Disney COO Thomas Staggs Steps Down

[mom2rtk]

http://www.disboards.com/threads/disney-coo-thomas-staggs-steps-down.3498912/

 

[jpeden]

My bad. Please feel free to delete

 

[CMDTA]

I couldn't find another thread on this.

I just heard about Staggs leaving in May. That's a bit of a shocker. He was being groomed to take over in 2018 when Iger leaves.

I guess the bean counters didn't like him.

 

[Robo]

I couldn't find another thread on this.

There are other posts about this.
Just not on THIS forum.
They have been moved to the DIS' "News and Rumors" Forum.

http://www.disboards.com/threads/tom-staggs-to-resign.3499031/

 

[PSUGuy]

When I read this yesterday the first thought was that this may put an end to the cost cutting measure that took so many of the things we here enjoyed so much. Is it too much to hope that the successor might bring back some things? The article I read listed all the things Iger did to boost the profits of the Disney empire, it seems to me that if they were making $$ hand over fist that cuts were pure greed, not a matter of necessity.

Bill From PA

 

[rteetz]

What about Lassiter?

That was talked about buts he's best where he is. He's not really a businessman.

 

[Eastern]

From an article: Disneyland Shanghai, a $5.5billion theme park set to open in June, was largely navigated by Staggs.

 

[Eastern]

Why am I concerned, that his replacement will be even worse?

Is that possible?

 

[CMDTA]

When I read this yesterday the first thought was that this may put an end to the cost cutting measure that took so many of the things we here enjoyed so much. Is it too much to hope that the successor might bring back some things? The article I read listed all the things Iger did to boost the profits of the Disney empire, it seems to me that if they were making $$ hand over fist that cuts were pure greed, not a matter of necessity.

Bill From PA

I had the opposite thought. I thought it would get worse. When Staggs was in charge of the parks they were in good shape. After they moved him things took a turn.

 

[davper]

I'd be all for an ex-president...

As long as it was one of the brighter ones

So carter and HW are too old...Clinton seems busy...

...
.......

Yep - has to be Obama then

What about candidates? Trump will hopefully be available and there's Jeb.

Please tell me you two are kidding!

Tom Staggs will resign as COO of the Walt Disney Company effective May 6, 2016. He will stay on through the end of Disney's Fiscal Year as a Special Advisor to CEO Bob Iger.

Translation: He was terminated and to prevent a lawsuit, he will be paid his full salary and bonus while he looks for a new position elsewhere.

 

[ChipnDale79]

Some observers noted Monday that while Staggs is popular on Wall Street and has a firm grasp of the emerging technologies that are reshaping the entertainment industry, a perceived shortcoming that may have given the board of directors pause was his inexperience on the creative side of the business.

I found this to be an interesting comment, I wonder what they mean by creative side of business.

I know many here have complained about the money grabs, or ways to pay to raise extra cash by offering an experience, like the villains desert party last year. I found it to be lazy and that disney could do better. Could it be for things similar to that but on a much larger scale?

Anyone have any idea what projects he's lead, MM+, Shanghai?

The next quarterly report could be interesting.

 

[JimmyV]

