A Personal Note From Roy Disney

[Goofyposter]

A Personal Note From Roy Disney

"To all our friends at savedisney.com:

I want to let all of you know how very grateful I am to you for all your support leading up to the Walt Disney Company's Annual Meeting of Shareholders in Philadelphia.

The vote against Michael Eisner, George Mitchell, John Bryson and Judith Estrin was unprecedented in the annals of American corporate history, and we - all of you, and Stanley Gold and I - should be very proud of the message we've sent to Disney's management and Board of Directors.

Clearly, though, these people aren't yet listening to us as carefully as they should. Their arrogance is almost unbelievable.

The Board's cosmetic act of, in effect, changing nothing except the titles of Eisner and Mitchell, is nothing short of astonishing and is totally unacceptable to us, and, we believe, to you, to the investment community and to the public in general. This Board just doesn't get it!

Eisner is rejected by over 50% of the shares actually voted. Mitchell by nearly 30% of shares actually voted, and what do they do? They pat themselves on the back, keep Eisner in his job - with all his perks untouched - and promote Mitchell to Chairman. We find this outrageous and unacceptable, and we will continue to fight it UNTIL THINGS CHANGE AT DISNEY - and we truly mean change.

So stay with us here at savedisney.com. We'll keep you informed and make sure you know how you can help again when the time is right.

Thanks for helping us bring back the Magic!!!"

—Roy E. Disney

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Goofyposter
Clearly, though, these people aren't yet listening to us as carefully as they should. Their arrogance is almost unbelievable.

The Board's cosmetic act of, in effect, changing nothing except the titles of Eisner and Mitchell, is nothing short of astonishing and is totally unacceptable to us, and, we believe, to you, to the investment community and to the public in general. This Board just doesn't get it!

OK ... but what did he expect? Instant firing of ME and a total overhaul of the board ... in two days? Roy's own list of "Bad Things Michael Eisner has Done" includes the fact that he has no succession plan. And certainly Roy must know that firing a chief exec with no one groomed to step into his office could not possibly be good for the Company. Roy and Stan have not publicly put forth any slate of possible officers, nor have they mentioned anyone specific for Eisner's job. So ... again ... what did they expect to happen?

This seems like a backhand slap when none was needed. He and Stan have both said that there's a long road ahead. So why the insults when it's only been a couple of days?

 

[Goofyposter]

And certainly Roy must know that firing a chief exec with no one groomed to step into his office could not possibly be good for the Company.

--->and neither is running a company whose CEO has recieved the largest No vote in the history of corporate America.

Roy and Stan have not publicly put forth any slate of possible officers, nor have they mentioned anyone specific for Eisner's job. So ... again ... what did they expect to happen?

--->I suspect that the hope was/is that the BOD, or at least those truely independent directors would push thur an agenda something like - nuke eisner, appoint 3 independent directors as managing directors on an interium basis, immediately form a search committee (which would include representation by both institutional and retail owners, install a poison pill doctrine for the short term - and fulfill their fiduciary duties to the owners of the company.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Goofyposter --->and neither is running a company whose CEO has recieved the largest No vote in the history of corporate America.

True. But, again, what did they expect in less than 48 hours?

Originally posted by Goofyposter --->I suspect that the hope was/is that the BOD, or at least those truely independent directors would push thur an agenda something like - nuke eisner, appoint 3 independent directors as managing directors on an interium basis, immediately form a search committee (which would include representation by both institutional and retail owners, install a poison pill doctrine for the short term - and fulfill their fiduciary duties to the owners of the company.

And Roy and Stan would expect that to happen because the BOD, in the recent past, has been so helpful and active in their cause? The Board has gone on the record dozens of times saying that they support ME and the current management. And Roy and Stan have spent the last three months deriding the BOD for failure to act. It's not like these two entities have ever been on common ground. Did Stan and Roy think that the vote would cause this instant epiphany that would make everyone stop and say, "Oh gosh ... you know ... they ARE right, and we're wrong." All the vote says is that there must be change and that the BOD must move to satisfy the stockholders. It doesn't give a plan or a timeline.

 

[Goofyposter]

The Board has gone on the record dozens of times saying that they support ME and the current management.

--->Now that IS a surprise....afterall.....it's well known that Mr. Eisner takes criticism very well....and nothing ever happened to anyone who freely and in good conscienceness spoke out against Mr. Eisner.

Did Stan and Roy think that the vote would cause this instant epiphany that would make everyone stop and say, "Oh gosh ... you know ... they ARE right, and we're wrong." All the vote says is that there must be change and that the BOD must move to satisfy the stockholders.

-->Actually, quite possibily. The key words are Fiducary Duty. Once the BOD recieved the mandate from the owners of the company, if they do not respond to that mandate in a sufficient means, then they take on personal liability, and each could be sued individually for breaching their duties. Given the scale and historic magnatude of this vote, a court could well find 'sufficent' to equal Mr. Eisners complete and immediate termination.

