clarker99
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- May 15, 2019
- Messages
- 1,119
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/statement-from-the-walt-disney-company-4/
Here is Disney's response to the board seats.
Here is Disney's response to the board seats.
There was a reason his contract wasn't renewed in 2015. Likely a difference of opinion on what was or wasn't Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures.I wonder how they can say no to Rasulo? He has all the experience you could want and I believe he would be the only board member with any direct Parks experience. Sounds like a win win to me but I'm sure certain egos will get in the way.
I attributed it more to the usual crappy Disney succession planning and the hard feelings it caused.There was a reason his contract wasn't renewed in 2015. Likely a difference of opinion on what was or wasn't Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures.
Ike Perlmutter probably a decent factor to why not.I wonder how they can say no to Rasulo? He has all the experience you could want and I believe he would be the only board member with any direct Parks experience. Sounds like a win win to me but I'm sure certain egos will get in the way.
I'm going to do a bunch of research, but my guess is that Iger saw Rasulo as a threat back in 2015 if he was promoted to COO. Rasulo had been at Disney since 1986, and obviously had a bunch of allies among the old guard in the company. Iger only joined Disney proper when he fell into the CEO job in 2005. Previously, he had only TV operating experience.I attributed it more to the usual crappy Disney succession planning and the hard feelings it caused.
Compromise is a long dead art form but how about Disney agrees to one (Jay) but not the other (Nelson). Everyone leaves a little happy and unhappy - the way fair negotiations usually end up.Ike Perlmutter probably a decent factor to why not.
Do you think Peltz who is going for his second proxy bid in a calendar year goes for that though?Compromise is a long dead art form but how about Disney agrees to one (Jay) but not the other (Nelson). Everyone leaves a little happy and unhappy - the way fair negotiations usually end up.
I would take Rasulo and give up Peltz. And there ain't nobody on these boards who detests how the company is mismanaged more than I do.Do you think Peltz who is going for his second proxy bid in a calendar year goes for that though?
Perlmutter had his fingers on Staggs losing favor and leaving and also championing Chapek for CEO. His attachment to this is enough to just say no.
Peltz walked away from the first fight so maybe he can be reasonable again.Do you think Peltz who is going for his second proxy bid in a calendar year goes for that though?
Perlmutter had his fingers on Staggs losing favor and leaving and also championing Chapek for CEO. His attachment to this is enough to just say no.
Rasulo didn't quit, he was fired. The money was paid out for him to keep quiet. Just like was done with Christine McCarthy.Wish I could quit my job but still get paid exactly the same.
That extension was also the shortest given out by a Board in the history of the company, which gave a lot on here the idea that Chapek was already on thin ice with the board but they didn’t have an alternative yet.Peltz walked away from the first fight so maybe he can be reasonable again.
And maybe Ike did have a hand in those issues but ultimately it was the useless board and Iger who were responsible for the changes. Would they really have the guts to blame it on someone else? Don't forget, that was the "wonderful" board who extended Chapek days before firing him...truly an embarrassment of a board.
In hindsight, the theory that Iger saw the Covid shutdowns coming (he's politically connected, after all) and set up Chapek to take the beatings is getting more and more plausible.That extension was also the shortest given out by a Board in the history of the company, which gave a lot on here the idea that Chapek was already on thin ice with the board but they didn’t have an alternative yet.
I’m also not absolving Iger of anything in this situation, he skipped town quickly and left the board with their hands tied on who to choose as successor. Chapek had the most support among the board at the time as well other executives within the company backing him.
How do we know this?Rasulo didn't quit, he was fired. The money was paid out for him to keep quiet. Just like was done with Christine McCarthy.
I wouldn't be so sure of this. If he were fired and didn't choose to step down as the statement says (and it's what logically makes the most sense, this isn't a step-down or else you're fired situation), then it wouldn't make any sense to keep him on as an advisor and still have access to insider information.Rasulo didn't quit, he was fired. The money was paid out for him to keep quiet. Just like was done with Christine McCarthy.
Iger was merely "keeping his enemies closer," I would suggest. If Rasulo was subject to disclosure rules as an advisor, he would be unable to squawk. Especially if he would forfeit the bonus if he violated the disclosure.I wouldn't be so sure of this. If he were fired and didn't choose to step down as the statement says (and it's what logically makes the most sense, this isn't a step-down or else you're fired situation), then it wouldn't make any sense to keep him on as an advisor and still have access to insider information.