1. There is no way that the "Staggs wanted reassurance from the Board that he was going to be appointed CEO" story is the reason he is leaving. First, the initial stories that come out on the day that a departure is announced are never the real reason. They are the public relations spin. Second. When you are all but told that you have the job as CEO of one of the most significant companies in the world, you don't go messing that up by acting like a petulant child, stomping your feet and demanding to be given assurances. You patiently wait. The "I want to know NOW!" story is out of character with who Staggs is, and is impossible to believe from a career strategy position. Unless Staggs has another CEO job at a Fortune 10 company lined up, you simply do not make waves like that. Say what you want about Staggs, but he would never be that stupid.
2. This smells like the Board really didn't like what they saw recently. "According to the New York Times, Staggs and Disney “mutually decided to part ways.” No specific reason for his departure was cited, though the article does say that in the past year, he “came under intense scrutiny by Disney’s board, it became clear that at least some board members were not convinced that Mr. Staggs, 55, had the skills required to maintain Disney’s creative momentum."" "Scrutiny" seems like a more realistic reason than "assurances". So what has happened lately that would cause the Board to be concerned? Can't be the film department. Frozen. Inside Out. Star Wars. All huge hits, and more on the way. Nope. That's not it. TV/ESPN? Maybe, but doubtful. You don't drop-kick the heir apparent over TV issues. You sell off underperforming assets. Fire the TV people. Restructure. But you don't let go of a person who is going to lead a multi-faceted company over one underperforming division. So what could make a Board go ballistic? Hmmmm. MONEY. Or, cost control issues to be more specific. My guess is that the Board was not only concerned about cost issues at Shanghai, but was also concerned about how the "fix" for such cost issues was infecting the rest of the company both in terms of public image and overall performance. The cost overruns were bad enough. But when major financial trade publications start skewering your company for staffing cuts, entertainment cuts, and all sorts of other deck chair shuffling that is taking place "over here" because of things that went sour "over there", the Board will take notice. I take this as the Board saying to Staggs: "Your budget issues in Shanghai were bad. But your solutions for fixing the problem were even worse. You are damaging our brand's good will, and Disney can afford a hit in the good will department even less than it can afford a hit in the budgetary department."
3. I think that Sheryl Sandberg is going to get a very long look as the potential CEO. She has hit her ceiling at Facebook unless Zuckerberg decides to pull a Bill Gates and take an early retirement. I don't see that happening. So she could be COO at FB, or CEO at DIS. I know which way I would go.

 

[HopperFan]

Another point to Sandberg ....


After Disney CEO's Sudden Departure, Could Sheryl Sandberg be Next to Lead?
by REUTERS

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/bus...en-departure-could-sheryl-sandberg-be-n550761

 

[lockedoutlogic]

1. There is no way that the "Staggs wanted reassurance from the Board that he was going to be appointed CEO" story is the reason he is leaving. First, the initial stories that come out on the day that a departure is announced are never the real reason. They are the public relations spin. Second. When you are all but told that you have the job as CEO of one of the most significant companies in the world, you don't go messing that up by acting like a petulant child, stomping your feet and demanding to be given assurances. You patiently wait. The "I want to know NOW!" story is out of character with who Staggs is, and is impossible to believe from a career strategy position. Unless Staggs has another CEO job at a Fortune 10 company lined up, you simply do not make waves like that. Say what you want about Staggs, but he would never be that stupid.
2. This smells like the Board really didn't like what they saw recently. "According to the New York Times, Staggs and Disney “mutually decided to part ways.” No specific reason for his departure was cited, though the article does say that in the past year, he “came under intense scrutiny by Disney’s board, it became clear that at least some board members were not convinced that Mr. Staggs, 55, had the skills required to maintain Disney’s creative momentum."" "Scrutiny" seems like a more realistic reason than "assurances". So what has happened lately that would cause the Board to be concerned? Can't be the film department. Frozen. Inside Out. Star Wars. All huge hits, and more on the way. Nope. That's not it. TV/ESPN? Maybe, but doubtful. You don't drop-kick the heir apparent over TV issues. You sell off underperforming assets. Fire the TV people. Restructure. But you don't let go of a person who is going to lead a multi-faceted company over one underperforming division. So what could make a Board go ballistic? Hmmmm. MONEY. Or, cost control issues to be more specific. My guess is that the Board was not only concerned about cost issues at Shanghai, but was also concerned about how the "fix" for such cost issues was infecting the rest of the company both in terms of public image and overall performance. The cost overruns were bad enough. But when major financial trade publications start skewering your company for staffing cuts, entertainment cuts, and all sorts of other deck chair shuffling that is taking place "over here" because of things that went sour "over there", the Board will take notice. I take this as the Board saying to Staggs: "Your budget issues in Shanghai were bad. But your solutions for fixing the problem were even worse. You are damaging our brand's good will, and Disney can afford a hit in the good will department even less than it can afford a hit in the budgetary department."
3. I think that Sheryl Sandberg is going to get a very long look as the potential CEO. She has hit her ceiling at Facebook unless Zuckerberg decides to pull a Bill Gates and take an early retirement. I don't see that happening. So she could be COO at FB, or CEO at DIS. I know which way I would go.

I'm pretty much on board with you here...

Except that ESPN is a gigantic hole in the hull and I don't believe any of them - especially fake tan bob - have any clue what to do with it.