 

[manning]

So why the insults when it's only been a couple of days?

It's called turning up the heat!!

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Goofyposter
-->Actually, quite possibily. The key words are Fiducary Duty. Once the BOD recieved the mandate from the owners of the company, if they do not respond to that mandate in a sufficient means, then they take on personal liability, and each could be sued individually for breaching their duties. Given the scale and historic magnatude of this vote, a court could well find 'sufficent' to equal Mr. Eisners complete and immediate termination.

But again, Fiduciary Duty does not come with a timeline. The BOD did respond to one item immediately, with a split of positions. No one said it was the only thing they were going to do. As a shareholder, I would actually prefer that they take a little time figuring out who would take over were Michael to leave, if for no other reason than to not have to go through this all again in a few years because a decision was made in haste simply to appease the dissidents. If there were a succession plan in place and there was someone right there in the second spot ready to take over then yes, do it now, do it swiftly, make the cut. But would you really rather have the board hastily plop someone in the CEO spot simply to have ME gone? Or would you rather wait and see, perhaps, the slate of people Roy and Stan have in mind to take over -- something we still haven't seen. Wouldn't you rather the replacement for ME come from both sides of the table, working together?

 

[dcentity2000]

Roy spend thousands if not hundreds of thousands of US dollars (millions I think - around 2.8?) on pet projects - which he axed.

Eisner bullied him out and saved Disney from what was described at the time as 'certain liquidation'.

Things aren't so good now.

Roy Disney --> sounds like Walt Disney --> Saviour


If there is logic to this, then this law student and Disney shareholder doesn't get it.




Rich::

 

[KMovies]

Please Roy tell the other side of the story...

What has Roy Disney done for Disney???

Gosh ... he can tell you everything Michael has done wrong - can't give us the list of everything that Michael did right.

I'm really interested in his list of accomplishments at the company.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm really interested in his list of accomplishments at the company.

What has that got to do with whether Eisner is the right guy for the job today and going forward?

 

[Goofyposter]

Roy spend thousands if not hundreds of thousands of US dollars (millions I think - around 2.8?) on pet projects

You're right dcentity2000 ....that doesn't hold a candle to the estimated 500,000,000.00 of loses Ei$ner's contributed to your holdings.

 

[Goofyposter]

I'm really interested in his list of accomplishments at the company.

Yes Kmovies....Roy can tell you all of Ei$ner's shortcomings.....why?....because Roy was with the company some 30 Years prior to Ei$ner....and by the looks of things...he'll be around well after ME!

You are of course correct.....no creedence should be given to Roy's 50+ years of being a CM....nor his leadership in FA....or the thousands of hours he's spent in public appearances, nor the countless hours and thousands/hundreds of thousands of personal contributions to VoluntEARS....or his 70+ years of living the role of a Disney (this is why you see him described in the press as acting with class and style)....I only wish time permitted me at the moment to give you a full accounting of his contributions.

 

[flyinglizard]

Goofyposter-
$500,000,000.00... Isn't that the value of the M.E. compensation package over the last ten years?

In my opinion, that is obscene.

raidermatt-
I'm glad that you understand that in the corporate world, what you did ten years ago has no bearing on "what are you doing for me today?"

 

[barreloflaughs]

I'm really interested in his list of accomplishments at the company.

Let's see...here are 2 right off the top of my head:

1) He got Eisner hired.
2) He'll get Eisner fired.

Two very significant accomplishments!

carl
barrel of laughs

 

[zurgswife]

OK ... but what did he expect? Instant firing of ME and a total overhaul of the board ... in two days?

No, Stanley Gold clearly stated at the Savedisney meeting that the first thing that ME and the board would do would be to split ME's position and appoint another board member....Which is clearly what the board did..

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by KMovies
Please Roy tell the other side of the story...

What has Roy Disney done for Disney???

Gosh ... he can tell you everything Michael has done wrong - can't give us the list of everything that Michael did right.

I'm really interested in his list of accomplishments at the company.

Eisner was invited to Disney in 1984 and quite literally pulled the company out of a power dive - the company had been drunk on it's own past success, having been under the illusiion that pixie dust could replace cold hard business. In the end, that cold hard business proved to be what Disney needed in order just to keep that Pixie Dust alive:

Disney depended on the cyclical theme-park business for almost 80% of its operating income and on movies for only 1%. Eisner revived Disney's movies to 43% of its income from movies, and only 35%of this from its theme-parks. The old Disney brought in less than 9% of its revenues from overseas, while today it brings in 23%. The old Disney toyed in the resort business with 2,894 hotel rooms, while the new Disney offers 21,586 rooms at 21 different resorts.

