". Its about goals, operation, and quality of materials and employees. There is no comparison - which is why i believe disney sold the land. To be "not responsible/expected to do that"

i think i'll roll on over to the accommodations thread and throw some darts at the "we ALWAYS/ONLY stay at the grand" commenters. (kidding)

 

[lockedoutlogic]

If roy Disney was alive.. Who's to say that Iger wouldn't be a target of a "save Disney"?

There are no more "lions" left that guard the ideals.
Iger has a carte Blanche that Eisner never really had. He also has had an economic pass... Everybody excuses bankers and businessmen for the real estate bubble - who knew? Iger got a pass for stupido moves like Saratoga and closing guest areas/attractions too. Who knew? Anyone with a brain and basic arithmetic skills. What a load of crap.

I'm not defending Eisner. He went nuts and did some dumb things that Iger still has to dig out of...

But Eisner never treated the east coast flagship like the two bit cash cow that Iger has. He's doing princess overlays, timeshares, an outlet mall and a very "ulterior motives suspected" avatar expansion that they still can't tell you a damn thing about - almost 4 years later.

If they do invest alot of money and - with urgency - construction effort in studios
On Pixar...I'll give him credit. That is giftshop oriented...but I'll take it.

But lets face it: he needs to light the fuse and get a major Lucas project in there. I don't want to hear this "we want to incorporate the new material" junk.

That's BS code for "you'll come and buy toys anyway"

How about we DON'T? I'll buy as much as you want, bob...when I'm in a dump store off a cutting edge ride/ experience that is NOT star tours. That's what we all should do... Show some stones for once. Reward me for my 2018 $900 annual pass (not happening...but I'm willing to consider/negotiate)

I'm cool with empire strikes back land... Get the dump trucks gased up.

And then...after that...as you pack 20,000 drinking family members into the world showcase at 3 am for the "wine and dine half marathon"...take a few bucks out of the days take and let's get the park back on its feet...other than stripping countries for princess meet and greets?

Ok...lunch rant over

 

[Reddog1134]

But Eisner never treated the east coast flagship like the two bit cash cow that Iger has. He's doing princess overlays, timeshares, an outlet mall and a very "ulterior motives suspected" avatar expansion that they still can't tell you a damn thing about - almost 4 years later.

Don't forget upcharge events and upcharge events within upcharge events. I'll admit, I'm a Disney mark (I love the Halloween parties) but that last one even makes me say "***?!"

 

[ChipnDale79]

I keep hearing people talking about "record attendance and record profits" from WDW in the past few years. Those are all great, but where I think Isner has missed the boat with his lack of investment at WDW in the first 5 years of his leadership, is market share and potential profit.

If you look at what could have been done, adding more attractions, keeping the parks clean, updating attractions and things like that, it would have brought in more guests. Therefore even more profit and attendance records.

There are people on here that will swear up and down that Isner has been fantastic for WDW, but refuse to look at the investments from 2005-2010. I'm willing to admit that Isner has finally (if a lot of the rumors come true) decided to bring good things to WDW, but that's not an excuse for 5 years of the same old same old.

The worst thing a theme park or business can do is become stagnet. Iger was allowing this to happen to WDW. Thankfully that's being corrected.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I keep hearing people talking about "record attendance and record profits" from WDW in the past few years. Those are all great, but where I think Isner has missed the boat with his lack of investment at WDW in the first 5 years of his leadership, is market share and potential profit.

If you look at what could have been done, adding more attractions, keeping the parks clean, updating attractions and things like that, it would have brought in more guests. Therefore even more profit and attendance records.

There are people on here that will swear up and down that Isner has been fantastic for WDW, but refuse to look at the investments from 2005-2010. I'm willing to admit that Isner has finally (if a lot of the rumors come true) decided to bring good things to WDW, but that's not an excuse for 5 years of the same old same old.

The worst thing a theme park or business can do is become stagnet. Iger was allowing this to happen to WDW. Thankfully that's being corrected.

I'm very skeptical that "big things are in the works"

Trust only the shovels.

It goes beyond 2005-10. After ak and the millenium prep projects...it's been near lockdown since 99.

They have one major ride development (Everest... The skippy dwarve coaster is NOT major)...one codeveloped...and several clones.

Oh...and off the shelf at Chester and Hester's...

Lets see...did I cover everything?
Yep...that's it.

That's a pretty hard record to defend at a high priced place that makes the kinda scratch off merch that they do...with an unprecedented raise in all costs during the same time...

As far as the failure...I'm with you. Stagnation is the root of all evils at themeparks... If you have read the history of them ( and I have). They lost declined when they stopped spending. Sure TV and wider travel affected things over time - in the case of Disney in a good way - but you can't sit and rest.
It's the job they signed up for.

Longterm that's beyond dangerous. They're gutting Norway for Elsa...because kids get bored and that's what they want...

Well...you think kids might just be already done with small world? Big thunder? Haunted mansion? Peter pans flight?

Those things are classic... But that means you build around them...not bank on them. They'll collapse under the weight being applied.

They just assume that every generation will become attached and will keep coming back as adults...might be right - but way risky. A break in that chain would be catastrophic...it would close the parks or at a minimum sell them off. They should ALWAYS be scared...because that will yield the best efforts and investment.

