Comcast/Ei$ner – Is there a difference?

[crusader]

Comcast is only interested in hoarding money to finance an empire to salvage cable and combat Murdoch and the future of broadcasting and content delivery.

Disney's media holdings include one thing they really want - a network. The rest of the company is up for grabs. The theme parks will be run like the rest of Comcast - using time management with boatloads of consultants policing employees like slave laborers to maximize their work output.

And if enough money doesn't roll in, more drastic measures will be instituted like a sell-off of the resorts and production divisions.

This is not a company you want to work for. Stephen Burke has alot to answer to. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[crusader]

From what I have been reading, there is apparentley a chance that the merger {takeover, buyout, whatever,} will be dropped

I'm not surprised to hear this. The longer this stays in play the worse it is for Comcast. They can't afford publicity which reveals the FCC changes because the consumer will start looking into options much sooner than they are prepared for.

They'll have an image problem they can't shake and Fox will make sure the word gets out using every imaginable forum - particularly if the hearings yesterday lead to violations and regulatory changes.

 

[Peter Pirate]

AV, I don't understand your reply. I agree that Pixar has beaten the pants off of Disney in recent years (doing it the right way)...Does this account for more than their volume of work somehow? Is this a guranatee that it will always be? Let's stick to the point.

RE: AOL/TWX, sure TWX has emerged but the bloodshead was mind boggling, AOL, the aggresor, all but fails to exist now. TWX was going through malox like it was pez. Sure your new reason for living LOTR made a bundle but so what? It's one event (like Shrek) what's going to follow it up? Do they really have the balls or are we more likely to see them tighten up in the cold water now?

Crusader, I again agree with most of your sentiments. Comcast made this bid to be quick and certainly have left options for exit. This is very strange.

 

[crusader]

Comcast made this bid to be quick and certainly have left options for exit. This is very strange.

My suspicions involve Roy. It certainly made his bonfire bigger which is no coincidence in a game like this!

The hedging from Comcast is the other side at play.

It's a great new leisure sport! Each suitor enters the ring and gets swatted back and forth until they've had enough.

 

[DisDuck]

I posted this on the other thread but since the Baron started his own I will include it here. Burke is quoted in a business article that you could 'squeeze' another 800m to 1.3b out of Disney. Doesn't that sound like Eisner talking?

 

[tfc3rid]

And I was reading the Comcast transcript on JimHill's site and was not really pumped up by their comments on the Parks, etc...

Sounds like MArketing bull-snap...

 

[raidermatt]

Hugely, in that the thin thread of what was Walts ideal would be gone.

I guess I'll keep saying this... At a corporate level, its already gone. Whatever we believe to be left of it in the parks/animation divisions (which varies), it is only a matter of time before it disappears completely.

True, depending on how this all plays out, the process could be accelerated, but there is also the possibility of it being revived by someone, if only because they think it makes more money.

Without a change, the only possibility is a long, slow, death of what's left of that ideal.


And, yes, the main problem in the TW/AOL deal was AOL. The entertainment and publishing businesses are doing fine.

The only "good" outcome from a takeover would be if Animation can go back and make good movies without the demand they live up to The Lion King's box office each and every time; and parks that are runs as businesses and not as cash machines to fund Extreme Makeover - The Wedding.

Exactly. And the main point is that without a takeover, or at least without change forced by an attempted takeover, it won't happen.

Again, there's no guarantee this will turn out to be a positive for "traditional" Disney. But there's more of a chance than if its left in Eisner's hands.

Fearing the evil you don't know more then the one you do is pretty stupid when they're both looking to screw you over.

More to the point, when the evil you know is going to ruin you, you'd better take a shot at the unknown.

So, to answer the original question:

Comcast/Ei$ner – Is there a difference?

Maybe... If Comcast keeps the parks and animation, and if they understand the benefits of long-term investment in these businesses, then yes, there will be a difference, even if they don't have a single employee who could spell Walt.

But as many have said, there's still a lot of different ways this could end.

 

[raidermatt]

Sounds like MArketing bull-snap...

I agree. Its the same bull-snap Disney themselves says, but still bull-snap nonetheless.

I don't have a problem with all of that, its just that it needs to capitalize on the quality and attraction of the parks themselves. Marketing cannot create that itself.

 

[YoHo]

First of All, Crusader, I've read reports from EMployes of Comcast from VP level down to cable installer. I know some personally. Some of them very familiar with the inner working of Disney in both the good old days and the bad new days.
Your description of how Comcast runs its buisness has no basis in the reality these people are saying. Granted, they may not want to put a black eye to their boss, but stil. Unless you have some personal expereance your willing to share, I'll have to assume it's just fear on your part.


As for you Mr. Pirate.

I'm no financial wizkid, but It is my understanding based in particular on recent events that for a small company such as Pixar is, or Disney as I envisioned it coul be to be in danger of being taken over, the Share Holders of that company would need to be inticed into believing that the take overer could improve the bottom line.

If you get a some shareholders willing to set up such a small company, then they are probably going to insulate it from issues like this for at least a couple quarters.
Given tha The parks themselves are a Cash cow that is being sucked Dry by the rest of the company, such a small Disney with less divisions to suck that Cash would create a far better return on investment from Day 1. Further, a company dedicated to these divisions exclusivly is more likely to do things that benefit these divisions thus improving the numbers gradually. The investors in such a scenario would have no reason to look to anyone else to take them over.

On the other hand, if things don't improve in that way, then we're all screwed anyway so who cares.

So, unless you can provide real details on how this wouldn't work, I'm gonna have to put you in the same boat (boat 1 for reference) as crusader. That would be the fear boat.

 

[crusader]

Unless you have some personal expereance your willing to share,

Considering my demographics, I can assure you my comments are valid without having to divulge anything further.

Fear would be a wrong assumption on your part unless knowledge is dangerous of course.