Recently, though, Eisner has been less fortunate - although his Disney saw the Lion King it has also seen Atlantis - a film that flopped. Trends such as Pixar CG animation and black humour damaged the company, which is currently very much on the mend with rising stock and large profits as well as large, new deals.

Eisner is currently fending off Comcast along with his board as Disney dissidents fight to oust him, blaming him for the company's bad luck. These people want Roy Disney back, a man who Eisner bullied out of the company because of poor ecnomic sense and misuse of funds. Walt commonly referred to Roy as "the Idiot Nephew"

Roy left of his own accord just a few years back after Eisner flipped at him following a 'demand' for a brand spanking new office in a prime location at costs to Disney and Roy terminating all of his 'pet projects' at a $2.8m loss to the company and no financial gain.

Newspaper articles from 1984 suggested at a possible Disney break up, with the parks becoming independant and the film studios becoming part of Universal.

To Roy's credit, he had fought passionately for his uncle's company, despite his uncle having declared Roy as the most unfit person in the world to control such a beautiful dream. You gotta admire that.





So that's it. Wonder what'll happen to Disney now?
Most probable: Comcast bit will enter stalemate and will eventually withdraw. Eisner will remain at his current, albeit reduced post and will have his contract renewed at Disney after the two year expiration. THe Disney CG department will begin to produce 'trendy' films and Roy will rejoin the company with Eisner's approval - to boost share prices and to improve image. End result: Disney will return to it's 1995 state. Doing well, but with the possibility of falling over once more

Note: rumours of a possible Apple takeover have floundered recently, following Pixar entering talks with Warner Brothers and Apple buying out record companies





There's your answer.


Rich::

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Goofyposter You are of course correct.....no creedence should be given to Roy's 50+ years of being a CM....nor his leadership in FA

Are there any news articles -- or even any rumors -- of Roy speaking out to save the Florida Animation Team? Or the team in Paris? I don't remember him even commenting on the Paris closing, and as far as I can find, he didn't say word one in support of the Florida team until the closing announcement was made. If he had a leadership role in FA, then where was he in the months prior to that happening? What did he do to try and save that group? Did he try to cut costs, find funds, lobby for their continued existence? Yeah ... I know ... Eisner wouldn't let him talk. Whatever. If you feel strongly about feature animation, and your last name is Disney, you take the chance and speak out. People would have listened to him. It might not have made a difference, but at least he'd have shown that leadership.

....or the thousands of hours he's spent in public appearances, nor the countless hours and thousands/hundreds of thousands of personal contributions to VoluntEARS....

The Eisner family has made plenty of contributions too. This is one place where you can't really say one has outdone the other. Both the Disney and Eisner families have long and impressive histories of philanthropy.

or his 70+ years of living the role of a Disney (this is why you see him described in the press as acting with class and style)....

Well ... except for the NYT reports where he has his wife saying she'd like to punch ME in the nose, and his kids saying they'd like to strand him on a boat in the ocean; or Roy's name-calling in public and on the website. Or even some of the earlier stories about how he and Walt didn't see eye to eye and how he wasn't really popular with upper management back then. Not everyone in the press has described him as "acting with class and style."

I think Roy Disney has a lot of passion and emotion and heart, and I think he truly wants the best for the Disney Company, even though his desire to get back to "Walt's Disney" is unrealistic. We can't go back in time. We have to deal with the world as it is today. Some things are possible ... other's are not. Roy isn't someone who has never done anything wrong any more than Eisner is someone who has never done anything right. But Roy gets the benefit of the doubt because of his last name. If Stanley Gold had tried to do this alone, it's unlikely that as many would have followed.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by zurgswife
No, Stanley Gold clearly stated at the Savedisney meeting that the first thing that ME and the board would do would be to split ME's position and appoint another board member....Which is clearly what the board did..

Yes. And immediately after that, the new headline at savedisney.com was "Disney Board Action a Blatant Rejection of Shareholder Will." Followed by the comment, "It is clear from this action that corporate governance is just talk at the Walt Disney Company."

So ... the Board did exactly what Stanley Gold clearly stated they should do first, and then Roy and Stan went on the record as saying that their action was a "blatant rejection of shareholder will" and that the board is "just talk."

How, exactly, does that help? Now, if Roy and Stan had publicly thanked the board for moving swiftly in response to the vote, but made it clear that they expected more decisive, swift action in the near future, and perhaps even offered their help in a partnership to move forward ... now THAT's a message I would respect. That way, the board is being recognized for it's immediate action, but it's made clear that everyone sees it as just the beginning. And the board can't reject Stan and Roy's offer of partnership without giving themselves a black eye.

All Roy and Stan have done so far is to build a higher wall and indicate to everyone that nothing anyone does will be good enough. That's counterproductive, IMO.