Bob Iger to step down in March 2015

[SmilingGrump]

Taking the helm of Disney would be the death of Lasseter's creativity. Running a business is completely different from being the "idea man" and Disney is HUGE. He'd have no time to devote to creativity as he'd be devoting all his time to running aspects of the company that are completely out of his realm of expertise. It's much easier for a "suit" to surround themselves with the right creative people and keep them reigned in then it is for an "idea man" to surround themselves with suits and reign them in when required.

 

[Figment632]

I don't agree with the parks or Harry Potter being a loss - JK Rowling wanted full control of the concept, design, etc. and that is just not good news for Imagineers or Disney. The Harry Potter area of Islands of Adventure is a big letdown in my opinion anyway. The only good thing is the frozen butter beer.

I don't see why people have a problem with Bob Iger. He has done a lot. Sure, he isn't the bubbly person that most seem to expect him to be, but the company has done quite well under his leadership considering that the economy hasn't been that great. I am shocked that they are announcing this so early anyway. 2015 isn't right around the corner.

For the record, John Lasseter has no interest in being the head of Disney. He has stated that before and he needs to stay put where he already is. His strength is the creative side, not the business side.

Yea the most detailed theme park land since DAK was built with the mist innovative ride in the country I'd a let dien


There I'd no other way to look at besides Disney failing. You see what UNI brought to the table. Do you know what Disney brought JK not an immersive theme park land. They proposed to her one ride in DHS. They built that ride it's called Toy Story Mania. That's it they offered TSM.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

I still don't get the hate for Iger . . .

1) Not exactly loved at any Dis/ADC division.
2) Held a tight budget rein, and forgot creativity.
3) Allowed cost-cutting at WDW and other parks
. . . reduced restaurant offerings
. . . reduced merchandise selections
. . . reduced maintenance
. . . reduced expansion plans
. . . reduced employee training

 

[Oglet]

1) Not exactly loved at any Dis/ADC division.
2) Held a tight budget rein, and forgot creativity.
3) Allowed cost-cutting at WDW and other parks
. . . reduced restaurant offerings
. . . reduced merchandise selections
. . . reduced maintenance
. . . reduced expansion plans
. . . reduced employee training

I believe Meg Crofton shares a lot of the blame as well for many of those things.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I believe Meg Crofton shares a lot of the blame as well for many of those things.

yes and no. she's just an iger stooge doing what gets her ahead most ... just like iger did with eisner.

seriously, doesn't anyone else this this move as troubling beyond our initial reactions? does anyone think iger will leave with his ultimate payout sitting on the table?

 

[nytimez]

yes and no. she's just an iger stooge doing what gets her ahead most ... just like iger did with eisner.

seriously, doesn't anyone else this this move as troubling beyond our initial reactions? does anyone think iger will leave with his ultimate payout sitting on the table?

And what's what? The sale of the parks? Of the company itself?

Personally, I don't think anyone who replaces Iger will be any less of a dollar-chaser. That's what it takes to run a company these days, so "change" is often a different name pushing the same agenda. As you put it so succinctly with Crofton, they're all corporate stooges at the end of the day.

BUT... Avatar has restored a bit of my faith in the company. Not that it will be a great success -- maybe it will, maybe it won't -- but that these same dollar-chasers are actually willing to invest big in something that has serious creative potential and big-time risk.

So... we'll just have to wait and see what all this really means. It could just be that Iger has been pressured for a succession plan from the board since day one -- after the Eisner mess -- and is finally succumbing to it.

Or maybe the guy has always dreamed of sailing around the world on a catamaran.

Who really knows? But I guess we'll all find out withing the next three years...

 

[skiingfast]

2) Held a tight budget rein, and forgot creativity.
3) Allowed cost-cutting at WDW and other parks
. . . reduced restaurant offerings
. . . reduced merchandise selections
. . . reduced maintenance
. . . reduced expansion plans
. . . reduced employee training

Of course currently these are all not true. Look at the news in the last year or two.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

And what's what? The sale of the parks? Of the company itself?

Personally, I don't think anyone who replaces Iger will be any less of a dollar-chaser. That's what it takes to run a company these days, so "change" is often a different name pushing the same agenda. As you put it so succinctly with Crofton, they're all corporate stooges at the end of the day.

BUT... Avatar has restored a bit of my faith in the company. Not that it will be a great success -- maybe it will, maybe it won't -- but that these same dollar-chasers are actually willing to invest big in something that has serious creative potential and big-time risk.

So... we'll just have to wait and see what all this really means. It could just be that Iger has been pressured for a succession plan from the board since day one -- after the Eisner mess -- and is finally succumbing to it.

Or maybe the guy has always dreamed of sailing around the world on a catamaran.

Who really knows? But I guess we'll all find out withing the next three years...

As always, I agree with your post.

You are correct that my point alludes to the maximization of his stock sale price, which yes, would seem to mean a sale and yes you and others here actually have convinced 'logical' me that the sale of Goliath at this point is really unlikely, if not impossible. But Eisner almost was able to pull it off with comcast, the deal just wasn't to his or Roy's liking and oddly it was greed that cancelled the sale. That deal would have been approved by both Mike and Roy were the price better.

So Iger learned from Mike and the question I guess is greed. Is Bobby as greedy as Mikey? If so, how does he go about maximizing his financial exit?

Like you, I am emboldened by the Avatar decision and other smaller decibel
noise coming from the mouse. But with this announcement and the loss of Jobs, I still am very skeptical of a major CEO actions.

These are just my thoughts ... Maybe not based in reality but I can't help but think that where there is smoke there is fire ... And I smell something. Is it smoke?

 

[nytimez]

As always, I agree with your post.