 

[HopperFan]

1. There is no way that the "Staggs wanted reassurance from the Board that he was going to be appointed CEO" story is the reason he is leaving. First, the initial stories that come out on the day that a departure is announced are never the real reason. They are the public relations spin. Second. When you are all but told that you have the job as CEO of one of the most significant companies in the world, you don't go messing that up by acting like a petulant child, stomping your feet and demanding to be given assurances. You patiently wait. The "I want to know NOW!" story is out of character with who Staggs is, and is impossible to believe from a career strategy position. Unless Staggs has another CEO job at a Fortune 10 company lined up, you simply do not make waves like that. Say what you want about Staggs, but he would never be that stupid.
2. This smells like the Board really didn't like what they saw recently. "According to the New York Times, Staggs and Disney “mutually decided to part ways.” No specific reason for his departure was cited, though the article does say that in the past year, he “came under intense scrutiny by Disney’s board, it became clear that at least some board members were not convinced that Mr. Staggs, 55, had the skills required to maintain Disney’s creative momentum."" "Scrutiny" seems like a more realistic reason than "assurances". So what has happened lately that would cause the Board to be concerned? Can't be the film department. Frozen. Inside Out. Star Wars. All huge hits, and more on the way. Nope. That's not it. TV/ESPN? Maybe, but doubtful. You don't drop-kick the heir apparent over TV issues. You sell off underperforming assets. Fire the TV people. Restructure. But you don't let go of a person who is going to lead a multi-faceted company over one underperforming division. So what could make a Board go ballistic? Hmmmm. MONEY. Or, cost control issues to be more specific. My guess is that the Board was not only concerned about cost issues at Shanghai, but was also concerned about how the "fix" for such cost issues was infecting the rest of the company both in terms of public image and overall performance. The cost overruns were bad enough. But when major financial trade publications start skewering your company for staffing cuts, entertainment cuts, and all sorts of other deck chair shuffling that is taking place "over here" because of things that went sour "over there", the Board will take notice. I take this as the Board saying to Staggs: "Your budget issues in Shanghai were bad. But your solutions for fixing the problem were even worse. You are damaging our brand's good will, and Disney can afford a hit in the good will department even less than it can afford a hit in the budgetary department."
3. I think that Sheryl Sandberg is going to get a very long look as the potential CEO. She has hit her ceiling at Facebook unless Zuckerberg decides to pull a Bill Gates and take an early retirement. I don't see that happening. So she could be COO at FB, or CEO at DIS. I know which way I would go.

LIKEx100

1) Completely agree, and if Disney leaked that story, shame on them.
2) Somebody was going to have to be responsible for this money pit.
3) I think she is in a prime place in her career to make a big move, and given the loss in her personal life I could totally see her marrying the Mouse, pouring herself into it.

 

[Boski]

My vote is for this guy:

 

[JimmyV]

Except that ESPN is a gigantic hole in the hull and I don't believe any of them - especially fake tan bob - have any clue what to do with it.

Yeah. I put TV/ESPN in the "maybe" column. It is absolutely a huge issue for the company. What I don't know is how deep Staggs is/was in being charged with fixing that problem. In other words, is that an "Iger problem", a "Staggs problem" or a "Ben Sherwood problem"? I could be completely off base, but I don't think that the Board would put Staggs on the chopping block for something that is more of an "Iger/Sherwood problem." But I reserve the right to be wrong!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Another point to Sandberg ....


After Disney CEO's Sudden Departure, Could Sheryl Sandberg be Next to Lead?
by REUTERS

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/bus...en-departure-could-sheryl-sandberg-be-n550761

Disney is pathetically weak on digital...just like they were week in the Internet market 15 years ago...

So if i had to guess which companies people were under consideration...I would guess:
1. Google
2. Facebook
3. Apple

In no particular order.

 

[Skywise]

I can't see Sandberg in the role - She's got the financial chops but nothing about creative experiences let alone working in the entertainment industry other than a board member at Disney AND Starbucks (hmm... now I wonder who shut down main street bakery) CFO or COO definitely but not CEO...

Kahtleen Kennedy is a better fit I'd say.

 

[Tom P.]

What about candidates? Trump will hopefully be available and there's Jeb.

The greatest irony would be Katzenberg. But life is never that much fun.

"I will make Disney great again!

I will build a new park and make Universal pay for it!

As to specifics on how I will make Disney great again, trust me... oh, by the way, I make GREAT deals... I will hire the top people. The best people. They will be so good you can't even imagine."