And you hit the panic button as well: market share.

The one thing they care about. The 3% loss in share reported last year was huge. Sure attendance was up...but your share of the easy money pie is not growing...and that...and that alone...might knock the suits off the log and back into the pond.

Oh... Guess I forgot mission space...
Which lets face it...isn't gonna last too long.

 

[rteetz]

I'm very skeptical that "big things are in the works"

Trust only the shovels.

It goes beyond 2005-10. After ak and the millenium prep projects...it's been near lockdown since 99.

They have one major ride development (Everest... The skippy dwarve coaster is NOT major)...one codeveloped...and several clones.

Oh...and off the shelf at Chester and Hester's...

Lets see...did I cover everything?
Yep...that's it.

That's a pretty hard record to defend at a high priced place that makes the kinda scratch off merch that they do...with an unprecedented raise in all costs during the same time...

As far as the failure...I'm with you. Stagnation is the root of all evils at themeparks... If you have read the history of them ( and I have). They lost declined when they stopped spending. Sure TV and wider travel affected things over time - in the case of Disney in a good way - but you can't sit and rest.
It's the job they signed up for.

Longterm that's beyond dangerous. They're gutting Norway for Elsa...because kids get bored and that's what they want...

Well...you think kids might just be already done with small world? Big thunder? Haunted mansion? Peter pans flight?

Those things are classic... But that means you build around them...not bank on them. They'll collapse under the weight being applied.

They just assume that every generation will become attached and will keep coming back as adults...might be right - but way risky. A break in that chain would be catastrophic...it would close the parks or at a minimum sell them off. They should ALWAYS be scared...because that will yield the best efforts and investment.

And you hit the panic button as well: market share.

The one thing they care about. The 3% loss in share reported last year was huge. Sure attendance was up...but your share of the easy money pie is not growing...and that...and that alone...might knock the suits off the log and back into the pond.

Oh... Guess I forgot mission space...
Which lets face it...isn't gonna last too long.

Agree completely.

They are even threatening to lose more market share this year with universals added expansions.

 

[ChipnDale79]

I'm very skeptical that "big things are in the works"

Trust only the shovels.

It goes beyond 2005-10. After ak and the millenium prep projects...it's been near lockdown since 99.

They have one major ride development (Everest... The skippy dwarve coaster is NOT major)...one codeveloped...and several clones.

Oh...and off the shelf at Chester and Hester's...

Lets see...did I cover everything?
Yep...that's it.

That's a pretty hard record to defend at a high priced place that makes the kinda scratch off merch that they do...with an unprecedented raise in all costs during the same time...

As far as the failure...I'm with you. Stagnation is the root of all evils at themeparks... If you have read the history of them ( and I have). They lost declined when they stopped spending. Sure TV and wider travel affected things over time - in the case of Disney in a good way - but you can't sit and rest.
It's the job they signed up for.

Longterm that's beyond dangerous. They're gutting Norway for Elsa...because kids get bored and that's what they want...

Well...you think kids might just be already done with small world? Big thunder? Haunted mansion? Peter pans flight?

Those things are classic... But that means you build around them...not bank on them. They'll collapse under the weight being applied.

They just assume that every generation will become attached and will keep coming back as adults...might be right - but way risky. A break in that chain would be catastrophic...it would close the parks or at a minimum sell them off. They should ALWAYS be scared...because that will yield the best efforts and investment.

And you hit the panic button as well: market share.

The one thing they care about. The 3% loss in share reported last year was huge. Sure attendance was up...but your share of the easy money pie is not growing...and that...and that alone...might knock the suits off the log and back into the pond.

Oh... Guess I forgot mission space...
Which lets face it...isn't gonna last too long.

A 3% market share reduction last year? Wow, I didnt realize that.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about, that means someone else spent money and gained market share, in the end that means Disney lost out of potential money. 3% is a lot of potential money to lose.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

A 3% market share reduction last year? Wow, I didnt realize that.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about, that means someone else spent money and gained market share, in the end that means Disney lost out of potential money. 3% is a lot of potential money to lose.

The market share was on the boards last summer/ fall and was minorly kicked around...

But it got relatively little play...

You know - the haters hated... And the lovers excused it. As always. Only the stock price mattered that day. And the progress on shanghai.

I think it was in the sentinel... Have to try and find it.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I wish universal would buy out Seaworld and link up the two more or less through longterm property acquisitions...

The convention center is right there... So Orlando would be in.

And after the whining and bullying Disney has done in the last 20 years to the state/city/counties...they'd all be game to stick it to them a little while maintaining the public face.

 

[rteetz]

I wish universal would buy out Seaworld and link up the two more or less through longterm property acquisitions...

The convention center is right there... So Orlando would be in.

And after the whining and bullying Disney has done in the last 20 years to the state/city/counties...they'd all be game to stick it to them a little while maintaining the public face.

That rumor has been around. Doubtful. The big rumor for universal is build their new water park which is supposedly already getting land prep. Then they would demolish wet n wild and build a third theme park. They have hotel 5 under construction and 6 and 7 are looking to be in the next few years. Kongstruction is in full force. With rumors of twister and other attractions going to yesterland.