You are correct that my point alludes to the maximization of his stock sale price, which yes, would seem to mean a sale and yes you and others here actually have convinced 'logical' me that the sale of Goliath at this point is really unlikely, if not impossible. But Eisner almost was able to pull it off with comcast, the deal just wasn't to his or Roy's liking and oddly it was greed that cancelled the sale. That deal would have been approved by both Mike and Roy were the price better.

So Iger learned from Mike and the question I guess is greed. Is Bobby as greedy as Mikey? If so, how does he go about maximizing his financial exit?

Like you, I am emboldened by the Avatar decision and other smaller decibel
noise coming from the mouse. But with this announcement and the loss of Jobs, I still am very skeptical of a major CEO actions.

These are just my thoughts ... Maybe not based in reality but I can't help but think that where there is smoke there is fire ... And I smell something. Is it smoke?

None of it's unfathomable anymore, so there certainly can be smoke. Time will tell if it's a campfire or a wildfire, I guess.

The parks-for-sale rumor I dismissed in another thread here earlier this summer actually turned out to have a lot more credibility than I ever would have imagined -- with some well-regarded insiders on other boards saying there were meetings with various potential investors, tours of the parks and property, etc. but nothing ever came of it.

Maybe that's why they went such a long time without a major announcement for the Orlando parks -- they were thinking they could get someone else to take over and foot the bill.

My understanding with and recollection of the Comcast bid, however, was that it was an unsolicited hostile bid that neither Eisner nor Roy every wanted or considered -- not something they worked toward and couldn't pull off. The company's stock was in a freefall -- I think it went down into the $16 range or something (that's from memory, I could be wrong on that) -- which is what led to the bid. Disney as a whole at its current trading range would be unaffordable to all but a few companies.

 

[Rupert B Puppenstein]

I highly doubt the parks for sale comment being true. I know that Disney has been looking at signing and replacing more corporate sponsors for various rides, pavilions, etc. which would further explain why tours may have been given of the parks. The parks are a huge part of the Walt Disney Company and selling them would defeat any purpose set forth by the original leadership. The legacy of the company is something that always seems to be a priority based on how they are so protective of their brand. I don't think any downfall with the company can be blamed on entirely one person and no matter what, CEO's are always looked at as greedy and selfish by those that could never perform the same job.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

None of it's unfathomable anymore, so there certainly can be smoke. Time will tell if it's a campfire or a wildfire, I guess.

The parks-for-sale rumor I dismissed in another thread here earlier this summer actually turned out to have a lot more credibility than I ever would have imagined -- with some well-regarded insiders on other boards saying there were meetings with various potential investors, tours of the parks and property, etc. but nothing ever came of it.

Maybe that's why they went such a long time without a major announcement for the Orlando parks -- they were thinking they could get someone else to take over and foot the bill.

My understanding with and recollection of the Comcast bid, however, was that it was an unsolicited hostile bid that neither Eisner nor Roy every wanted or considered -- not something they worked toward and couldn't pull off. The company's stock was in a freefall -- I think it went down into the $16 range or something (that's from memory, I could be wrong on that) -- which is what led
to the bid. Disney as a whole at its current trading range would be unaffordable to all but a few companies.

Thanks for the insight.

Regarding the comcast bid, I'm pretty sure Eisner was is talks and they went south, thus the end result, the hostile takeover attempt. But conversation at that time on the boards really centered around eisner's impending departure and the rumored sale to comcast was capable of being huge to the shareholders and of course Eisner (as any sale now would be to Iger). Eisner fought the bid, as did Roy in his now famous 'hero's' role, but it was obvious that eisner would have followed through with (his) deal could he have brokered it and comments from Roy made it obvious that his opposition to the comcast takeover was based solely on the fact that it was a low ball bid.

 

[GrimGhost]

Thanks for the insight.

Regarding the comcast bid, I'm pretty sure Eisner was is talks and they went south, thus the end result, the hostile takeover attempt. But conversation at that time on the boards really centered around eisner's impending departure and the rumored sale to comcast was capable of being huge to the shareholders and of course Eisner (as any sale now would be to Iger). Eisner fought the bid, as did Roy in his now famous 'hero's' role, but it was obvious that eisner would have followed through with (his) deal could he have brokered it and comments from Roy made it obvious that his opposition to the comcast takeover was based solely on the fact that it was a low ball bid.

I got a different sense of this from what I remember reading in "Disney War". He reported that an un-named "intermediary" between Mitchell and Comcast had conversations with George Mitchell and that's what led Comcast to believe a bid would be welcome. When the actual conversation between Brian Roberts and Eisner took place, Eisner wouldn't even listen to the price offer. He told him to go away and hung up on Roberts which is what prompted the letter to the board. The way Stewart suggested it, Eisner had no interest in merging which would leave him unable to remain CEO. His ego had become such that he felt only he could run Disney - seeing himself as an heir of sorts to the mantle of Walt. Also, if I remember correctly, Disney hired a poison pill attorney named Lipton to fend them off. Of course it's impossible to know exactly what happened.

 

[Chief of Staff]

I'm wondering if Mr. Iger was asking to be let go or it was the board who insisted on setting his departure date and succession plan.

 

[nytimez]

I'm wondering if Mr. Iger was asking to be let go or it was the board who insisted on setting his departure date and succession plan.

It's hard to say -- there have long been rumors that Iger has political ambitions, and he's running out of time to act on them. He's already 60, believe it or not.

There have also been rumors that he is not and never has been a particular favorite of the board especially since he was Eisner's (grudgingly) hand-picked successor.

Those are just the rumors, though -- where they come from, how true they are and the motivations for spreading them can all be questioned.